Who thinks the 2004 election was "stolen" ?

I'd prefer it. Though I think he should at least have a ride-on mower.

fuck yeah, that lawn is huge!

That's not the point, its whatever it takes to have that projection of power and Kennedy lacked it in early 1961, although he did rectify it later.

Had he been percieved as stronger by Kruschev, the whole crisis may have been avoided, but its impossible to know for certain of course. But given the possible consequences of a nuclear war, avoiding such events in the first place is paramount.

Have you ever read Elements of Decision? If you can pick up a copy I strongly recommend it. Its an analysis of the decision making process using the Cuban Missile Crisis as a model. It presents three models of how decisions are made. The conclusion is that most decisions are not rational, and are made more by blundering, even in tightly controlled situations such as the 1962 crisis. Events have a way of taking a life of their own.

I know it must sound trivial to be arguing over chipped plates, but if they help in some small way to project an image of power which in turn prevents situations from unfolding, then by all means by some plates.

And I say that the trappings of glory do not, in and of themselves, project Power.

Look at Dubya? He's the laughingstock of the World. Ya think Putin is scared of him?
Hell Amenidinjad isn't even scared of him. Neither is Kim Jong Il.

Having said that --I'll follow your reading suggestion and get me a copy of "Elements"

your overlooking the fact that people in power in other nations, historically underestimate Americans and America's potential.
Revolutionary War
British, during the War of 1812
Barbary Coast pirates, "Shores of Tripoli" anyone?
Mexican-American war
World War 1, Germany thought we didn't have the stomach for a war
Pearl Harbor, the whole Japanese plan was to kill as many American soldiers that we quit the war
Korean War, the North assumed we wouldn't defend South Korea
Kruschev, 1961 resulting Cuban Missle Crisis
Noreaga(sp?), thought he was safe from US law enforcement
Saddom Hussein, 1991

there are other minor instances, but the general feeling is still the same.

From what I've read, it does appear that Richard Nixon probably should have won in the 1960 election because of the Chicago shenanigans. I'm a life-long Democrat saying this. I would not at all be surprised to learn, if I did extensive research, to find out that other USA presidential elections were "stolen".

My point in saying this is, if 1960 can be stolen by the Democrats (when I was all of 15 months old LOL), the 2004 election can be considered stolen perhaps. I'm still not 100% convinced it was stolen but too many funny things happened around that election. And those black box voting machines have to go. I'd be willing to wait a week to find out the results if I KNEW the results were 100% accurate. Sadly, however, I doubt that we will ever go for accuracy over speed.

Aww, that's so precious.

You entirely misuse both the words "corporatist" and "fascism", but I expect no less from someone who has yet to understand how to properly apply apostrophes - a process that is surely comparable in complexity to nuclear physics. Corporatism has nothing to do with corporations. Corporatism is the principles of rule for an organization or political unit. Try looking up words, and not just making them up.

Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Notice the word corporate isn't mentioned in there. Nor is bankruptcy or the internet. In fact, one would infer from the term "stringent socioeconomic controls" that in a fascist system corporations, if they did exist, would be beholden to the government, rather than the other way around. In a fascist state, the State is everything - the idea of a fascist being beholden to corporations is inane, ridiculous. Fascists want a police state, not a corporate state.

Your entire argument is so childish as to be laughable: it all boils down to "If they're more conservative than me, they're fascist." This was, you'll recall, similar to the approach McCarthy took with liberals: "If they're more liberal than me, they're communists." This is why the nuancy of words is being lost: because people bandy them about as political labels. Centrism, conservatism, and fascism are all separate concepts, just like socialism and communism are, but ideological mudslingers have destroyed the language.

Moreover, you seem to hate the one wing of the Democratic Party that actually wins Presidential elections. After all, it's now been thirty years since a liberal Democrat got elected President, and he had the huge benefit of running against Gerald Ford. So is every single one of your principles so important to you that you'll never support (in a primary) a Democrat who isn't entirely in agreement with them? Wouldn't a moderate Democrat be much better to have in the White House than the right-wing fearmonger we have sitting there now?

Politics isn't a zero-sum game. I find candidates to support who agree with the majority of what I think, and who I think will make some positive progress on the issues of concern to me. For instance, I don't expect to elect a President in favor of gay marriage any time soon, but if we could at least elect one who didn't want to twist the Constitution into banning it, I'd be happy.

