Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm betting that the response from DA to Mike Alexander's last post will be one or more of these:

1. Nonexistent
2. Nonresponsive
3. Nosensical

I would have bet on

1. Cynical
2. Snide
3. Obnoxious.

:wink:

Speaking of cynical, when Mike tackles HC68, the latter's response has lately become a Sir Robin imitation. At least with DA, there's likely to be a response.

Originally Posted by The Pervert

Stonedog had much the same attitude about two or three years ago. He thought Bush was incompetent, was serving the interests of big business, and was no friend of liberty. He also thought that bin Ladin and al Qaeda were overblown as threats by Bush and his administration so they could exploid fear. Back then, his view on al Qaeda seemed eccentric, at the very least, if not paranoid. Now, events are continuing to prove his views on Bush correct, and the most reasonable posters are starting to agree with them. Isn't that something?

I'm with you there, Vince. And I'd like to hear from the Dawg again. He hasn't posted here since August.

Originally Posted by The Pervert

Stonedog had much the same attitude about two or three years ago. He thought Bush was incompetent, was serving the interests of big business, and was no friend of liberty. He also thought that bin Ladin and al Qaeda were overblown as threats by Bush and his administration so they could exploid fear. Back then, his view on al Qaeda seemed eccentric, at the very least, if not paranoid. Now, events are continuing to prove his views on Bush correct, and the most reasonable posters are starting to agree with them. Isn't that something?

I'm with you there, Vince. And I'd like to hear from the Dawg again. He hasn't posted here since August.

Analyzed the politics of previous 3T/4T cusps. To summarize, the Authoritarian Right was running the show by the end of the Unraveling. With the exception of the Civil War Anomaly [which featured an uncomfortable Authoritarian Right/Libertarian Left (Abolitionist) alliance, the Libertarian Left begins agitating during the jittery 3T tail end. The question is, what alliance, if any, will challenge the Authoritarian Right? During the American Revolution it was Libertarian Left/Libertarian Right. Last time around it was Libertarian Left/Authoritarian Left.

Stone/Sea considered different alliances: AR & LR, AR & AL, and LL & LR. He predicted that a Libertarian Left/Libertarian Right alliance would be necessary for a healthy 4T outcome.

Analyzed the politics of previous 3T/4T cusps. To summarize, the Authoritarian Right was running the show by the end of the Unraveling. With the exception of the Civil War Anomaly [which featured an uncomfortable Authoritarian Right/Libertarian Left (Abolitionist) alliance, the Libertarian Left begins agitating during the jittery 3T tail end. The question is, what alliance, if any, will challenge the Authoritarian Right? During the American Revolution it was Libertarian Left/Libertarian Right. Last time around it was Libertarian Left/Authoritarian Left.

Stone/Sea considered different alliances: AR & LR, AR & AL, and LL & LR. He predicted that a Libertarian Left/Libertarian Right alliance would be necessary for a healthy 4T outcome.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Analyzed the politics of previous 3T/4T cusps. To summarize, the Authoritarian Right was running the show by the end of the Unraveling. With the exception of the Civil War Anomaly [which featured an uncomfortable Authoritarian Right/Libertarian Left (Abolitionist) alliance, the Libertarian Left begins agitating during the jittery 3T tail end. The question is, what alliance, if any, will challenge the Authoritarian Right? During the American Revolution it was Libertarian Left/Libertarian Right. Last time around it was Libertarian Left/Authoritarian Left.

Stone/Sea considered different alliances: AR & LR, AR & AL, and LL & LR. He predicted that a Libertarian Left/Libertarian Right alliance would be necessary for a healthy 4T outcome.

I've my own spin on the arrow of progress. We are coming from royal agricultural based societies where a warrior class dominated military power and thus land ownership, thus wealth, thus political power. At least until World War II we have been moving towards democratic industrial societies, where the capitalist class controlled the wealth, the military are under civilian control, and the people moved from the country to the cities. With nukes, computers, automated manufacturing and, automobiles, the linear trends towards urban civilization might be shifting towards a suburban service or information based societies. World War II might have marked the apex of the Industrial Age. It is plausible that we might be moving in a different direction, thus linear extrapolation, always tricky, might get even more problematic.

