Originally Posted by The Rani

If the Bush-Sux-cuz-he's-too-liberal faction of the Republican Party succeeds in nominating an even more conservative successor...

... which isn't going to happen.

Two issues trump Bush's regrettable record on the entitlement spending issue: 1. The post-9/11 Bush Doctrine, and 2. Bush's steady embrace of pro-growth/supply-side economics. In addition, a majority of Democrats strongly opposed Bush's senior drug plan simply because, like his reform of Social Security would have as well, seniors are allowed complete control of how they use the entitlement funds. In other words, it is much too pro-choice for any liberal to swallow.

Originally Posted by The Rani

How can you engage in bullying, demeaning, and name-calling, and expect that to be a successful strategy for getting someone to vote for "your" candidate? Amazing.

I don't have a 2008 candidate right now, so I'm not advocating for anyone by any sort of means.

And I don't think I was trying to bully anyone in 2004. I'd characterize it more as cajoling.

Easy. I have full confidence that I AM doing something useful in the world, and I'm secure enough with myself not to feel a need to defend myself to a bunch of assholes on the internet. If that pisses you off, tough shit. Get your own "life," and then it won't.

But you are spending quite a bit of time here doing exactly that -- defending yourself. Why are you doing that if you feel so secure?

Originally Posted by zilch

... which isn't going to happen.

Two issues trump Bush's regrettable record on the entitlement spending issue: 1. The post-9/11 Bush Doctrine, and 2. Bush's steady embrace of pro-growth/supply-side economics. In addition, a majority of Democrats strongly opposed Bush's senior drug plan simply because, like his reform of Social Security would have as well, seniors are allowed complete control of how they use the entitlement funds. In other words, it is much too pro-choice for any liberal to swallow.

The post-9/11 Bush Doctrine will now always be viewed through the post-Mission Accomplished Prism. At best, the conclusion will be opportunity lost; at worst, it will be assumed that surely he had not much to do with any of the success of the CIA-driven victory in Afghanistan. Rather, it was when he, Rumsfeld and the other idiots got directly involved (first Tora Bora and then Iraq) that things started going south on us. Fido is lickin his lips on this one as well.

Bush's SS initiative was probable the point at which his approval rating began its turn down; Fido is foaming at the mouth in hope that you guys try this mime as well again!

By the way, one of the most thought-out analysis of why privatization would not work was laid out by our very own Michael Alexander; from a quantitative viewpoint, I have not seen better --
http://www.safehaven.com/article-2357.htm
Alexander's analysis is far too sophisticated for inclusion in a political debate, but sometimes the American people can just smell the rat without understanding why it's there.

Originally Posted by zilch

My, oh my, that list goes a long way in explaining why George W. Bush is headed straight to the dustbin of history as "the worst president in history." ;-)

Yes, and when the time comes, we'll let you know who to vote for.

Otherwise, these big mistakes of your's, every four years, are going to get harder and harder to explain to your grandchildren.

Originally Posted by The Rani

...
But, check it out. If the Bush-Sux-cuz-he's-too-liberal faction of the Republican Party succeeds in nominating an even more conservative successor, and the Dems nominate a chick and a black dude, things could get a lot worse for socialism in America.

At least it will be entertaining to watch as the empire crashes.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'm not defending myself. I'm telling you that you're full of shit. Big difference.

Sounds like a pretty good defense: go on the offensive.

Originally Posted by The Rani

But, check it out. If the Bush-Sux-cuz-he's-too-liberal faction of the Republican Party succeeds in nominating an even more conservative successor, and the Dems nominate a chick and a black dude, things could get a lot worse for socialism in America.

I don't get this.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Sounds like a pretty good defense: go on the offensive.

That's pretty much her *only* operational pattern.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Lemme splain. If the Repubs nominate a very conservative candidate, and the Dems nominate a woman and a black man, the Repub will probably win, simply by being a white male, and hence socialism will lose.

Marc Lamb has hijacked Rani's account.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'm not defending myself. I'm telling you that you're full of shit. Big difference.

This is coming from someone who has openly admitted that she is "asshole concentrate".

Originally Posted by The Rani

Lemme splain. If the Repubs nominate a very conservative candidate, and the Dems nominate a woman and a black man, the Repub will probably win, simply by being a white male, and hence socialism will lose.

