posted on December 11, 2000 06:52:56 AM
NeartheSea,
I'm non-partisan, and just try to post the ugly truth as it comes. Just happens that in this election the ugly truth is contained in the bush/republican mechanizations--a continuum of 'coincidence' which extends back nearly to the end of WW2.
It appears to me that a frustration is contained (or rather, fermenting) in the republican party that began in 1932, learned tricks and made contacts during WW2, and has been attempting to manipulate our society, particularly our money, to further goals which are not in the best interests of this country or of the world. They struggle mightily, using any means, to get a president elected yet have had only two who were two term in 80 years.
As to Al's lack of earlobes; that's not necessarily a bad thing. There is much evidence that large earlobes is a sign of royalty and if you look at Prince Charles you can see that it may well be true. My second wife had earlobes like his, and her lineage could be traced loosely to King Richard (the Lionhearted). I can testify to her being a royal pain in the ass, so maybe Al's lack of
earlobes offers a chance that he would be less of a pain than she was.
posted on December 11, 2000 07:59:11 AM
KRS - Interesting point about the republican party only having two presidents elected to two terms in 80 years. But the democrats in the same 80 year period has only had 2 presidents elected to consecutive terms themselves. And one of them is FDR the other Clinton.
However in the 80 year period begining in 1920. There has been 20 Presidential Elections and the parties are split in victories at 10 each. So I ask what exact point were you trying to make.
In short during the past 80 years we have been governed by 40 years of both parties in the White House. So I accept that both parties have helped to get us where we are today. For me politics isn't a battle of two parties of where my alliegence must be placed in one or the other. It is a area of policies and programs which will see me and mine have the greatest opportunity to grow.
posted on December 11, 2000 08:14:23 AM
Interesting observation about the Republican party krs.
I suppose one could say that both parties have a long history of manipulation, the Democrats have just been better at it.
and has been attempting to manipulate our society, particularly our money
Well, I do know they would like less welfare, and more people working, is that manipulating society and our money?
Their are many Republicans who are wealthy.
People say that, and use that as ALL are.
Then my question would be: Has a poor man given you a job lately?
to further goals which are not in the best interests of this country or of the world
Very interesting observation. I suppose that is why we are the most technically advanced country in the world. First in the Space race and all that good stuff. That we have been called, and we all do believe it true, that we are the highest power in the world?
I am not sure what kind of correalation we can make with the earlobes. Did Clinton have earlobes? Was your wife a Republican or Democrat?
Prince Charles may be loyal, like a lap dog, as he his more of a figurehead in his country, I do believe now they are ruled by a parliment and a prime minister.
But I do see a good observation in the earlobe theory
posted on December 11, 2000 09:05:07 AM
Networker,
The Democrats WOULD have had one, or probably two other two term presidents if John and Bobby Kennedy had not been assassinated by interests which have been closely associated with republicans up to and including the Bush kids.
After all, Neil Bush has had direct business associations with Santo Trafficante, Jr. who mumbled the notorious phrase spoken only two weeks prior to JFK's assasination, "It's not enough to cut off the tail. You must kill the dog" when asked what could be done to stop Bobby's persistant persecution of organized crime, and who was a primary OSS operative during WW2 with deep and lasting relationships with the CIA after the war.
Actually four, but Lyndon decided not to run, and FDR counts as two.
posted on December 11, 2000 09:42:23 AMKRS...if your statement is correct, then Bush The Weasel aint got none neither...
******************** Gosh Shosh!
posted on December 11, 2000 10:38:34 AM
KRS - But when you view your prior Statement in its historical context as it relates to the ratification of the 22nd Amendment. You techically can't count FDR, because no President Since Truman has been able to sit more than two terms.
Which although I agree with the spirit of the 22nd Amendment. I find it interesting that it was introduced by Republicans. Who at the time of introduction were suffering through almost 20 years of Democratic Presidents. And in terms of history if you take away the 20 years of FDR and Truman. You have had five Democratic administrations during the remaining 20 years. They are Kennedy/Johnson/Carter/Clinton(2)
Prior to Kennedy, eight years of republican under Eisenhower. After Kennedy/Johnson (8 years), you have 8 years of Nixon/Ford. Then we have Carter (4 years), followed by the Reagan/Bush era (12 years), which brings us to our present Clinton (8 years).
One another note nearthesea kennedy put us in the Space race. Last time I checked he was a Democrat.
KRS - To say one party has given us more or less than the other is stretching it a bit. Because each party has given us both good and bad during the 80 year period you referenced.