Thus, I can endorse the observation that the Authoritarian Right is running the show at the end of the Unravelling. The old Agricultural Age governments had absolute values, rule of men rather than laws, and no reluctance to use force or compulsion. They attempted to retain control of a government that favored themselves. By definition, the opposition would have elements of Leftist or Libertarian thought.

The only caveat I'd place on this approach would be that the Authoritarian Right Establishment at the 3T / 4T cusp is often defending a position that was considered Left Libertarian four generations earlier. The Founding Fathers would be considered Left Libertarian in their own time, but by the time the Civil War was building to a head, slavery would be considered a Right Authoritarian practice. The Founding Father's constitution, designed for a loose union of agricultural states, felt inadequate to the rapidly industrializing noorth. What was right at one time might well become unacceptable four score and seven years later. Thus, labels like Left, Right, Authoritarian and Libertarian change radically with each Crisis.

One might also look at issues. While over the long term one can claim movements from royalty to democracy, the change takes place incrementally. The Revolution's issues included democracy (taxation without representation) and colonial imperialism (free trade.) The Civil War was about slave v free economy, the role of the federal government, and which culture could expand into the West. FDR's Crisis involved taming the boom bust economic cycles, and suppressing fascism.

I would propose that Crises are more about solving problems than labels. A Crisis is a time when the political, economic and moral structure of a culture can be shifted to solve problems that the old culture and tradition could not solve. Technology changes, creating pressures on existing cultures. The culture must change, or the crisis becomes disaster. A Crisis is a time when the culture must change. If it doesn't, it might be four score and seven years before there is another chance.

I'm more and more seeing the Bush 43 administration as the Right Authoritarian precursor to Crisis. As with George III, Buchanon and Hoover, the old culture upon seeing a new challenge attempts old solutions. The values of the old cycle are applied to the new environment, generally with entirely unsatisfactory results. The role of the last 3T Authoritarian Right administration is to demonstrate that stubborn clinging to the past won't work. Thus, people are more willing to listen to new points of view, notably the Grey Champion candidates.

Thus, to find the new culture, one finds the problems illustrated by the last 3T administration, and tries to solve them. After developing a new 4T platform, then one might decide what sort of alliance is apt to back such a platform.

Assuming that's where we are, what might be the problems we are confronting?

Crony capitalism. Division of wealth. The need for campaign finance reform. Government for, of and by the capitalist elite. One way or another, democracy has to empower the People, not the K Street lobbyists.

Preemptive unilateral foreign policy. Use of political and military power to monopolize wealth. A greater concern with national and class interest than a unified, peaceful world. Attempts to maintain international divisions of wealth.

Terrorism. Weapons of mass destruction. Nukes and proxy guerilla tactics have made major powers highly reluctant to make war on one another. As more smaller powers are willing to use guerilla tactics and perhaps terrorist WMDs, the relationship between the major powers and the Third World nations exploited is apt to change. Again, the core problem might be division of wealth, along with new tools to fight division of wealth.

Ecology. In the long run, resources used must be balanced against resources exploited and resources recycled. Industrial Age capitalism is based around each company striving competitively to maximize profits. To a great degree, the result is each company attempting to maximize use of resources. While competitive economies have proven superior to planned economies, to a greater degree national and international structures must limit the degree of resources utilized, the degree to which the environment can be destroyed.

Culture War issues. The country has major cultural divides. Attempts by one part of the country to impose their culture on the whole country are problematic.

Right sizing the safety nets. The Great Depression made the New Deal necessary. The Great Society took individual safety nets too far. The recent attempts to cut taxes and cut both individual and disaster relief safety nets have gone too far the other way. Katrina illustrates. Should we see a major economic collapse resulting from borrow and spend economics, the degree of spending on various safety net programs might be rethought.