One, the Democrats are not socialists, stop writing campaign ads for the Republicans. Two, why would a white male automatically win the election (unless it's Giuliani) Three, the only Republican who could possibly beat Hillary in the election is Rudy, and the Democrats have a good chance of winning b/c Bush has damaged the image of the Repubs so badly.

Women should not use foul language, nor should men use foul language in the presence of women. This applies 24/7 on this forum. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Women should not use foul language, nor should men use foul language in the presence of women. This applies 24/7 on this forum. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Yep, you're in fantasy land.

Have fun.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Which is at least part of the reason, I would guess, why zilch now agrees that Bush Sux.

But, check it out. If the Bush-Sux-cuz-he's-too-liberal faction of the Republican Party succeeds in nominating an even more conservative successor, and the Dems nominate a chick and a black dude, things could get a lot worse for socialism in America.

Bush offends the liberals because he is a reactionary; he begins to offend the Religious Right because he has achieved nothing for them; he offends fiscal conservatives because represents Tammany Hall on a national scale. What's left as a core of his support?

Karl Rogue has decided to step down... will he find a new shill for his Machiavellian agenda? Has his agenda -- that is, everything to achieve power -- been exposed for what it is, an effort to transform America into a dictatorship? He failed because he offered nothing to most Americans. Don't kid yourself; Rove was the real leader of the US through his control of the Republican Party -- so long as the GOP had a majority. Rove may have given plenty of goodies to the moneyed elite -- but we still have a one man - one vote system.

The Corporate Welfare State that bloated under Dubya must go before we can have either a restoration of fiscal conservatism or of a liberal welfare state. It won't begin to disappear until January 2009 due to political gridlock unless the whole Bush administration implodes and we get successors to both Dubya and Cheney.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Women should not use foul language, nor should men use foul language in the presence of women. This applies 24/7 on this forum. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Again, who named you King?

From time to time, some of our less social members do get really foul. At one point, Zilch was plastering the site with obscene photos, rendering it non-workplace safe. At that point, I contacted the web-master, who did step in, and set a standard that The Rani has not yet overstepped. The web-master does not consider himself to be Miss Manners, nor have a large number of posters yet asked him to be. The same might be said of you.

Just try to avoid feeding the trolls.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Women should not use foul language, nor should men use foul language in the presence of women. This applies 24/7 on this forum. Thank you, and have a nice day.

I got some e-mails claiming that an inheritance of 4 million British pounds awaited me in Britain -- but I would have to act fast. Supposedly it was on deposit in (the name of the bank will not be disclosed because it was not a party to the scam except in warning me that it was a 419 scam).

In the Nigerian penal code, Section 419 refers to fraud through false pretenses, and such is the origin of the name of various scams.

I was tempted to respond to that offer with some language that I consider inappropriate under most circumstances. Multi-colored, multi-font, large F-bombs, among others.

I didn't care what the gender of the scammer was.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Women should not use foul language, nor should men use foul language in the presence of women. This applies 24/7 on this forum. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Fuck off buddy. That's funny.

Seriously though, the Dems are so certain the republicans can't win it's a little scary. Both sides can (and do) suffer from hubris. It really would be funny to see them blow it.

I'm not 100% sure the white male would automatically win, a la Rani. But I am sure that Hillary scares a lot of folks (postseasonal anyone?), and I suspect that someone who actually is conservative could perk up the pubs after this last go round.

Although right now the Pubs' options are pretty pathetic.

Originally Posted by The Rani

That's the problem with being a woman in politics, or business for that matter. Too soft, and you're seen as not strong. Too tough, and people don't like it.

Wrongo! "Iron lady" Thatcher woulda done just fine in American politics.

Hillary's problem is she's way too phony in public, while the same public perceives she a controlling bitch when the TV camera is turned off.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Exactly.

If you're looking for someone to analyze, again, I suggest starting with yourself.

Been there, done that.

Hillary scares me in ways that billy never did. Of course I don't think I ever voted for billy, but he seemed largely harmless. I couldn't understand all the heartfelt love and hate for the man. But that's me.

However, looking at what I see are problems I would like to see addressed, and with the whole theory as kind of a backdrop, Hillary seems like Boomer concentrate. Maybe I have to give her a chance, but I suspect that it will be headlong into the 90s again. I wouldn't expect her to fare any better with 90s politics than has W. Gut feeling though.

OTOH, if anyone is savvy enough to pull it off, it is her. If I was a card carrying dem I would love her.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I know a lot of people who find Hillary completely abhorrent. They say it's her personality, not the fact that she is a woman. However, I sometimes wonder if the same character traits would be more acceptable to people in a man. That's the problem with being a woman in politics, or business for that matter. Too soft, and you're seen as not strong. Too tough, and people don't like it.

