On 2002-02-21 21:51, Eric A Meece wrote:
Where it will lead is a division of the country into those zones. As someone who believes fundamentally that "small is beautiful," I don't think this would be a bad idea. Regretable to be sure, but in the end, perhaps better. Personally, as a flower child peacenik (or at least close enough to one for the folks in the red zone), I don't have much desire to continue to be in a nation corrupted and held back by the red zone, and I'm sure folks in the red zone feel the same. I wouldn't feel that way, if the red zone folks would grow up and change their attitudes, but as of now they seem fixed in concrete. So we may have to go our separate ways. We'll go forward with the rest of the world, and the reddies will stew and stagnate in their own world of the past until they come to their senses.

Guess what, Eric? The bulk of the American military power is Red Zone oriented. Just something to mix into your daydreams, when you visualize your perfect future.

This would weaken America. So what? I don't share the red zoners' fears that America needs to be number one or things will go to hell because some dictator will take over.

Then I suggest you step out of your fantasies and have long look with your physical senses at cold, hard reality.

Most other developed countries are, in fact, more developed and enlightened than we are, in every conceivable way (because, of course, they don't have a red zone).

Eric, there are times when you show signs of living in a fantasy world so deep it's scary.

America is ahead of the other nations in almost all aspects of life. Technology and military power are the most obvious, but the others are no less the same. America is not going to become more like the rest of the world, nor are we going to become more 'enlightened' in the sense that you mean, because America could not survive the experience. Europe had the luxury of setting up its supposedly more enlightened society purely because America could provide the military protection when Europe could no longer protect itself.

If America tries to go that route, there's nobody there to backstop us the way we protected and upheld Europe. You're simply wrong, Eric. If America were removed from the picture, the 'more enlightened' societies would have two, and only two, choices: arm up and start operating along roughly American lines, or learn to like living under the rule of dictators. That's it. That's the entire range of alternative possibilities.

Guess what? If you guys in the red zone want to keep the country together so we can be number one, how about growing up in your attitudes so we in the blue zone will want to stick around? How about realizing that your politics are neanderthal? How about realizing that some changes need to be made for the good of the country? How about electing some people other than right-wing fundies who are obsessed with making everyone the same religion and keep people behaving according to their moral codes,

If you want the Red Zone to compromise, you'd better be prepared to sacrifice some of your dreams along the way. If your dreams don't include pragmatic compromises with reality, than you're a disaster waiting to happen if you ever gain any real power.

There can only be one objective reality, and it's the same for everyone. It might conceivably be that all opinions about what that reality is are wrong, but there still can be only one objective reality.

Likewise, morality that is not universal is ultimately a shell game. The dream society you hope for will either have enforced moral rules, or will collapse in chaos. No other alternatives exist.

and with keeping the government from making the changes we need for fear it might mean higher taxes?

Because taxes are too high already. Further, you have yet to prove that the politics and dreams of the Blue Zone are morally superior.

Eric, the world you dream of is impossible. I'm not worried that it'll come to pass, I do fear that the government might eventually try to make it happen, and in the process of failing destroy the West.

Pat Buchanan writes a good column here describing the Beirut type of situation the Bush administration is inviting by establishing permanent bases in Central Asia. But he seems perplexed as to why the Bush administration would even set up these bases. Let's again be clear: This whole thing, Afghanistan, the War on Terror, etc., is the cover for securing a foothold in Central Asia such that the US oil industry can complete its move from the now dwindling Gulf to the burgeoning Caspian Basin. These bases are/will be necessary to protect US corporate interests. Surely a brilliant man like Pat Buchanan has a clear focus on the big picture here and understands exactly what the Bush administration is pulling. Would a strong Buchananite such as Virgil or possibly Barbara kindly explain to me why a cat has Pat's tongue? Speak out, Pat!

(For info and discussion purposes)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26571

Patrick J. Buchanan
Courting another Beirut bombing
Posted: February 22, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

? 2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

It was the greatest mistake of the Reagan presidency. Yet, President Bush seems about to repeat it.