Authoritarian perceptions. We might have a choice between rule of law and rule of force. The Bush 43 administration seems to think itself above the law, as do the terrorist organizations it pursues. The rules of war at the end of this Crisis are not apt to be those on the books now. What they will be, I know not.

Transition from industrial to service economies. With ever increasing automation, it takes fewer individuals in the agricultural and manufacturing sectors to provide the essentials. This forces an expansion of the service sectors, with larger portions of the population teaching martial arts, painting fingernails and mixing latte. The old New Deal laws governing benefits were based on at least one full time wage earner per family. This is encouraging corporations to hire part time help, to minimize expenses by minimizing benefits. In the long run, we will need to find a way to involve everyone in the economy even though ever fewer individuals will be performing tasks necessary to the economy, and thus demanding high wages. Again, a division of wealth issue.

Trying to summarize... There are a limited number of resources. If they are not distributed reasonably, democratic and terrorist pressure on the elites will occur. Great power attempts to use economic, political and military force to maintain economic, political and military advantages will in the long run fail.

This makes the Authoritarian Right to be the bad guys, as usual at the 3T / 4T cusp. Empowering the People at the expense of the elites is definitely a Leftist theme. I'm not sure about the Libertarian label. Many of the above issues might require more government influence, while other issues would require less government meddling. I don't see the label is as important as doing what is necessary to solve the problems.

If we solve the problems, making up a label to describe the solution won't be hard.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Analyzed the politics of previous 3T/4T cusps. To summarize, the Authoritarian Right was running the show by the end of the Unraveling. With the exception of the Civil War Anomaly [which featured an uncomfortable Authoritarian Right/Libertarian Left (Abolitionist) alliance, the Libertarian Left begins agitating during the jittery 3T tail end. The question is, what alliance, if any, will challenge the Authoritarian Right? During the American Revolution it was Libertarian Left/Libertarian Right. Last time around it was Libertarian Left/Authoritarian Left.

Stone/Sea considered different alliances: AR & LR, AR & AL, and LL & LR. He predicted that a Libertarian Left/Libertarian Right alliance would be necessary for a healthy 4T outcome.

I've my own spin on the arrow of progress. We are coming from royal agricultural based societies where a warrior class dominated military power and thus land ownership, thus wealth, thus political power. At least until World War II we have been moving towards democratic industrial societies, where the capitalist class controlled the wealth, the military are under civilian control, and the people moved from the country to the cities. With nukes, computers, automated manufacturing and, automobiles, the linear trends towards urban civilization might be shifting towards a suburban service or information based societies. World War II might have marked the apex of the Industrial Age. It is plausible that we might be moving in a different direction, thus linear extrapolation, always tricky, might get even more problematic.

Thus, I can endorse the observation that the Authoritarian Right is running the show at the end of the Unravelling. The old Agricultural Age governments had absolute values, rule of men rather than laws, and no reluctance to use force or compulsion. They attempted to retain control of a government that favored themselves. By definition, the opposition would have elements of Leftist or Libertarian thought.

The only caveat I'd place on this approach would be that the Authoritarian Right Establishment at the 3T / 4T cusp is often defending a position that was considered Left Libertarian four generations earlier. The Founding Fathers would be considered Left Libertarian in their own time, but by the time the Civil War was building to a head, slavery would be considered a Right Authoritarian practice. The Founding Father's constitution, designed for a loose union of agricultural states, felt inadequate to the rapidly industrializing noorth. What was right at one time might well become unacceptable four score and seven years later. Thus, labels like Left, Right, Authoritarian and Libertarian change radically with each Crisis.

One might also look at issues. While over the long term one can claim movements from royalty to democracy, the change takes place incrementally. The Revolution's issues included democracy (taxation without representation) and colonial imperialism (free trade.) The Civil War was about slave v free economy, the role of the federal government, and which culture could expand into the West. FDR's Crisis involved taming the boom bust economic cycles, and suppressing fascism.

