Voting indie won't get Bush out, though.

It's funny to think: if not for Ralph Nader, David Kelly would still be alive today! Maybe.

Why? Voting indie got Gore out. SWISH!

It also got the first Bush out.

When people talk about "skull and bones" and people who are secret conspiro-terrorists it's hard for me to go on thinking they are, oh what's the word.

Sane.

Coming up with strange conspiracies is kind of a civic cop-out to me. "Oh I can't fix this because Skull and Bones controls everything anyway". The richer you are, the fewer people are in your peer group, and the more you know the same people. Big deal, it's not a conspiracy.

You should think Kerry is a phoney because he's worth a billion dollars, not because he was in skull and bones.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I don't think Skull & Bones run everything, you cockmonger. BUT, douchebuggy, BUT the Skull & Bones guys are a big glad-handing fraternity. Period. They're all buddies. I never said anything about conspiracies. You added your own paranoid connotation to it. Blame yourself, MaKKie boy.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Then what is it? A harmless click that never tries to change the rules for their own benefit?

Does that sound sane...

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

They might work for their own interests, but saying they run the show completely is kind of silly. I think it's a cop-out for citizens avoiding their reposibilities in a democracy. If you don't like something, you CAN work to change something.

What is it exactly that Skull and Bones is doing to screw over everyone? And if you have an answer to that, do you have no recourse against what they are doing?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Using reason with MaKK_BeNN is like throwing pearls before swine. I don't see the point in wasting it.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

My understanding of Skull and Bones is that they watch each other's backs. We've had presidents that weren't in Skull and Bones I'm sure you disagreed with also. It seems like a non-issue to me.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

A while back, I said Clark would whip GWB's ass if the Dems would only nominate him. Doesn't look like that's going to happen. I feared the alternative of a Dean candidacy, which would surely herald a Republican landslide in the general election.

Kerry came out of nowhere, in my view, but I think he's going to win the nomination and go on to beat Bush. Dean badly lost the first two primaries and is not seriously contesting the next 7. He's getting nothing but "campaign in disarray" coverage after dumping his campaign manager.

Makk brings up the weird 114-96 Dean lead over Kerry in terms of delegates. I don't understand it either, but it's not terribly significant: That 18-delegate gap is less than 1% of the 2100-something needed to win the nom. Dean's momentum is broken, and Kerry is surging.

The last poll I saw showed a majority of Americans wanting to replace GWB. Not the best sign for a sitting wartime President.

So say hello to President Kerry. And wouldn't it be great if he put Clark on the ticket?

---
What others say about boorite!

The funny thing is about the Dean/Kerry issue is that Kerry is virtually unknown amongst a lot of the people down New York way. We all know Dean, Clark, and even Kucinich, but not Kerry and especially not Edwards. I know of Kerry because somehow his campaign got a hold of my email address and has been propagandizing me for the last 6 months, but why the fuck is he winning?

Could it be YEEEEEAAAAAAAUUUUGGGGHHHH? Who does he appeal to?

Anyway, as for the Skull & Bones, I'll stick with Spankling. I certainly don't need to waste my reason on MaKK. Everyone else understands what Skull & Bones are about, and no one is saying they run everything or are an Illuminati cult. MaKK has been so brainwashed by the right that he sees Conspiracy Theorist fixations everywhere.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Again, Skull and Bones would be a side-effect of being wealthy and privelged. If you dislike Kerry, I just think it's a little deceptive to say "oh he was in Skull and Bones, he's the same as Bush", when you're just saying "I don't like him because he's wealthy and priveleged". Unlike this other candidate, _________, who is not wealthy and priveleged.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

White House seizes notes from 9/11 Commission

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Sweet, looks like Bush is safe! ;)

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Dammit, it's hard to stay slightly right-wing when your only choice is fucking up right and left. I hate all the left wingers, and I certainly don't want them in office, but I don't want Bush either! This next election is a no-win situation for moderates, especially ones who are against this amnesty crap.

