The society the GOP wants to create is not a society worth defending against terrorism.

---
So, if Bush wins re-election, you'll root for the terrorists?
---

Since Bush will probably get re-elected,

---
I put it at 50-50 right now, and I'm a Bush supporter! Bush is not going to win an easy re-election victory. I doubt he'll get more than 300 Electorial College votes, even if he wins...
---

this means that the United States will shortly become a society not worth defending against terrorism.

---
"Yeah! Go Osama!" (Idiot...)
---

Under Bush II, we will witness savage tax increases

---
Not likely.
---

and spending cuts

---
Also unlikey.
---

to stanch the deficit.

---
Economic growth will go a long way towards minimizing the deficit in the short term.
---

Privatized Social Security will impoverish the lower classes.

---
Er...actually, it will be optional, and will almost certainly lead to better returns for those opting in...
---

The military will continue to grow beyond society's ability to pay for it.

---
The US does not spend an extraordinary amount of money on defense when compared to overall GDP. You wanna see overspending on the military? Look at North Korea...
---

Religious extremists will reign.

---
How so?
---

The impoverished bottom fifth of the population will be left to fend for itself while elites continue to loot the state.

---
The lower classes are better off now than at any other time in our nation's history.
---

Republicans, in solid control of all three branches of government, will be free to impose their secretive agenda without regard to public opposition.

---
Uh, they have control of both Houses of Congress and the Executive Branch already. (And some say the Supreme Court as well.) But there is plenty of open opposition to the GOP. So, your argument is inane at best...
---

The republic will essentially be liquidated.

---
Right...
---

And so I say that on November 3, 2004, the United States will most likely cease to be a society worth defending against terrorism. On that day, for me, it's going to be pencils down.

---
For the third time, you tacitly support the terrorists who want to kill all of us. I'm guessing you're a Kerry supporter?
---

Sounds pretty depressing there, Mike. Want I should loan you money for a bullet, or did you just want to whine some more? Boo, hoo, hoo.

Oy.

(Shark glances at irrational fellow anti-Bushite and wishes he was on the other side at the moment)

Red Rover, Red Rover, can Sharky come over...

(Shark flees into the open arms of a laughing red, white, and blue elephant, only to be crushed at the last second.)

Oy.

Lah dee dah.

I didn't say I was rooting for the terrorists, you dufus [comment #1]. I'm saying the U.S. may shortly lose its legitimacy as a superior moral civilization.

If that happens, most people around the world will stop caring one way or the other about whether the U.S. can prevail. It's just not going to be a priority as they assess whether the guy heading off to the U.S. with a bomb in his pocket is something they should be concerned about.

And that's not a country I want to live in.

Superior moral civilization? Where the fuck did that come from? Outside its own bellybutton, the USA is the home of fat, arrogant, not too bright banjo players. And that's on a good day.

When we think of the USA, we are bullied into thinking of a drunk redneck with a loaded pistol, and we just hope he blows off his own head before taking out a bystander. Sort of like neighbours who hold loud crack parties and shit on your lawn. But aside from that, are somewhat nice people.

While I do think America has (had?) the opportunity to advocate the moral and democratic high road in international politics, I do think it's always interesting to see what our neighbors think about us.

You may disagree with the characterization, but you can't deny that that's at least one perception.

~Shark~ (who sees or *Canadian nieghbors as really nice, incredibly well-mannered, extremely boring people who drink beer and watch hockey)

*Very similar to my fellow Texans, except without the manners and the hockey.

PS: If I have to explain this is a joke, I'm gonna have to kill somethin'.

mike bud, you are feeling even more apocalyptic than usual today? You (collective, nonpersonal) can disagree with the war on terror, the Patriot Act (elements overreach), the consolidation of the media (I'm with you there), corporate corruption (ditto), government sponsorship of right-Christian morality (ditto), and whatever else, without it being the end of the world as we know it. As I have stated many times, things are no "worse" (from the perspective of someone who buys all of the above) than they have been at many othertimes in our history, and overall (big picture economy, equal rights, self-determination, access to education), they are better than at almost any time n our history.

Why so glum?

Interesting Mike, my Mother-in-law happens to feel exactly the same way...except she feels it will happen if Kerry wins the election. For years now I've noticed the increasingly shrill cries from one side or the other "If (insert candidate here) get's elected it will be the greatest catastrophe in the world, and America will never recover. It will be the end of the world as we know it." I personally have heard this from either republicans or democrats since Nixon was elected, and for every President since Nixon. The reason that those dire predictions have not come to pass is because of the nature of our government and society. So, take your meds and get a good night's sleep. It will all be okay as long as everyone keeps fighting the good fight (whichever side of the fight they are on). It's when we stop fighting for what we believe in that there will be problems.