I would propose that Crises are more about solving problems than labels. A Crisis is a time when the political, economic and moral structure of a culture can be shifted to solve problems that the old culture and tradition could not solve. Technology changes, creating pressures on existing cultures. The culture must change, or the crisis becomes disaster. A Crisis is a time when the culture must change. If it doesn't, it might be four score and seven years before there is another chance.

I'm more and more seeing the Bush 43 administration as the Right Authoritarian precursor to Crisis. As with George III, Buchanon and Hoover, the old culture upon seeing a new challenge attempts old solutions. The values of the old cycle are applied to the new environment, generally with entirely unsatisfactory results. The role of the last 3T Authoritarian Right administration is to demonstrate that stubborn clinging to the past won't work. Thus, people are more willing to listen to new points of view, notably the Grey Champion candidates.

Thus, to find the new culture, one finds the problems illustrated by the last 3T administration, and tries to solve them. After developing a new 4T platform, then one might decide what sort of alliance is apt to back such a platform.

Assuming that's where we are, what might be the problems we are confronting?

Crony capitalism. Division of wealth. The need for campaign finance reform. Government for, of and by the capitalist elite. One way or another, democracy has to empower the People, not the K Street lobbyists.

Preemptive unilateral foreign policy. Use of political and military power to monopolize wealth. A greater concern with national and class interest than a unified, peaceful world. Attempts to maintain international divisions of wealth.

Terrorism. Weapons of mass destruction. Nukes and proxy guerilla tactics have made major powers highly reluctant to make war on one another. As more smaller powers are willing to use guerilla tactics and perhaps terrorist WMDs, the relationship between the major powers and the Third World nations exploited is apt to change. Again, the core problem might be division of wealth, along with new tools to fight division of wealth.

Ecology. In the long run, resources used must be balanced against resources exploited and resources recycled. Industrial Age capitalism is based around each company striving competitively to maximize profits. To a great degree, the result is each company attempting to maximize use of resources. While competitive economies have proven superior to planned economies, to a greater degree national and international structures must limit the degree of resources utilized, the degree to which the environment can be destroyed.

Culture War issues. The country has major cultural divides. Attempts by one part of the country to impose their culture on the whole country are problematic.

Right sizing the safety nets. The Great Depression made the New Deal necessary. The Great Society took individual safety nets too far. The recent attempts to cut taxes and cut both individual and disaster relief safety nets have gone too far the other way. Katrina illustrates. Should we see a major economic collapse resulting from borrow and spend economics, the degree of spending on various safety net programs might be rethought.

Authoritarian perceptions. We might have a choice between rule of law and rule of force. The Bush 43 administration seems to think itself above the law, as do the terrorist organizations it pursues. The rules of war at the end of this Crisis are not apt to be those on the books now. What they will be, I know not.

Transition from industrial to service economies. With ever increasing automation, it takes fewer individuals in the agricultural and manufacturing sectors to provide the essentials. This forces an expansion of the service sectors, with larger portions of the population teaching martial arts, painting fingernails and mixing latte. The old New Deal laws governing benefits were based on at least one full time wage earner per family. This is encouraging corporations to hire part time help, to minimize expenses by minimizing benefits. In the long run, we will need to find a way to involve everyone in the economy even though ever fewer individuals will be performing tasks necessary to the economy, and thus demanding high wages. Again, a division of wealth issue.

Trying to summarize... There are a limited number of resources. If they are not distributed reasonably, democratic and terrorist pressure on the elites will occur. Great power attempts to use economic, political and military force to maintain economic, political and military advantages will in the long run fail.

This makes the Authoritarian Right to be the bad guys, as usual at the 3T / 4T cusp. Empowering the People at the expense of the elites is definitely a Leftist theme. I'm not sure about the Libertarian label. Many of the above issues might require more government influence, while other issues would require less government meddling. I don't see the label is as important as doing what is necessary to solve the problems.

If we solve the problems, making up a label to describe the solution won't be hard.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Analyzed the politics of previous 3T/4T cusps. To summarize, the Authoritarian Right was running the show by the end of the Unraveling. With the exception of the Civil War Anomaly [which featured an uncomfortable Authoritarian Right/Libertarian Left (Abolitionist) alliance, the Libertarian Left begins agitating during the jittery 3T tail end. The question is, what alliance, if any, will challenge the Authoritarian Right? During the American Revolution it was Libertarian Left/Libertarian Right. Last time around it was Libertarian Left/Authoritarian Left.