In 1982, Reagan was persuaded to place U.S. Marines between Israelis and Palestinian fighters holed up in Beirut. The Marines went ashore to ensure peaceful passage of the PLO out of Lebanon. It was a mission limited in scope and widely welcomed. After landing, the Marines kept the enemies apart as Arafat and his Palestinians embarked for Tunis. In three weeks, the Marines were back aboard ship, mission accomplished.

But then the hard-line Lebanese Christian leader, Bashir Gemayal, was assassinated. His brother, Amin, took power, and the call went out to bring the Marines back to train Lebanon's army. The Marines returned, and America began taking sides in a civil war where Christians had sided with Israelis against Palestinians, Hezbollah, Amal militia and Syrians. Welcomed by one side, Americans were seen by the other as enemies in a power struggle that was none of their business.

To drive the Americans out, Islamic militants resorted to the weapon of the weak and desperate: terrorism. Result: the bombing of the Beirut barracks where 241 Marines lost their lives.

Is President Bush repeating Reagan's great mistake?

Before the Afghan war began, Mr. Bush and Secretary Powell had carried off a diplomatic coup. They had converted Pakistan to the anti-Taliban coalition, negotiated basing rights in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, won the cooperation of Russia, the quiet collusion of Iran, and enlisted both the anti-Taliban Pashtuns in the south and the warlords of the Northern Alliance. With the entire region supportive or neutral, the U.S. won the war in weeks.

An impressive victory. And, wisely, following that victory, the president refused any occupation role in a country where thousands of Afghans are thirsty for vengeance on Americans who humiliated them.

The president was saying to the world: We won the war and will support the peace, but others must do the nation-building. We seek no imperial bases, only an end to the use of Afghanistan as a sanctuary for people who massacre Americans.

Yet, the Washington Post now reports that the United States has reversed course and will establish bases in four former Soviet republics. And Secretary Powell has told Congress, "America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind we could not have dreamed of before."

Understandably, the Russians have vehemently objected. U.S. bases in Moscow's backyard would be like Russian bases in Mexico, Cuba and Panama. Beijing is also wondering why America is building bases over its western border, complementing the bases we have on its eastern frontiers ? in Okinawa, Japan and South Korea.

Now, the administration has begun to warn Iran not to meddle in Afghanistan, though Iran has as vital an interest in a non-hostile neighbor as we have in a non-hostile Canada. And there are reports that U.S. warplanes are doing bombing runs in support of the Afghan regime, against rebels who are neither Taliban nor al-Qaida. Is Mr. Bush getting America involved in a civil war? Is Mr. Bush courting another Beirut?

What is happening in Afghanistan seems a classic case of "mission creep." Having won the war, we appear to have now decided that a large U.S. military presence in Central Asia and our continued intervention in Afghanistan ? even if resented by rebels, Islamic radicals, Russians and Chinese ? are worth the risk.

But fixed bases are sitting ducks for guerrillas and terrorists. And many of those who welcomed us into the region, to topple the Taliban, now want us out. As America has never had a vital interest in Central Asia, why, then, are we building bases of a permanent character?

Prediction: If we plant permanent bases in Central Asia, we will wake up one day to another Beirut or another Khobar Towers.

As 1898 began, the furthest thing from the mind of Americans was annexation of the Philippine Islands, 10,000 miles away. But after our cakewalk victory over Spain, in a spasm of imperialism, we took the islands and fought a 3-year war to deny Philippine rebels the right to rule themselves. From that decision came half a century of Pacific wars ? World War II, Korea and Vietnam.

Can any realistic American believe the United States has any large and valid role in deciding the destiny of Central Asia? If we try to dictate that destiny, we will one day be ordered out, or thrown out. Let us hope not too many Americans have to die before that day comes.

On 2002-02-21 12:44, Kiff '61 wrote:
I really don't have much to add here. I have to agree with everything you've said. There is a possibility that Sasha could indeed do a Tara Lipinski and beat Michelle. But it would have to be very convincing. Let's hope it is as convincing as the Men's event was.