Plus, the Democratic Party is the party of diversity, of inclusion and independent thinking. We're not the party of ideological ridgity, of exclusion and formulaic thinking. That's the GOP. If I wanted everyone to agree with me all the time, and come from a wealthy background, I'd be a Republican. But I want a lot of views, and a lot of different backgrounds. It's hypocrtical to kick out Lieberman for being too conservative, then turn around and criticize

I don't condemn people for disagreeing with me, and I don't toss about innacurate political labels to attack members of my own party. For my two cents, I'd rather elect a moderate Democrat with experience and seniority than a limousine liberal who's exploiting people's fears. If Ned LaMont represents the Democratic Party you want to build, you'll find a party with fewer and fewer minorities and fewer and fewer people of moderate means. If you want a Democratic Congressional Caucus full of white Christian preppies, then Ned's your guy. If you want to continue to be the party of diversity and tolerance, then you should support Lieberman - whether you agree with him or not.

You cannot be serious. You're quoting a dictionary definition of "fascism" and then pointing out that the words "bankruptcy," "corporate" and "Internet" don't happen to be explicitly mentioned within it as proof of ... what? How silly you can appear?



Actually, they would act as largely one and the same. Corporations, with their unimagineable wealth and influence, and the government would become so closely linked, so inextricably tied together, that to speak of one being beholden to the other would be missing the point. You'd have people in office who also hold prominent, leadership positions in corporations, as that is where the power is. To speak of the government would be almost to speak of certain corporations by extension, and you could be sure that in any war effort, certain corporations would stand to get juicy contracts and benefit massively.

Good thing that doesn't happen here, huh?

Ahh, I get it. Because you disagree with my point it's silly. Gotcha. I'll keep that in mind in the future.
Lieberman was being defined as a fascist by his positions on those issues. You missed the broader point that issues on positions do not make one a fascist; it's an overall philosophy, not a set of policies.


It does happen here, but it's not called fascism, and it's not limited to any one party or ideology. It's called fundraising. Deal with it, or move to a country that doesn't have elections.

fascism (fâsh'iz'em) n.
A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. [Ital. fascio, group.] -fas'cist n. -fas-cis'tic (fa-shis'tik) adj.

According to the "Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48", Fascism is defined as

A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government; -- opposed to Democracy and Liberalism. (Source WordNet v1.5)
An authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities. Such regimes usually try to achieve popularity by a strongly nationalistic appeal, often mixed with racism. [PJC]
Specifically, the Fascist movement led by Benito Mussolini in Italy from 1922 to 1942. [PJC]
Broadly, a tendency toward or support of a strongly authoritarian or dictatorial control of government or other organizations; -- often used pejoratively in this sense [PJC].

I never said Conservatism was Fascism, Toni.
Nor have I said those that disagree with me are fascists.

Mussolin's fascism is BY DEFINITION a merger of the State with Corporate entities resulting in an authoritarian rule.

As ususal your blather of diarhea postings doesn't change reality.

Regarding the apostrophe usage...who the fuck gives a shit?

I don't.

Lieberman is a Fascist, darling. With a capital "F". He's no more a Democrat then Karl Rove.

You're labelling people who disagree with you a fascist, hence proving my point.

LaMont is a fascist, and not a Democrat. That makes as much sense as what you say. By your own definition Lieberman is not a fascist. Nobody who's pro-choice can be accused sanely of tilting to the "extreme right".

Fine. I'm going to define anyone who calls Lieberman a fascist as anti-semitic. Happy now? Have fun running Jewish people out of the Democratic Party.

Definition of who's who in American political parties:

Democrat (noun): Anyone who's registered to vote in the Democratic Party.

Republican (noun): Anyone who's registered to vote in the Republican Party.

No set of beliefs define what party you're in. One can believe anything and be in either party. Neither you, nor anyone else, has a right to arbitrarily tell anyone they're not in any party. You are not our Fuhrer. This is not the Kendratenland. Grow up.

There are many politicians I don't agree with, that I don't label as being Fascist.
John McCain -- don't agree with him at all. He's not a Fascist though.
Richard Nixon -- horrible creepy man. Terrible President. Not a Fascist.
Gerald Ford -- didn't agree with at all. Not a Fascist.
Bob Dole --don't agree with at all. Not a Fascist.

Bush Jr. Fascist
Dick Cheney. Fascist
Condoleeza Rice. Fascist
Donald Rumsfeld Fascist.
Paul Wolfowitz. Fascist

Bill Clinton. Not a Fascist. Just a crass opportunist
Hilary Clinton. Fascist






Lieberman is a neo-con. Neo-cons are fascist. Hence Lieberman is a Fascist.
Fascism has nothing to do with stance on abortion rights. Are you insane?