Stone/Sea considered different alliances: AR & LR, AR & AL, and LL & LR. He predicted that a Libertarian Left/Libertarian Right alliance would be necessary for a healthy 4T outcome.

I tend to agree. The authoritarians are in control of both parties now, and the result of their overweaning policies is making matters worse. There will have to be shift to less control and a weaker Federal government just to get the average citizen back in the fold.

For a long while now, the AR has been talking LR, and the people believed them. That's changing. The AL was discredited some time ago. Just ask Hannity, Limbaugh or any of the other talking AR robots, how easy prey they are. That's why I think HRH is going to find 'Senator from NY' as her terminal title.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Analyzed the politics of previous 3T/4T cusps. To summarize, the Authoritarian Right was running the show by the end of the Unraveling. With the exception of the Civil War Anomaly [which featured an uncomfortable Authoritarian Right/Libertarian Left (Abolitionist) alliance, the Libertarian Left begins agitating during the jittery 3T tail end. The question is, what alliance, if any, will challenge the Authoritarian Right? During the American Revolution it was Libertarian Left/Libertarian Right. Last time around it was Libertarian Left/Authoritarian Left.

Stone/Sea considered different alliances: AR & LR, AR & AL, and LL & LR. He predicted that a Libertarian Left/Libertarian Right alliance would be necessary for a healthy 4T outcome.

I tend to agree. The authoritarians are in control of both parties now, and the result of their overweaning policies is making matters worse. There will have to be shift to less control and a weaker Federal government just to get the average citizen back in the fold.

For a long while now, the AR has been talking LR, and the people believed them. That's changing. The AL was discredited some time ago. Just ask Hannity, Limbaugh or any of the other talking AR robots, how easy prey they are. That's why I think HRH is going to find 'Senator from NY' as her terminal title.

Originally Posted by Mr. John J. DiIulio Jr.

A New Democrat will win the presidency in 2008, but not by much, not with coattails that carry Democrats into majority status in Congress, and not for reasons reflecting any new realities or fundamental shifts in the body politic.

"If you can't beat the pundits, join them. Here are four parting predictions: When in political trouble, Bush has a proven presidential knack for binding an intraparty conservative coalition, finding the public center, and occupying it with novel policy ideas and actions that leave Democrats either divided or nonplussed. His 2006 State of the Union Address will begin to reverse his 2005 political slide.

Unified Republican government will continue to split conservatives, but most political media mavens will continue to peddle the usual pat stories about left-right, red-blue partisan warfare and miss the more interesting intraparty stories."

Originally Posted by Mr. John J. DiIulio Jr.

A New Democrat will win the presidency in 2008, but not by much, not with coattails that carry Democrats into majority status in Congress, and not for reasons reflecting any new realities or fundamental shifts in the body politic.

"If you can't beat the pundits, join them. Here are four parting predictions: When in political trouble, Bush has a proven presidential knack for binding an intraparty conservative coalition, finding the public center, and occupying it with novel policy ideas and actions that leave Democrats either divided or nonplussed. His 2006 State of the Union Address will begin to reverse his 2005 political slide.

Unified Republican government will continue to split conservatives, but most political media mavens will continue to peddle the usual pat stories about left-right, red-blue partisan warfare and miss the more interesting intraparty stories."

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

That bin Laden still lives benefits the administration and so in a way he is sort of an unwilling ally.

The presdent has broad powers. Following 911, had he perceived a threat to the nation (and by extension his own power) he could have (1)...

...Obviously the Bush administration and the Republican party are competely unconcerned about any "threat" posed by al Qaeda and their brand of extremist Sunni ideology. So why should I be?