Kiff at the sports desk :smile:

Well, you got it right, except that it was Sarah, not Sasha. :wink: What beautiful skating. It was painful to watch the rest. Oh well.

On 2002-02-21 23:46, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-02-21 21:51, Eric A Meece wrote:
Where it will lead is a division of the country into those zones. As someone who believes fundamentally that "small is beautiful," I don't think this would be a bad idea. Regretable to be sure, but in the end, perhaps better. Personally, as a flower child peacenik (or at least close enough to one for the folks in the red zone), I don't have much desire to continue to be in a nation corrupted and held back by the red zone, and I'm sure folks in the red zone feel the same. I wouldn't feel that way, if the red zone folks would grow up and change their attitudes, but as of now they seem fixed in concrete. So we may have to go our separate ways. We'll go forward with the rest of the world, and the reddies will stew and stagnate in their own world of the past until they come to their senses.

Guess what, Eric? The bulk of the American military power is Red Zone oriented. Just something to mix into your daydreams, when you visualize your perfect future.

This would weaken America. So what? I don't share the red zoners' fears that America needs to be number one or things will go to hell because some dictator will take over.

Then I suggest you step out of your fantasies and have long look with your physical senses at cold, hard reality.

Most other developed countries are, in fact, more developed and enlightened than we are, in every conceivable way (because, of course, they don't have a red zone).

Eric, there are times when you show signs of living in a fantasy world so deep it's scary.

America is ahead of the other nations in almost all aspects of life. Technology and military power are the most obvious, but the others are no less the same. America is not going to become more like the rest of the world, nor are we going to become more 'enlightened' in the sense that you mean, because America could not survive the experience. Europe had the luxury of setting up its supposedly more enlightened society purely because America could provide the military protection when Europe could no longer protect itself.

If America tries to go that route, there's nobody there to backstop us the way we protected and upheld Europe. You're simply wrong, Eric. If America were removed from the picture, the 'more enlightened' societies would have two, and only two, choices: arm up and start operating along roughly American lines, or learn to like living under the rule of dictators. That's it. That's the entire range of alternative possibilities.

Guess what? If you guys in the red zone want to keep the country together so we can be number one, how about growing up in your attitudes so we in the blue zone will want to stick around? How about realizing that your politics are neanderthal? How about realizing that some changes need to be made for the good of the country? How about electing some people other than right-wing fundies who are obsessed with making everyone the same religion and keep people behaving according to their moral codes,

If you want the Red Zone to compromise, you'd better be prepared to sacrifice some of your dreams along the way. If your dreams don't include pragmatic compromises with reality, than you're a disaster waiting to happen if you ever gain any real power.

There can only be one objective reality, and it's the same for everyone. It might conceivably be that all opinions about what that reality is are wrong, but there still can be only one objective reality.

Likewise, morality that is not universal is ultimately a shell game. The dream society you hope for will either have enforced moral rules, or will collapse in chaos. No other alternatives exist.

and with keeping the government from making the changes we need for fear it might mean higher taxes?

Because taxes are too high already. Further, you have yet to prove that the politics and dreams of the Blue Zone are morally superior.

Eric, the world you dream of is impossible. I'm not worried that it'll come to pass, I do fear that the government might eventually try to make it happen, and in the process of failing destroy the West.

Where have we heard his kind of talk before, Hopeful? Ah, yes, in early 1861, before the attack on Ft. Sumter, when some in the North were saying of the seceding states, "Let the erring sisters depart in peace." Given the geographical realities of the Red/Blue split, I suspect that they're the ones who would be 'departing' this time, if anyone does. Or at least trying to.

"In Speech, Bush Calls Iraq, Iran and North Korea 'Axis of Evil"
-- N.Y.Times, 1/30

Beijing, Friday: Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be way eviler than the Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union address.

Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil. "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three. And a secret handshake."