Your understanding of what Fascism actually is , is terribly limited.



I'm Jewish, BTW. No doubt you'll call me a self-loathing Jew because I don't automatically think all Jews are above being Fascists.

What Party is Lieberman running with for his Senate Seat again?

Hold on there, KB.
It has nothing to do with bankruptcy or freedom of the internet, either. So if you can define fascism by positions Lieberman took on other issues, I can define him as not being a Fascist because he's pro-choice.
I think being pro-life is a position of the "extreme right", therefore anyone who is pro-life is Fascist, to use your so-called logic.
Oh, to use one of your *two* definitions, I don't think Lieberman ever made any public statement advocating "authoritarian hierarchical government", has he? Well, not a fascist, then. Or can you read his mind? You must! Otherwise, how would you know his political philosophy?


What you meant to write was "You disagree with me. Therefore you are a moron." Honestly, do you ever consider any views that aren't your own? What a small, tiny little world you must live in. Really quite sad. You know, my Democratic Party has room for anyone, of any race, religion, or political belief. That's how you win elections, you see. By being diverse, inclusive, having a big tent. Extremists like yourself are destroying the party and everything it stands for.


No, I just think it's too bad you think anyone who disagrees with you is a fascist.

Yes it does, Toni --The bankruptcy bill and the bill on net neutrailty are rewards for the corporate elite.

Pro-Life issues on the other hand feed a small base of voters who wish to have a theocracy.

The current administration serves 2 masters.

Lieberman serves the Fascists. Frist serves the Theocrats.

Again --you think it's about the false divide of Democrat and Republican. YOU are part of the problem because you buy into what the Corporate Media is throwing at you.




That's your logic. Not mine. Pro-Life issues have zip to do with Fascism --unless you consider it as a manufactured issue (and it is) that serves the Fascist agenda to divide the populace over meaningless issues.




He does it with his votes.






By his voting record.




I don't think you're a moron. Don't put words in my mouth.



Frequently.



You win elections by standing for something. What do you stand for?




Nope. We are saving it by not allowing it to become Republican lite.





As I've made quite clear to anyone but you it seems....I don't think that at all.

I don't agree with BillyBob for example --and I don't think he's a Fascist.

I don't agree with you at all, I don't think you're a Fascist either. I think you're a diletante.

Irrelevant to fascism, yet again. Good red herring though.


Yes, because I disagree with you I must be buying into the Corporate Media. Actually, you're totally failing to understand American politics by weaving complex conspiracy theories that make no sense.


I suppose it's meaningless to people who are more interested in partisan puritanism that solving problems and governing, or women's health.


That's your interpretation, not an absolute. Or do you think everything you think is necessarily always correct?


It's OK, we all know what you meant.


I'm so tired of this bullsh*t. Moderates, centrists, whatever you want to say, stand for something. They just don't stand for partisan ideolatry and endless mudslinging. And the whole party doesn't stand for things - that's not how American politics works. Individual candidates stand for their individual positions, and the party hierarchy helps them get elected. The overall party platform is really quite meaningless, and that's not a bad thing, and it's not going to change.

But no, I'm right on how to win elections - why do you think Clinton got two terms? Because he was a liberal extremist? Get a clue.


No, your version of the party is less inclusive than the GOP, and I didn't think that was possisble. It's thanks to people like you that Bush won two straight elections, and it's thanks to people like you that we'll get someone worse next time if we don't wake up and nominate a reasonable Democrat who appeals to a majority

John McCain my favorite current politician
Richard Nixon= bumbling buffoon
Gerald Ford got screwed by Nixon
Bob Dole- does he even know wtf he's saying?

I was wondering when I'd be called a fascist oh wait I wasn't!!!!
/me dances like the gopher from Caddyshack!

John McCain is the biggest fake. Everything he says, everything he does, and every vote he makes is structured just to get him media exposure. As far as I can figure out he has no consistent positions on 90% of the issues. If the GOP wants to nominate a flip-flopper, he's their guy.

*snort*
you must mean

Didn't say I liked him. Just said he wasn't a fascist.

Clinton won two terms because of NAFTA support and heavy Corporate backing.
Clinton was the best Republican President this country had in a century.

Again you resort to the same tired ad-hominems and strawman arguments that make debate with you meaningless, Toni.

You may not like this but your opinion is irrelevant to me. You stand for nothing because you believe in nothing. The Country is catching up to the fact that liberalism works and DINOs like Lieberman are in the way. So are you.

Sound familiar??

http://www.spiritone.com/%7Egdy52150/chpt1.htm