Dammit Bush, stop fucking up!

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

Huh? Is a left-winger running? Did I miss something?

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

Kucinich isn't running in anything but the primary and he's the only one I'd consider a left-winger.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

The only leftists running are Sharpton and Kucinich. Edwards could be left of center, economically. He's letting fly with a lot of populist, class-struggle talk.

---
What others say about boorite!

Yes, Sharpton is leftist. You're right, boorite. I guess I just don't take Sharpton's candidacy seriously, although I would like to. I wish people would take him more seriously, because he held his own on Politically Incorrect a few weeks back.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

The mark of a true candidate is holding one's own on Politically Incorrect, Saturday Night Live, and Conan O'Brian.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Goddamnit, i want a proper comedy president. One who does fuck all but makes us laugh by making an ass of himself all the time.

I want a president who says "Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhhh"

---
"Life Sucks, Then you Die. The bit inbetween isnt very funny either"

quote:

---

Goddamnit, i want a proper comedy president. One who does fuck all but makes us laugh by making an ass of himself all the time.

I want a president who says "Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhhh"

---

honestly, it doesn't matter if we have a democrat or a republican in office right now: they differ only in terms of taxes and religion, and the budget is only part of the larger problem-- and as far as it's represented in politics, fuck religion. Bush took the democrats' agenda of Homeland Security as well as the democrats' various social programs and created a totalitarian government under the guise of "national security". A democrat Pres, regardless of altruistic motives, is only going to build the federal government into something larger, which some future Bush could then use to monitor/regulate the American people-- which will always be the flipside to "providing" for the people. we need a smaller federal government, and that isn't a part of anybody's campaign promises.

every part of human life is becoming regulated. laws are being passed to permit or prohibit everything. laws are replacing morality, and decisions are being transfered from the individual to the government. pretty soon the only decision you'll be able to make is: "am i going to break the law today?" this isn't a conspiracy. this is a long history of elected officials not trusting anyone's ability to make a decision, because they think that we're all idiots, and even if a lot of us are idiots, i still think we have to trust each other to a certain extent. we shouldn't allow law to replace individual judgment. law is always a generalized statement (whose meaning gets argued in a court) that is inevitably incapable of catering to the discrepancies of particular situations.

because we're all "idiots", we're not told the real reasons behind governmental decisions (which is also not a conspiracy; it's what politicians believe is a practicality). Bush believes you have to spend money to make money. meanwhile, he knew that Sadam was a potential problem to US interests in the middle east, particularly after 9/11. however, in addition to being a threat, because it's the largest country in the middle east, as well as the most centrally located country, Iraq is also a strategic location: should the US have a democracy there representing its interests. furthermore, it's the third largest known oil reserve in the world; while the US wouldn't get Iraq's oil in a war, it would get the bids for contracts to update those oilfields to "US standards," for which all parts have to come from the US. in contractors and consultants alone, the US will make back the money it spent in going to war with Iraq (an initial investment from the "spend money to make money" perspective). so, to avoid violating international law (you can't initiate a war), he used rhetoric to transform an offensive gesture into a defensive one: "pre-emptive strike", which isn't entirely false (although the threat was never immediate or inevitable).

because america's politicians think its citizens to be idiots (which they're unwittingly enforcing by increasing citizens' dependence on law for making decisions-- such as even suicide, which is against the law, BTW), the politicians didn't think to let americans know these alternative motives for the iraq war. neither the republicans nor the majority of the democrats (there were a few, such as Senator Byrd) brought up alternative reasons for going to war. as such, americans didn't get to vote on the moral issues. instead, we listened to WMD, links to bin Laden, etc., and beyond that we were told to trust that our government knows what's best for us... and they really think that's true, too. they think they know what's best for us, because they think we're idiots who can't think for ourselves.

so, regardless if it's Kerry or Bush or Dean or whoever, it's more big government, more governmental programs, more regulation, more removal of the american people from ever even finding the reasons behind governmental actions. more dog and pony show. we argue over whether abortion or gay marriage should be legal, and we never stop to think that either way it's been regulated: either way a court made the decision for us.

sorry this message was so long. next time i'll just say "fuck it. this election sucks."