THE AXIS PANDEMIC
International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered. Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia
said they had formed the Axis of Somewhat Evil, forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the Axis of Occasionally Evil, while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the Axis of Not So Much
Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable.

With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host
the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America, while Spain, Scotland, and New Zealand established the Axis of
Countries That Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick. "That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said
Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.

While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps makingfun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in
"Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.

Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2002-02-22 07:18 ]</font>

On 2002-02-21 21:50, Barbara wrote:

On 2002-02-21 12:44, Kiff '61 wrote:
Wow, Barbara, you've summed things up very well.

RIGHT! HAHAHA! [insert sarcasm smilie here]

:lol:

**snip snip**

Let's hope it is as convincing as the Men's event was.

Kiff at the sports desk :smile:

IT WAS! We just had the wrong MILLIE!!!!

:lol:

WOW! Sarah Hughes ROCKED, and she deserved it!

An eleventh-grade honor student from Great Neck Long Island...

To quote you - "Millies. Gotta luv'em!"

Sarah, Congratulations!

:grin:

Exactly. I couldn't help thinking, "Michelle, you've just been outdone by another MILLIE!!!" :lol:

Millennials such as Sarah Hughes, Apolo Anton Ohno and Kelly Clark (snowboarder) are rising at these Olympics.

Kiff

Very good Mike

:lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-02-22 09:06 ]</font>

On 2002-02-21 21:51, Eric A Meece wrote:
Where it will lead is a division of the country into those zones. As someone who believes fundamentally that "small is beautiful," I don't think this would be a bad idea. Regretable to be sure, but in the end, perhaps better. Personally, as a flower child peacenik (or at least close enough to one for the folks in the red zone), I don't have much desire to continue to be in a nation corrupted and held back by the red zone, and I'm sure folks in the red zone feel the same. I wouldn't feel that way, if the red zone folks would grow up and change their attitudes, but as of now they seem fixed in concrete. So we may have to go our separate ways. We'll go forward with the rest of the world, and the reddies will stew and stagnate in their own world of the past until they come to their senses.

This would weaken America. So what? I don't share the red zoners' fears that America needs to be number one or things will go to hell because some dictator will take over. Most other developed countries are, in fact, more developed and enlightened than we are, in every conceivable way (because, of course, they don't have a red zone). So why should we who are politically more enlightened (i.e. we in the blue zone) feel that America has to lead the world?

Guess what? If you guys in the red zone want to keep the country together so we can be number one, how about growing up in your attitudes so we in the blue zone will want to stick around? How about realizing that your politics are neanderthal? How about realizing that some changes need to be made for the good of the country? How about electing some people other than right-wing fundies who are obsessed with making everyone the same religion and keep people behaving according to their moral codes, and with keeping the government from making the changes we need for fear it might mean higher taxes?

I am sick and tired of you liberals with your holier-than-thou attitude,looking down your noses at the people who have the values that made this country great and continue
to make it strong.

You liberals think that your victory is inevitable - don't count on it!

From the Heartland - we "God fearing conservatives" will not yield - EVER. If you want a second civil war, you are heading in the right direction.

On 2002-02-22 09:18, takascar2 wrote:

From the Heartland - we "God fearing conservatives" will not yield - EVER. If you want a second civil war, you are heading in the right direction.

I prefer to think of myself as God-loving, not God-fearing.

Also from the Heartland, AKA "flyover country,"

Kiff

Mike Alexander, you should properly cite your source. You got that from the SatireWire site:

http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/axis.shtml

This Red Zone/Blue Zone thing is overhyped. Even the "reddest" areas have 40% "blue" people, and vice versa.

The real story of the "Red Zone/Blue Zone" map is that traditional liberalism has declined to the point where it only has a strong majority in the inner cities. This is old news. The E2K map is really no shock.

Get a grip. There is no civil war coming.

First, some scary warnings from Pat Buchanan; thanks Stonewall. More creepy tendencies from habitual American militarism. Ike's warnings remain valid today.

Quote:
Guess what, Eric? The bulk of the American military power is Red Zone oriented. Just something to mix into your daydreams, when you visualize your perfect future.

