Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

That's absurd... Gregoire didn't steal the 2004 Gubernatorial election here any more than Bush stole the Presidency in 2000. Both were extremely close elections, close enough to be within the margin of error for tallying votes... and they ultimately had to fall one way or the other. So Bush and Gregoire won... Gore and Rossi lost. Those are the breaks.

And WTF do the so-called "New Black Panthers" have to do with either of the above???

It was found that after the dust settled here in WA that many people who were ineligible to vote such as felons, illegals and yes even a few dead people voted in the 04 election. Gregoire won after several recounts by a measily 159 votes. They even "found" boxes of votes in King County when the recount began.

As far as the Black Panthers are concerned, perhaps you didnt see the numerous news reports after the 08 election of voter intimidation with NBP members wielding clubs in front of polls in direct violation of federal law. Of course, Eric Holder found no reason to prosecute....

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

That's absurd... Gregoire didn't steal the 2004 Gubernatorial election here

This is old ground but as Weave insists on spreading untrue talking points, I'll point out, as I've posted a link to previously, once again that the Wash. State 2004 recount was presided over and signed off on by a Republican judge from a Republican county.
If that qualifies as stealing then I wish that our Supreme Court, with its 5-4 conservative majority had done a little stealin' itself when it issued its Bush v. Gore decision.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

In my opinion Bush did steal the 2000 election, because of the purge of the Florida registration rolls that eliminated significant numbers of voters on the grounds that people with similar names had felony convictions in other states. And the count that was made by news organizations afterwards showed that Gore actually got more votes anyway, by an accurate count. Gore, however, had not asked for the statewide recount that would have given him the election--a huge mistake.

I will always wonder whether Gore would have responded to 9/11 with a massive and successful push for clean energy. We'll never know.

More misrepresentations by the "esteemed" Professor. Here is the News Organizations results. Under the standard of the canvassing boards, Bush still wins.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

Originally Posted by herbal tee

This is old ground but as Weave insists on spreading untrue talking points, I'll point out, as I've posted a link to previously, once again that the Wash. State 2004 recount was presided over and signed off on by a Republican judge from a Republican county.
If that qualifies as stealing then I wish that our Supreme Court, with its 5-4 conservative majority had done a little stealin' itself when it issued its Bush v. Gore decision.

Here is a pretty good accounting, but hardly the only irregularities found in King County.

http://www.effwa.org/pdfs/2004%20Ele...20Findings.pdf

Originally Posted by Weave

Here is a pretty good accounting, but hardly the only irregularities found in King County.

http://www.effwa.org/pdfs/2004%20Ele...20Findings.pdf

Well, you got more than a fair hearing and you lost. Get over it.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

None of this alters my view: we will continue living in George W. Bush's America for a long time. Foreign policy is at a complete dead end. The Israelis, today's New York Times reports, are building more and more remote settlements than ever now. There will be no peace. The government is after Julius Assange.

We do still seem to live in George W. Bush's America, and will for a while. That doesn't mean it is anything but a 4T that started in 2008 though. It just means that he caused the crisis, and we are not dealing with it. Which is the case. Actually, of course, it might be just as accurate to say we are still living in Ronald Reagan's America. And where foreign policy is concerned, maybe it's Dwight D. Eisenhower's America.

Oh, that reminds me. . a propos of nothing--recently I watched a brilliant documentary on Netflix streaming, The Most Dangerous Man in America, about Silent Daniel Ellsberg.

I saw it on a PBS channel. Very good.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We do still seem to live in George W. Bush's America, and will for a while. That doesn't mean it is anything but a 4T that started in 2008 though. It just means that he caused the crisis, and we are not dealing with it. Which is the case. Actually, of course, it might be just as accurate to say we are still living in Ronald Reagan's America. And where foreign policy is concerned, maybe it's Dwight D. Eisenhower's America.

I'd agree about still living in GWB's America. It's still recent history, and there hasn't been enough time for change... nor a consensus on what direction the Nation should change in.

The rest I must respectfully disagree with. It was Eisenhower who warned of the corruptive power of a military-industrial complex he saw with prescience on the horizon. I can't imagine he'd be A-OK with the likes of Blackwater and their ilk performing duties that ought to be performed by American military personnel, or not at all.