Bush, according to the left, is the human face of evil in the modern-day world. If Bush does not do everything in his power to destroy Osama and his al Qaeda bunch then Bush is a Machevellian using the threat they pose to merely promote his own evil agenda. If Bush does everything in his power to destroy Osama and his al Qaeda bunch then he is obviously abusing his executive powers and Gestopoesquely trouncing on America's precious civil liberties in the process.

Bush is simply evil, man. If he fights he is evil and if he doesn't fight he is evil. Either way Bush is simply evil. Got that? If Bush cuts taxes, and promotes a pro-growth agenda Bush is evil. If Bush raises taxes, institutes a military draft, reads every email to and from Osama, creates massive WWII-era deficits, directs Rummy to kill enmasse, and, in general, acts like Lincoln or FDR, then Bush should be impeached NOW! And if he behaves like Buchanan or Hoover Bush ought to be impeached NOW!

Bush is simply the face of evil in the modern-day world.

If bin Laden is killed then Bush is probably guilty of violating the Geneva Conventions. If bin Laden is not killed then Bush is just using him to scare the American people. If Bush is too tough on terrorists, he is probably guilty of war crimes and is senselessly torturing these poor guys. If terrorists kill another American boy then Bush is to blame for the boy's death.

Bush is simply evil. He is more evil if he does or if he doesn't. Either way Bush is just evil. Got that?

Now, let's have another election to see how evil Bush is. Ok?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

That bin Laden still lives benefits the administration and so in a way he is sort of an unwilling ally.

The presdent has broad powers. Following 911, had he perceived a threat to the nation (and by extension his own power) he could have (1)...

...Obviously the Bush administration and the Republican party are competely unconcerned about any "threat" posed by al Qaeda and their brand of extremist Sunni ideology. So why should I be?

Bush, according to the left, is the human face of evil in the modern-day world. If Bush does not do everything in his power to destroy Osama and his al Qaeda bunch then Bush is a Machevellian using the threat they pose to merely promote his own evil agenda. If Bush does everything in his power to destroy Osama and his al Qaeda bunch then he is obviously abusing his executive powers and Gestopoesquely trouncing on America's precious civil liberties in the process.

Bush is simply evil, man. If he fights he is evil and if he doesn't fight he is evil. Either way Bush is simply evil. Got that? If Bush cuts taxes, and promotes a pro-growth agenda Bush is evil. If Bush raises taxes, institutes a military draft, reads every email to and from Osama, creates massive WWII-era deficits, directs Rummy to kill enmasse, and, in general, acts like Lincoln or FDR, then Bush should be impeached NOW! And if he behaves like Buchanan or Hoover Bush ought to be impeached NOW!

Bush is simply the face of evil in the modern-day world.

If bin Laden is killed then Bush is probably guilty of violating the Geneva Conventions. If bin Laden is not killed then Bush is just using him to scare the American people. If Bush is too tough on terrorists, he is probably guilty of war crimes and is senselessly torturing these poor guys. If terrorists kill another American boy then Bush is to blame for the boy's death.

Bush is simply evil. He is more evil if he does or if he doesn't. Either way Bush is just evil. Got that?

Now, let's have another election to see how evil Bush is. Ok?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

That bin Laden still lives benefits the administration and so in a way he is sort of an unwilling ally.

The presdent has broad powers. Following 911, had he perceived a threat to the nation (and by extension his own power) he could have (1)...

...Obviously the Bush administration and the Republican party are competely unconcerned about any "threat" posed by al Qaeda and their brand of extremist Sunni ideology. So why should I be?

Bush, according to the left, is the human face of evil in the modern-day world. If Bush does not do everything in his power to destroy Osama and his al Qaeda bunch then Bush is a Machevellian using the threat they pose to merely promote his own evil agenda. If Bush does everything in his power to destroy Osama and his al Qaeda bunch then he is obviously abusing his executive powers and Gestopoesquely trouncing on America's precious civil liberties in the process.