So the Red Zone, with its staunch belief in state's rights, is going to enforce the blue zones to stay in the union? Not impossible, since the Supreme Court, currently controlled 5-4 by the red zone, went back on just those principles when it interfered in a state election and selected the red zone's choice for president and forced a non-elected president upon the rest of us. But it would certainly be ironic, and hypocritical in the extreme, if the Red Zoners forced the blue zone to stay in the Union. I suspect however, that because the bulk of economic power is in the blue zone, we could raise the necessary means to defend ourselves against the rabid fascists in the empty quarter and Dixie.

And by the way, where in my last post did I say anything about vizualizing a perfect future? We would just like to move forward a few inches for a change, instead of being continually held in the dark ages by you hicks and fogeys from the red zone.

This would weaken America. So what? I don't share the red zoners' fears that America needs to be number one or things will go to hell because some dictator will take over.

Then I suggest you step out of your fantasies and have long look with your physical senses at cold, hard reality.

What reality?

America is ahead of the other nations in almost all aspects of life. Technology and military power are the most obvious, but the others are no less the same. America is not going to become more like the rest of the world, nor are we going to become more 'enlightened' in the sense that you mean, because America could not survive the experience. Europe had the luxury of setting up its supposedly more enlightened society purely because America could provide the military protection when Europe could no longer protect itself.

You didn't mention any respect in which America is more enlightened or advanced than other nations. Technology and military power are just ability to force our will on things; they don't count. You didn't mention any other respects. You know very well that we are behind in education, in people in prison, in crime, in drug addiction, in social programs, in health programs, in energy waste, in gun use, in environmental protection, in life expectancy; you name it.

With reference to Europe, you refer to the situation after WWII. Guess what, there's no Hitler or Stalin to threaten them now. What decade are you living in, Cynic? We could have joined Europe in moving ahead all these years later, socially, culturally, environmentally, but we chose to elect Nixon, Reagan and Bush instead. Or should I say, the red zone chose these leaders and foisted them upon us. That was our choice, not Europe's.

If America tries to go that route, there's nobody there to backstop us the way we protected and upheld Europe. You're simply wrong, Eric.

Why do you assume that Americans are the only people who understand right from wrong, and are willing to contribute men and money to maintain collective security? On what basis do you believe that America must do this alone? And have you considered what Pat Buchanan reported? It turns out that America, by being the world's policeman, ends up being just another dictatorial power that enforces stagnation and repression on many parts of the world. The last half century proved that beyond any dispute.

If America were removed from the picture, the 'more enlightened' societies would have two, and only two, choices: arm up and start operating along roughly American lines, or learn to like living under the rule of dictators. That's it. That's the entire range of alternatives

Again, what do you base your assumption on? Don't you think the whole world together could provide the necessary means to keep the rogue states in check? That's increasingly what's happening already. Who has the most troops in Bosnia and Kosovo, for example?
Blue America and Red America could continue to contribute. But blue America would not waste as much money on useless Pentagon projects. We would contribute what other states contribute.

If you want the Red Zone to compromise, you'd better be prepared to sacrifice some of your dreams along the way. If your dreams don't
include pragmatic compromises with reality, than you're a disaster waiting to happen if you ever gain any real power.

First, dreams don't have to be sacrificed. They do need to be implemented pragmatically. Second, it is you guys in the Red Zone who have the impractical dreams; dreams of a utopian yesterday where noone has to pay taxes, non-whites don't exist, and people mindlessly obey their preachers on Sunday. That world never existed and will never return. Get used to it, or go live in a separate state and wallow in it.

There can only be one objective reality, and it's the same for everyone. It might conceivably be that all opinions about what that reality is are wrong, but there still can be only one objective reality.

True, but there is no objective reality without subjective reality (see philosophy threads)

Likewise, morality that is not universal is ultimately a shell game. The dream society you hope for will either have enforced moral rules, or will collapse in chaos. No other alternatives exist.