We aren't living in Reagan's foreign-policy universe either. After the barracks attack in Beirut in '83, Reagan saw the choice between continuing to spin our wheels helping out the Lebanese, or pulling up stakes and telling them to have at it... and he chose the latter. And when the Libyans blew up that American nightclub in Germany three years later, Ronald Reagan hit them, and hit them HARD... so hard you've heard nary a peep from Khadafi ever since. However, we didn't march troops into Downtown Tripoli and attempt to remake Libya in our image. (Economically, however, I'd agree it's still about Reagan, given the GOP's reverence for trickle-down economics).

And I disagree about Bush actually starting the Crisis. The Crisis seems to have begun somewhere between mid 2006 and early 2008 with the subprime lending debacle and the resulting housing bubble burst... with the Social Moment being the '08 Presidential campaign. However, even if history judges 9/11 to be the start of the current Crisis era, Bush wasn't responsible for that... he merely escalated the 4T after it arrived, much as previous Presidents have done.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

In my opinion Bush did steal the 2000 election, because of the purge of the Florida registration rolls that eliminated significant numbers of voters on the grounds that people with similar names had felony convictions in other states. And the count that was made by news organizations afterwards showed that Gore actually got more votes anyway, by an accurate count. Gore, however, had not asked for the statewide recount that would have given him the election--a huge mistake.

I will always wonder whether Gore would have responded to 9/11 with a massive and successful push for clean energy. We'll never know.

Al Gore would have read the intelligence reports and asked the relevant questions about what the intelligence implied if or where there were any weasel words.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I'd agree about still living in GWB's America. It's still recent history, and there hasn't been enough time for change... nor a consensus on what direction the Nation should change in.

The rest I must respectfully disagree with. It was Eisenhower who warned of the corruptive power of a military-industrial complex he saw with prescience on the horizon. I can't imagine he'd be A-OK with the likes of Blackwater and their ilk performing duties that ought to be performed by American military personnel, or not at all.

We aren't living in Reagan's foreign-policy universe either. After the barracks attack in Beirut in '83, Reagan saw the choice between continuing to spin our wheels helping out the Lebanese, or pulling up stakes and telling them to have at it... and he chose the latter. And when the Libyans blew up that American nightclub in Germany three years later, Ronald Reagan hit them, and hit them HARD... so hard you've heard nary a peep from Khadafi ever since. However, we didn't march troops into Downtown Tripoli and attempt to remake Libya in our image. (Economically, however, I'd agree it's still about Reagan, given the GOP's reverence for trickle-down economics).

And I disagree about Bush actually starting the Crisis. The Crisis seems to have begun somewhere between mid 2006 and early 2008 with the subprime lending debacle and the resulting housing bubble burst... with the Social Moment being the '08 Presidential campaign. However, even if history judges 9/11 to be the start of the current Crisis era, Bush wasn't responsible for that... he merely escalated the 4T after it arrived, much as previous Presidents have done.

I don't entirely disagree. Reagan was smarter than GW in foreign affairs; no question. It's a matter of the overall attitude of militarism and fear-mongering that he shared with GWB. Sure, Ike gave a warning, and tried to hold back the zeal of those in his government. The Democrats who followed him increased military spending. But his era was dominated by the Cold War, and his agents dumped democratic governments in order to fight it. The war on terror is just another excuse for the M.I.C. to continue and grow.

But yes, it was Bush policies that caused the crisis. His team was at the switch, and if they had not taken down instead of put up regulations on the banks and financiers, the crisis would have been avoided. And he could have stopped 9-11 too; he just ignored warnings. I am among those who wonder if he did that intentionally, so that he could have a war. There's no question that he had his sights set on a war with Iraq even before taking office.

Reagan and W were mostly puppets, the puppet-handlers in both administrations were mostly the same people. The behavior of Obama is making me fear that all of our presidents since 1981 have been puppets.

Originally Posted by Odin

Reagan and W were mostly puppets, the puppet-handlers in both administrations were mostly the same people. The behavior of Obama is making me fear that all of our presidents since 1981 have been puppets.

I think the majority of our Presidents throughout history have been puppets. Even those before 1981 were puppets, just puppets to the "Great Society Liberal Elite" as conservatives would call them.