---
i want to piss on you

That's fucked. Bush needs to go.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

graykane, I like you even more now. You're spouting the truth. No conspiracies, no "this side is more wronger than that side", no "this guy is responsible for all the trouble in the world, and this guy would fix it". I failed to truly visualize what I saw wrong, but you've put it forth in such a way that I can actually point to it and go "THERE, this is what I'm fuckin' talking about". NO, I don't think Bush is a great president. But NO I don't think Kerry, Howard Dean, Lieberman, Edwards, or any of the other clowns would do any better of a job. That's right. I think they all suck equally.

I'm not going to sit here and say "yeah, okay, I guess you've got a point. He says he will do one thing better". I'm not going to play along anymore, handing out concessions to both parties.

What I would like to ask of everyone is: how the fuck are we going to make it better? Revolt? Tough chance getting a nation that can't agree on weather or not "In God We Trust" is still okay, or weather killing those who kill others is still okay, or weather we need to care for our sick and needy. It's ridiculous.

Hell, even the indifferent are flamed for being indifferent! "Choose a side or die by the fire!" is the call heard throughout the country. What is so fucking evil about remaining neutral? Both sides hate neutrality because you're either with them or against them. Since everyone hates neutrality so damned much, let's attack Canada and Switzerland. Before Canada attacks us first!

That would really fuck with my head. "We are Canada! We are here to claim this country in the name of the Maple Leaf! If you do not comply, we will use our magical Canadian powers to freeze the United States, then only we will be able to survive!"

Oh, yeah. I think I forgot my medicine today!!!!!!!

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

Wah??

It's law! You don't like law?

Do you have any examples?

You already make that decision if you drive 1 mph over the speed limit. You're ignoring the other side of law, which is enforcement. Sodomy laws have been on the books for over a hundred years in the U.S., they aren't new inventions. And as far as I know they aren't beginning to be enforced.

Make what better, and in what way?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

it's true. look it up. the democrats proposed the dept of homeland security prior to 9/11.

i don't like law replacing morals. i don't like law perpetually enhancing its governance, namely over how the human body gets used.

you wanted examples: euthanasia, abortion, gay marriage, gay parenthood [BTW, the term "homosexual" didn't appear until Freud (early 20thC); prior, the act was seen merely as an act and not as a state of being that automatically positions a person on the wrong side of the law], the right to bear arms, sexual behaviors (which did begin in the late 18thC but ever since then has found an increasing articulation in the law), domestic disputes (yelling at a roommate now constitutes domestic violence, and should one of the two bother to call the police, the police are now required by law to make an arrest; legally, the police can no longer make a judgment call), other disputes (arrests for merely fighting didn't happen until the latter half of the 20thC), sound ordinances, trading music or any other "product" (previously, the law prohibited merely earning a profit on the distribution of another entity's product)...

i'll write more, but for now that'll have to do since i have to go to work soon.

sodomy laws have been enforced. i know of one case in florida from just a couple years ago in which a man as an alibi, under pressure from the prosecuting attorney, said that he was receiving a blowjob from his wife. as a result, he was tried for sodomy and convicted. (blowjobs fall under the sodomy laws in several states.)

by the way, most roads outside of towns didn't have speed limits until after the 1960s. furthermore, insurance laws have increased to such an extreme degree that you can no longer own a vehicle that is not insured, even if that vehicle is missing an engine and wheels (i got into trouble for that ten years ago). that wasn't the case prior to the 1980s.

there are two ways the law governs: guilty/not guilty; liable/not liable. the primary enhancement of the law, at least prior to 9/11, has been the latter: liable/not liable, and that began in the 1980s.

i hope that ties you over until i can get back her to better address those questions. as for the part on "what do we do about this?", that wasn't my question, so hopefully someone else can answer you there.

---
i want to piss on you