You are the dreamer. The hope that everyone will live under one enforced moral reality is utopian and impractical. Sounds like Communism to me. Get real, Cynic.

Because taxes are too high already.

See! You guys are irresponsible and you don't want to do your part to make society viable. Fine, go live in your world of individual "self-sufficiency" out there in the sticks, and live off the land-- and despoil and ruin your own lands. See where that gets you. The fact is that we already pay lower taxes than other developed countries, and most of it goes to the military.

Further, you have yet to prove that the politics and dreams of the Blue Zone are morally superior.

There is no way to "prove" that my moral tenets are better those than you red zoners have. To me it is obvious that people in the blue zone prefer to spend some money to improve things and are open-minded enough to get along with others in the world, while you guys in the red zone want to live in an anticeptic world where everyone is the same race and old-time religion as yourselves and you don't have to care about other people and society, except to enforce their will on them. To me, the moral choice is obvious.

Eric, the world you dream of is impossible. I'm not worried that it'll come to pass, I do fear that the government might eventually try to make it happen, and in the process of failing destroy the West.

The world I dream of will come through education, awakening, and consensus, not by coercion. Still, to deal with practical realities now, the government needs to do things to keep greedy criminals in check. The things that liberals want are minimal, and they are required in order to "save the West." If you red zoners keep resisting these simple things that every other nation understands and does, it is you red zoners who will destroy the West, and the world in the bargain. Wake up and understand the facts, and stop burying your heads in the sand.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-02-22 10:00 ]</font>

I repeat, the whole Red Zone/Blue Zone thing is an exhageration.

The only reason the map was trotted out at all was because of the unique problems of E2K. As part of their argument that Bush's legitimacy should be accepted, the map was used to argue that Bush clearly won in terms of "geographic area". This was a silly argument, and the silliness continued from there to this myth of a "divided America".

You could look at the same kind of map for every election in the past 20 or more years and see the same pattern. The inner city is a Democratic stronghold. Duhh.

America is not any more "divided" than it has been in the last few decades. Our presidential elections are usually close; within 5%. In 2000, it was within 1%. Other than the problem that created in detemining who won, that was no big deal.

[quote]
On 2002-02-22 09:51, Eric A Meece wrote:
First, some scary warnings from Pat Buchanan; thanks Stonewall. More creepy tendencies from habitual American militarism. Ike's warnings remain valid today.

So the Red Zone, with its staunch belief in state's rights, is going to enforce the blue zones to stay in the union? Not impossible, since the Supreme Court, currently controlled 5-4 by the red zone, went back on just those principles when it interfered in a state election and selected the red zone's choice for president and forced a non-elected president upon the rest of us....

Stop smoking whatever it is you are using - GEORGE W BUSH won the election! All of the recount show that he did.

You just can't stand the fact that American chose him over Al Gore. You can't stand the fact that American had matured to the point where it didn't want any more of the Clinton style politics.

America made a choice. Although it was close, it was still a choice for GWB.

REPEAT AFTER ME: GEORGE BUSH WON FAIR AND SQUARE.

It is a simple historic fact that Bush won every Florida recount that was conducted.

Also, after the Supreme Court's decision, the Miami Herald (a paper usually considered "liberal") conducted the kind of recount of the ballots that Gore was calling for before the Court intervened, and Bush won again.

The Herald also pointed out that the results were so close that, had Gore called for a different kind of recount, he would have won. (And no doubt, had the Supreme Court not stopped the process, Gore would have gotten around to calling for that kind of recount...)

It's also true that the entire process was tainted with controversy, with people saying they were prevented from voting, etc. I'm not saying that is not very troubling.

I'm not going to rehash the E2K debacle from start to finish, but I think there's a clear indication that on November 7, 2000, in the state of Florida, more people went to their polling places intending to vote for Gore than for Bush.

Because of ballot irregularities in places such as Palm Beach and hanky-panky with voter lists in minority voting districts, many more potential Gore votes than Bush votes were lost.