In fact, maybe we should make a list of Presidents that weren't puppets, and see how many we can get.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

In my opinion Bush did steal the 2000 election, because of the purge of the Florida registration rolls that eliminated significant numbers of voters on the grounds that people with similar names had felony convictions in other states. And the count that was made by news organizations afterwards showed that Gore actually got more votes anyway, by an accurate count. Gore, however, had not asked for the statewide recount that would have given him the election--a huge mistake.

I will always wonder whether Gore would have responded to 9/11 with a massive and successful push for clean energy. We'll never know.

I believe Gore would've steered clear of iraq, but wiped the floor with the Afghans and Paks, possibly with nukes, both to avenge 9/11 and to thwart GOPer charges of being a soft lefty. He'd have put the Saudis on notice...then called for national sacrifice while moving us toward cleaner energy.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I believe Gore would've steered clear of iraq, but wiped the floor with the Afghans and Paks, possibly with nukes, both to avenge 9/11 and to thwart GOPer charges of being a soft lefty. He'd have put the Saudis on notice...then called for national sacrifice while moving us toward cleaner energy.

Yes, but not with "nukes." That's over the top even for Gore.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, but not with "nukes." That's over the top even for Gore.

Hey, use em or lose em.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, but not with "nukes." That's over the top even for Gore.

I always thought that the best response would have been crop-dusting Mecca and Medina with emulsified pork fat while playing "What a friend we have in Jesus" over loud speakers.

2012 just got its first Tea Party candidate.

This article is about a former oil CEO who predicts gas at 5.00/gal in 2012. If that happens Obama will have a hard time getting re-elected....

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/27/mark...ties/index.htm

Originally Posted by Weave

This article is about a former oil CEO who predicts gas at 5.00/gal in 2012. If that happens Obama will have a hard time getting re-elected....

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/27/mark...ties/index.htm

I was trying to figure out where to post this article. Its from the other network:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...s-decades-end/

This article from cnbc also talks about rising gas prices could derail a recovery.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40828939

Forget dollars, euros, yen, pounds, and yuan -- the genuine currency of the modern world is energy. Without energy, people can do nothing. With energy priced into the stratosphere, people will literally starve. There are just too many people to support an economy based upon animal power as was so around 2000.

I can't say that the run-up in energy prices precipitated the Crash of 2008, but energy prices were the last to escalate.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Forget dollars, euros, yen, pounds, and yuan -- the genuine currency of the modern world is energy. Without energy, people can do nothing. With energy priced into the stratosphere, people will literally starve. There are just too many people to support an economy based upon animal power as was so around 2000.

How was our economy based on animal power in 2000?

Originally Posted by Rose1992

How was our economy based on animal power in 2000?

I think he meant countries like China and India that are rapidly modernizing.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

How was our economy based on animal power in 2000?

Whoops! 1900, before automobiles and tractors supplanted horses. The human population was much smaller, and much of the agriculture of the time was dedicated to the production of fodder for horses.

It would be extremely difficult to return to an era in which animal power became the normal basis of economic activity, and it would require a smaller human population (draw your own conclusions on how that could happen). Even agriculture depends heavily upon chemical energy (especially petroleum) for planting, reaping, processing, and distribution.

Don't use the Old Order Amish as an example. They simply reject electricity and motor vehicles for indulgence and entertainment. They use electricity in farming, they read newspapers and books surely processed with electricity, and they use hospitals and medical clinics that use huge quantities of electricity. They often work in factories and stores to supplement their farm income. Their farm implements typically are manufactured in the "English" world. Their rejection of electricity for indulgence and entertainment is religious in basis, and it is hard to imagine any group of people deciding that hospitals, published material, and pasteurized milk are themselves evil.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I was trying to figure out where to post this article. Its from the other network:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...s-decades-end/

FoX News -- Fiction and unreliable sources.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

FoX News -- Fiction and unreliable sources.

I hear you. Personally, I don't like or trust any the sources on TV. But if I must, I'll check all of them out to see their "report" on the same instance.

Which is why I supplied the Fox news link, to go with the CNN one that was submitted before I could include it, for compare and contrast.