Bush is simply evil, man. If he fights he is evil and if he doesn't fight he is evil. Either way Bush is simply evil. Got that? If Bush cuts taxes, and promotes a pro-growth agenda Bush is evil. If Bush raises taxes, institutes a military draft, reads every email to and from Osama, creates massive WWII-era deficits, directs Rummy to kill enmasse, and, in general, acts like Lincoln or FDR, then Bush should be impeached NOW! And if he behaves like Buchanan or Hoover Bush ought to be impeached NOW!

Bush is simply the face of evil in the modern-day world.

If bin Laden is killed then Bush is probably guilty of violating the Geneva Conventions. If bin Laden is not killed then Bush is just using him to scare the American people. If Bush is too tough on terrorists, he is probably guilty of war crimes and is senselessly torturing these poor guys. If terrorists kill another American boy then Bush is to blame for the boy's death.

Bush is simply evil. He is more evil if he does or if he doesn't. Either way Bush is just evil. Got that?

Now, let's have another election to see how evil Bush is. Ok?

Please review my DA-response prediction above, and note how well the 2nd and 3rd options seem to fit. QED

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

That bin Laden still lives benefits the administration and so in a way he is sort of an unwilling ally.

The presdent has broad powers. Following 911, had he perceived a threat to the nation (and by extension his own power) he could have (1)...

...Obviously the Bush administration and the Republican party are competely unconcerned about any "threat" posed by al Qaeda and their brand of extremist Sunni ideology. So why should I be?

Bush, according to the left, is the human face of evil in the modern-day world. If Bush does not do everything in his power to destroy Osama and his al Qaeda bunch then Bush is a Machevellian using the threat they pose to merely promote his own evil agenda. If Bush does everything in his power to destroy Osama and his al Qaeda bunch then he is obviously abusing his executive powers and Gestopoesquely trouncing on America's precious civil liberties in the process.

Bush is simply evil, man. If he fights he is evil and if he doesn't fight he is evil. Either way Bush is simply evil. Got that? If Bush cuts taxes, and promotes a pro-growth agenda Bush is evil. If Bush raises taxes, institutes a military draft, reads every email to and from Osama, creates massive WWII-era deficits, directs Rummy to kill enmasse, and, in general, acts like Lincoln or FDR, then Bush should be impeached NOW! And if he behaves like Buchanan or Hoover Bush ought to be impeached NOW!

Bush is simply the face of evil in the modern-day world.

If bin Laden is killed then Bush is probably guilty of violating the Geneva Conventions. If bin Laden is not killed then Bush is just using him to scare the American people. If Bush is too tough on terrorists, he is probably guilty of war crimes and is senselessly torturing these poor guys. If terrorists kill another American boy then Bush is to blame for the boy's death.

Bush is simply evil. He is more evil if he does or if he doesn't. Either way Bush is just evil. Got that?

Now, let's have another election to see how evil Bush is. Ok?

Please review my DA-response prediction above, and note how well the 2nd and 3rd options seem to fit. QED

Note how well Bush has done in two elections since 20% of the American people concluded Bill Clinton, the face of everything wonderful in the modern-day world, was the Best Man For Crisis.

Note how well Bush has done in two elections since 20% of the American people concluded Bill Clinton, the face of everything wonderful in the modern-day world, was the Best Man For Crisis.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

That bin Laden still lives benefits the administration and so in a way he is sort of an unwilling ally.

The presdent has broad powers. Following 911, had he perceived a threat to the nation (and by extension his own power) he could have (1)...

...Obviously the Bush administration and the Republican party are competely unconcerned about any "threat" posed by al Qaeda and their brand of extremist Sunni ideology. So why should I be?

Bush, according to the left, is the human face of evil in the modern-day world. If Bush does not do everything in his power to destroy Osama and his al Qaeda bunch then Bush is a Machevellian using the threat they pose to merely promote his own evil agenda. If Bush does everything in his power to destroy Osama and his al Qaeda bunch then he is obviously abusing his executive powers and Gestopoesquely trouncing on America's precious civil liberties in the process.