That is the real tragedy of E2K, in my book, because it was entirely preventable.

The counts and recounts, and the ridiculous gameplaying in the courts, were a sideshow.

Kiff

On 2002-02-22 10:03, TraceyX wrote:
I repeat, the whole Red Zone/Blue Zone thing is an exhageration.

The only reason the map was trotted out at all was because of the unique problems of E2K. As part of their argument that Bush's legitimacy should be accepted, the map was used to argue that Bush clearly won in terms of "geographic area". This was a silly argument, and the silliness continued from there to this myth of a "divided America".

Even in 1992 and 1996, where the Democratic candidate won the popular and electoral convincingly, if you do a county-by-county map, the GOP won more acres! I agree with Tracey, its a silly concept. :lol:

_________________
Why does it have to take a disaster to acknowledge the beauty of being alive? -- Maharaji

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-02-22 11:28 ]</font>

"I'm not going to rehash the E2K debacle from start to finish, but I think there's a clear indication that on November 7, 2000, in the state of Florida, more people went to their polling places intending to vote for Gore than for Bush."

I have the same impression.

I agree with TraceyX and Jenny that the Red/Blue voting map's importance is exxagerated. It is but a political and media toy.

I agree with Kiff about E2K. Why would anyone think that the exit polls that day don't clearly prove this? What, exit polls are reliable except this one time? Balderdash. Right.

Florida was stacked for a Bush win from the get-go, and Team Gore blew it in the context of those constraints. Team Bush won alright, they won the contest of ruthless election-rigging that has now apparently set a precedent in our political system.


I do however, part ways as to continuing to vote in these times from a standpoint of perfectworld-ness. E2K was an embarrassing and unconscienable (sic) episode that will become the de facto standard of future elections when needed unless we who see it as it was stand up and say "no more". A brief departure from perfectworld-ness is our only hope of saying "no more", casting a vote for the major party that opposes what we oppose more. If we have to cast an en masse protest vote for a major party chimpanzee in 2004, it's worth it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2002-02-22 14:08 ]</font>

On 2002-02-22 10:50, Kiff '61 wrote:
I'm not going to rehash the E2K debacle from start to finish, but I think there's a clear indication that on November 7, 2000, in the state of Florida, more people went to their polling places intending to vote for Gore than for Bush.

Please provide the proof of your statement.

Because of ballot irregularities in places such as Palm Beach and hanky-panky with voter lists in minority voting districts, many more potential Gore votes than Bush votes were lost.

Yes, such a shame that there was such hankypanky - like the DNC hiring lawyers to try to disqualify the honest votes of our Men and Women in Uniform. I agree - its shameful

On 2002-02-22 10:20, TraceyX wrote:
It is a simple historic fact that Bush won every Florida recount that was conducted.

Also, after the Supreme Court's decision, the Miami Herald (a paper usually considered "liberal") conducted the kind of recount of the ballots that Gore was calling for before the Court intervened, and Bush won again.

The Herald also pointed out that the results were so close that, had Gore called for a different kind of recount, he would have won. (And no doubt, had the Supreme Court not stopped the process, Gore would have gotten around to calling for that kind of recount...)

True - if I was running in an election, and 1 million people voted and I got only one vote, I could win if I could rig the system to throw out the other 999,999 votes. Face it, you can win any contest if you count the votes the "right way".

What the MIAMI HERALD is saying is "If Al Gore could get enough of his liberal buddies into powerful places, they _COULD_ have rigged it so that he won". I agree

On 2002-02-22 14:08, takascar2 wrote:

On 2002-02-22 10:50, Kiff '61 wrote:
I'm not going to rehash the E2K debacle from start to finish, but I think there's a clear indication that on November 7, 2000, in the state of Florida, more people went to their polling places intending to vote for Gore than for Bush.

Please provide the proof of your statement.

Many Palm Beach voters stated (and some signed affidavits to the same effect, IIRC) that they had intended to punch their ballot for Gore, but ended up voting for Pat Buchanan in error because of the misleading ballot design.