I think our first woman prez will be a Republican, someone similar to Elizabeth Dole. Soft-spoken but rock-solid at the same time.

Female leaders have generally surprised men with their competence. Elizabeth I may have been the most effective monarch that Britain had since medieval times -- at least. Catherine the Great was great, and Maria Theresa of Austria was respected throughout her time and beyond as few men were. Victoria of England? She still wielded real power, and wielded it very well. Wilhelmina of the Netherlands exercised the royal prerogatives far better during World War II during exile than did many other monarchs. Elizabeth II, current Queen of England? Sure, she is strictly a constitutional monarch, and one of the most public figures of modern times is also one of the most effective at keeping secret what she wants kept secret.

There have been weak leaders of feminine gender -- like Isabel Peron... but look at some of the rest. Isabel Peron's macho successors, the thugs who ruled Argentina brutally, grossly underestimated Margaret Thatcher. Tough-as-nails Golda Meir did very well in a dangerous part of the world. Indira Gandhi can't be faulted for being assassinated any more than JFK could -- controversial, but effective. Does anyone doubt that Eleanor Roosevelt would have been a superb leader?

Women can be just as tough as men, as rational, and as principled -- but almost never as reckless. All-or-nothing gambles are a male preserve. To be sure there have been Lady MacBeth-like figures... Madame Nhu, Chiang Ching (Mao's last wife), Elena Ceausescu, and Magda Goebbels -- but their evil would be impossible without vile husbands.

al-Qaeda is clearly a male preserve. None of the perverts who flew the jetliners into the Twin Towers or the Pentagon were women. The Nazi Party power structure was very male; none of the principal war criminals in the main trial or the Doctors' Trial were women. No Gauleiter was a woman. There were women executed as war criminals -- usually at the level of a camp guard. The Japanese leadership during World War II was entirely male. Even under Communism, which has a good record for gender equity (if little else) -- all of Josef Stalin's butchers were female.

... The rise of women into power in the current Saeculum can mitigate some of the most destructive tendencies of a 4T. Women seem to see the world in less of an apocalypse menace than do men and are more likely to negotiate -- hard -- than go to the jugular.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

(snip)
... The rise of women into power in the current Saeculum can mitigate some of the most destructive tendencies of a 4T. Women seem to see the world in less of an apocalypse menace than do men and are more likely to negotiate -- hard -- than go to the jugular.

Unless we see it as a life or death situation, in which case we WILL go for the jugular with nonsense about honor. Think of a cat with kittens, or that very archetype, the mother dog with puppies - or where the term now used for a hard-fighting woman originated.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbrower2a
(snip)
... The rise of women into power in the current Saeculum can mitigate some of the most destructive tendencies of a 4T. Women seem to see the world in less of an apocalypse menace than do men and are more likely to negotiate -- hard -- than go to the jugular.

Unless we see it as a life or death situation, in which case we WILL go for the jugular with nonsense about honor. Think of a cat with kittens, or that very archetype, the mother dog with puppies - or where the term now used for a hard-fighting woman originated.

Reminds me of Molly Weasley in the climax Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows when evil witch Bellatrix LeGrange goes after her daugher, Ginny. Molly roars "get your hands off my daughter, you b..ch!" and goes for the jugular, even turning down help from allies.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Reminds me of Molly Weasley in the climax Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows when evil witch Bellatrix LeGrange goes after her daugher, Ginny. Molly roars "get your hands off my daughter, you b..ch!" and goes for the jugular, even turning down help from allies.

Yes, one of the most memorable scenes indeed! Everyone loves that line.

You should hear Jim Dale read that passage on the audiobook, too.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Unless we see it as a life or death situation, in which case we WILL go for the jugular with nonsense about honor. Think of a cat with kittens, or that very archetype, the mother dog with puppies - or where the term now used for a hard-fighting woman originated.

Anyone who attacks kittens or puppies in the presence of their mothers had better have good health insurance -- and if the mother is large enough in the latter case, good life insurance as well. That's so obvious that few people need think of it. I've seen too many similarities between leopards and dogs to do certain things to dogs. People are much the same way.

Many of the great catastrophes of history result from someone underestimating a likely enemy. Consequences are swift should a dog do something unwise to a cat. In war, at first it is others who do the dying.