Bush is simply evil, man. If he fights he is evil and if he doesn't fight he is evil. Either way Bush is simply evil. Got that? If Bush cuts taxes, and promotes a pro-growth agenda Bush is evil. If Bush raises taxes, institutes a military draft, reads every email to and from Osama, creates massive WWII-era deficits, directs Rummy to kill enmasse, and, in general, acts like Lincoln or FDR, then Bush should be impeached NOW! And if he behaves like Buchanan or Hoover Bush ought to be impeached NOW!

Bush is simply the face of evil in the modern-day world.

If bin Laden is killed then Bush is probably guilty of violating the Geneva Conventions. If bin Laden is not killed then Bush is just using him to scare the American people. If Bush is too tough on terrorists, he is probably guilty of war crimes and is senselessly torturing these poor guys. If terrorists kill another American boy then Bush is to blame for the boy's death.

Bush is simply evil. He is more evil if he does or if he doesn't. Either way Bush is just evil. Got that?

Now, let's have another election to see how evil Bush is. Ok?

Do you guys even *attempt* to understand the position of your political opponents?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

That bin Laden still lives benefits the administration and so in a way he is sort of an unwilling ally.

The presdent has broad powers. Following 911, had he perceived a threat to the nation (and by extension his own power) he could have (1)...

...Obviously the Bush administration and the Republican party are competely unconcerned about any "threat" posed by al Qaeda and their brand of extremist Sunni ideology. So why should I be?

Bush, according to the left, is the human face of evil in the modern-day world. If Bush does not do everything in his power to destroy Osama and his al Qaeda bunch then Bush is a Machevellian using the threat they pose to merely promote his own evil agenda. If Bush does everything in his power to destroy Osama and his al Qaeda bunch then he is obviously abusing his executive powers and Gestopoesquely trouncing on America's precious civil liberties in the process.

Bush is simply evil, man. If he fights he is evil and if he doesn't fight he is evil. Either way Bush is simply evil. Got that? If Bush cuts taxes, and promotes a pro-growth agenda Bush is evil. If Bush raises taxes, institutes a military draft, reads every email to and from Osama, creates massive WWII-era deficits, directs Rummy to kill enmasse, and, in general, acts like Lincoln or FDR, then Bush should be impeached NOW! And if he behaves like Buchanan or Hoover Bush ought to be impeached NOW!

Bush is simply the face of evil in the modern-day world.

If bin Laden is killed then Bush is probably guilty of violating the Geneva Conventions. If bin Laden is not killed then Bush is just using him to scare the American people. If Bush is too tough on terrorists, he is probably guilty of war crimes and is senselessly torturing these poor guys. If terrorists kill another American boy then Bush is to blame for the boy's death.

Bush is simply evil. He is more evil if he does or if he doesn't. Either way Bush is just evil. Got that?

Now, let's have another election to see how evil Bush is. Ok?

Do you guys even *attempt* to understand the position of your political opponents?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Note how well Bush has done in two elections since 20% of the American people concluded Bill Clinton, the face of everything wonderful in the modern-day world, was the Best Man For Crisis.

Whopping majorities, fer sure. Let's call him "Landslide George."

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Note how well Bush has done in two elections since 20% of the American people concluded Bill Clinton, the face of everything wonderful in the modern-day world, was the Best Man For Crisis.

Whopping majorities, fer sure. Let's call him "Landslide George."

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Note how well Bush has done in two elections since 20% of the American people concluded Bill Clinton, the face of everything wonderful in the modern-day world, was the Best Man For Crisis.

As I've noted on several occassions, I'm no Friend Of Bill ... or was this intended for a wider audience?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Note how well Bush has done in two elections since 20% of the American people concluded Bill Clinton, the face of everything wonderful in the modern-day world, was the Best Man For Crisis.

As I've noted on several occassions, I'm no Friend Of Bill ... or was this intended for a wider audience?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Please review my DA-response prediction above, and note how well the 2nd and 3rd options seem to fit. QED

I'll claim a hit on my 1 and 2 at least.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Please review my DA-response prediction above, and note how well the 2nd and 3rd options seem to fit. QED

I'll claim a hit on my 1 and 2 at least.