Its always been my perception that our progress in a period isn't based solely on the principles and policies of one party versus another. It is more of what Americans want and need in context to what the rest of the World is or is not doing.
posted on December 11, 2000 10:56:02 AM
And to note onward networker, Kennedy did put us in the Space Race, but others have kept it alive to this day, both Republican and Democrats alike.
Shoshana, thank you!
and everyone is entitled to their opinions, yes I got the 'jeans' part but off topic, I really do think that Bush does look better in blue jeans
posted on December 11, 2000 10:58:15 AM
Networker,
In the first place, you're cheating to combine two separate administrations into one as in Nixon/Ford. and in the second place, go away to your serious windy (did you say that you are from Chicago?) threads. Can't you see that this one is fun?
posted on December 11, 2000 11:06:15 AM
Well, things are looking up: The court is about to hire some impartial party to settle this once and for all...
posted on December 11, 2000 11:30:33 AM
If nothing happens soon, I'm afraid both Presidential Candidates will be singing All I want for xmas is my two front teeth...."
******************** Gosh Shosh!
posted on December 11, 2000 11:32:59 AMis much evidence that large earlobes is a sign of royalty and if you look at Prince Charles you can see that it may well be true.
Must be. My lineage goes back to the family of Lady Jane Grey and Henry IV of France, and we all have "unattached" earlobes
Anyway, assuming your assertion is true, and since "attached" earlobes are a recessive trait, it is more likely that Mr. Gore's lineage includes more of the hoi polloi than than Mr. Bush's (whose earlobes are "unattached".
New slogan: "Al Gore's A Man of the People. Just Look at his Ears!"
posted on December 11, 2000 11:38:36 AM
KRS - Combining Nixon/Ford is historically acurate seeing that Ford inherited Nixon's second Administration under the Constitution. Since Ford was never elected President of The United States and served the remainder of Nixon's second term you have to list them together. Factually they count as one
It is one thing to quantify fun but when you make a statement like
"It appears to me that a frustration is contained (or rather, fermenting) in the republican party that began in 1932, learned tricks and made contacts during WW2, and has been attempting to manipulate our society, particularly our money, to further goals which are not in the best interests of this country or of the world. They struggle mightily, using any means, to get a president elected yet have had only two who were two term in 80 years. "
That IMHO transcends fun. You say they have only had two Presidents elected to two terms in the last 80 years when they have had three, Eisenhower/Nixon/Reagan. IMHO these forums can be fun and both informative simultaneously if we not mix false facts and then say its all in fun when those same false facts are clarified.
Your post that I quoted above, makes some serious allegations against the Republican Party that boarders Treason. That cannot be quantified as done in fun.
posted on December 11, 2000 01:30:07 PM
Hello Krs,
"They struggle mightily, using any means, to get a president elected yet have had only two who were two term in 80 years."
I think both parties struggle mightily and using any means to get a President elected.
I note your nitpicking response to Networker67 about Nixon not completing his two terms.
If you want to nitpick then pick on this. In that eighty year period the Republicans have had two Presidents who completed two terms, Eisenhower and Reagan. In the same period, the Democrats had only one complete two terms (assuming nothing happens to him between now and January 20th), Clinton.
Roosevelt completed three terms.
_____________________________________________
Getting back to the "fun" side of this thread...
I would have voted for the maroon on November 7th. But instead, I cast my vote for the idjit.
posted on December 11, 2000 01:37:51 PM
?? I guess FDR was a member of what? Thought he was a democrat twice. Completed two terms then croaked in the second two terms.
posted on December 11, 2000 02:00:38 PM
krs - quantified with the modifier "completed" two terms both parties have had exactly two. The dems have FDR and WJC. The Repubs have DDE and RWR.
However since it is the elections themselves that express the mandate of the people. Not completing the term due to resignation; doesn't kill the fact that the people thought enough of him to give him a second shot. I'm not nitpicking you and don't feel you are me. But let's don't engage in a practice of doctoring the facts or word play to express a point. Watching lawyers, politicians, and the media do it is enough for me. Here we represent, we the people and I would hope we strive to be fun, informative, and highly opinionated to the point of exchanging ideals not just speaking to have something to say. Although there is nothing wrong with just having something say. I find that it tends to cloud the discussions.
Notice how you found a friend in code just because we were engaged in a dialogue. Which I didn't think was adversarial but then again I don't insult easily.
posted on December 11, 2000 02:12:08 PM
Well, I can see why you prefer not to talk to coda.
If I am chosen to represent someone in a game of (name your own) and I begin play but leave because of illness or irritation I can not be able to claim that I played the game but only that I played in the game.
.