Were all of them lying? In all fairness, I don't think we can discount these people's testimony, or insult them by making jokes about their age or eyesight.

Even Mr. Buchanan acknowledged that his vote totals in that part of Florida were artificially inflated, and that most of them should have gone to Gore.

I don't know if this qualifies as "proof" according to your standards, takascar.

Because of ballot irregularities in places such as Palm Beach and hanky-panky with voter lists in minority voting districts, many more potential Gore votes than Bush votes were lost.

Yes, such a shame that there was such hankypanky - like the DNC hiring lawyers to try to disqualify the honest votes of our Men and Women in Uniform. I agree - its shameful

That was a shameful, gutless, and idiotic move by the Dems. I totally agree.

Kiff

_________________
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure....You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world." -- Nelson Mandela

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kiff '61 on 2002-02-22 14:28 ]</font>

Still, takascar2, if Gore had won the original vote and the original recount mandated by Florida law, and two more recounts before the Supreme Court stepped in and said "enough", I could easily see Republicans going on for years with the "we was robbed" mentality...

The whole thing was a tragedy. Show a little sympathy.

On 2002-02-22 01:55, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Pat Buchanan writes a good column here describing the Beirut type of situation the Bush administration is inviting by establishing permanent bases in Central Asia. But he seems perplexed as to why the Bush administration would even set up these bases. Let's again be clear: This whole thing, Afghanistan, the War on Terror, etc., is the cover for securing a foothold in Central Asia such that the US oil industry can complete its move from the now dwindling Gulf to the burgeoning Caspian Basin. These bases are/will be necessary to protect US corporate interests. Surely a brilliant man like Pat Buchanan has a clear focus on the big picture here and understands exactly what the Bush administration is pulling. Would a strong Buchananite such as Virgil kindly explain to me why a cat has Pat's tongue?

It's the one big idea of those of the libertarian persuasion that the contract of a commercial nature is the basic explanation for much of the meddling from America in the wide world. It is in many ways a materialistic way of thinking and like those materialisms of the late century in sees economic values as the primary values.

It also has several premises about the nature of man; his essential goodness and his malleability by rule of law and education.


Paleo-cons think men fallen and much harder to bring under control. Thus, we see the need for a government; but the government has to be weak and hobbled as it is a government of laws run by those fallen men. It must be limited and on many levels so as to slow the wickedness of our basic nature.


Why then, does not Mr. Buchanan simply follow the <S>money</S> oil? It is because the push for bases everywhere at everytime is based not upon the deadly sin of Avarice but the even more deadly sin of Pride. This has come from the universalist ideas of Mr. Lev Bronstein whose totalitarian Nature is given a free pass in this Nation as he was never able to implement is program of Terror. The idea of a universal state has gone from Mr. Bronstein to the Trotskyite fathers to the Neo-Con sons; it has also morphed from an international gnostic utopian communism to an international gnostic utopian neo-liberalism of markets and democracy at the point of a bayonet. If it were as simple as making money, the green eye-shade guys would quickly find the price too high. It is instead the assumption of idealism of Mr. Woodrow Wilsonism by the universalist Neo-Cons at the various Newscorp outlets. Instead of the "American Way" [whatever that happens to be at any given time] as a road for Americans it becomes the Radiant Way for everyone, everywhere, everytime. This is the sin of Pride, this is the Hubris that Mr. Buchanan takes issue with not the simple money grubbing of Haliburton and the oil companies but the "Redeemer Nation" ideology of Wilsonian progress married to the Trotskyite appplication of force to those ignorant enough not to want redemption. The theme song is an updated Battle Hymn of the <S>Republic</S> Planet rather than Cabaret's Money, Money. Nation building is the game at hand; unfortunately it is not a reasoned thing but the marriage of two errors, superstition and enthusiasm.


PS: The only good thing that came out of the Gulf War was the Restoration which is not quite what the Nation Builders are after...perhaps a new Throne in Kabul would be even better an end than to have "hanging chads" in Kandahar.