"Why so glum?"

Glum? I'm living large, baby. If I'm not living in Canada by November 3, 2004, I'll be kicking back, knowing I don't have to lift a finger to support the war on terror. Free at last, free at last........

"It will be the end of the world as we know it....The reason that those dire predictions have not come to pass is because of the nature of our government and society."

You're right. It seems like the just the other day--September 10, 2001, in fact--when I was staring out at the beautiful New York skyline and thinking, "You know, this country's totally safe. We'd never fall under the sway of a far right government that would ignore the previous administration's warnings on terrorists just because it didn't like its politics. I mean, this is America."

Oh, wait.......

Chicken Little...I mean Mike. I love the way you never let logic get in the way of your ranting. I would argue with your comments in #10, but I realize that, like a good suicide bomber, your fanaticism won't be denied. So good luck, and let us know where you end up after the election.

And since September 11, 2001, there has not been a single subsequent terrorist attack due to the very things you abhor.

Please do move to Canada, we'll all be better off for it.

Are you implying that, if Bush should win the election, we should just pull back, dismantle every cabinet and organization devoted to stopping terrorism and wait for the bombs to fall and biochemical warfare to begin?

Perhaps your brain is clouded by bad judgment and you are not seeing the future clearly. While another four years of Bush may not be your ideal world, it is certainly far from the gloom, doom and apocalyptic scenario you set before us. The world will not end.

However, if more people had the same attitude as you, the world probably would end. If everyone just gave up and decided to the let the terrorists do what they want, it would be the beginning of the demise of civilization. Billions would perish because your tin foil hat was screwed on too tight.

Not worth defending? Are you really that self-centered and egotistical that you think we should shut down our defenses because you don't like Republicans?

This country is certainly worth defending and to say anything different is repugnant. Even people I know who are so far left they make Chomsky look like Ann Coulter would never say a thing like that. Hate the country, hate the president, hate the laws. But to say that everything in the United States is not worth the fight is ignorant, foolhardy and must come from the mind of a petty, bitter, selfish man.

So, when November 3rd comes around and your choice doesn't get the nod, are you going to openly support the terrorists? Or are you just going to drink the rest of that Kool-Aid and keel over?

Go ahead, drink it. You're a complete disgrace to humanity, anyhow.

...Glum? I'm living large, baby. If I'm not living in Canada by November 3, 2004, I'll be kicking back, knowing I don't have to lift a finger to support the war on terror. Free at last, free at last...........

Why wait til November, Mike? Why don't you go now? Write me in a bit and let me know how that socialized medicine thing is working out for you, k?

Lah dee dah.

I'll be kicking back on my Nova Scotia commune with my two lesbian wives, listening to Howard Stern and smoking pot--covered by health insurance, of course.

"Ernest Hemingway once wrote, 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for.' I agree with the second part" (Morgan Freeman's character in "Se7en," I think).

Yes, at any given time in history, there have always been some who say that the end is near. But before any given disaster or atrocity in history, there have always been many who have labeled the alarmists as crazy loons. How can you know if the "loony" is going to be right this time? Logic, reason, instincts.

Several times since I have been at Blogcritics, some have questioned the reliability of some of the news sources that I have cited from time to time (do note that I read mainstream and conservative media as well as alternative press publications--damn assumptions!). Weighing the validity of sources is a lot like deciding how you feel about the state of things in our country--the end is near, or we can pull ourselves up from the bootstraps, or Big Brother rules, or Bush couldn't possibly have an evil, greedy agenda, etc. It comes down to your ability to think logically (as opposed to emotionally), your ability to be unbiased (this one is loaded--we could have a long philosophical discussion about how one can know when one is unbiased), and your instincts and gut feelings.

I see so much bullshit in our society, much of it in the mainstream media. If your parents didn't teach you that politicians are full of shit, then your parents might have been alien imposters. I can't think of a dad whom I know who hasn't at some point exclaimed that politicians lie. We see lying, dissembling and obvious attempts at the circumvention of logic all the time. George Will, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, George Bush, and Dick Cheney regularly throw logic out of the window, preferring to manipulate and trickily persuade people. So do James Carville, Bill Clinton, George Stephanopoulos, Chris Matthews and a bunch of liberals in politics and the media. Some will be biased and simply throw "bombs" at the other side, only seeing the other side as false and manipulative while holding up their own side as the voice of reason and truth. This is clearly bias--you should consider both sides if you are attempting not to be biased.

Another alternative is to go only mainstream--if the majority believes it to be true, then it must be true. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are two of the biggest, most respected newspapers in the US. I go to them, and one side says that these "mainstream" sources are liberal and biased. I go to the other side, and they say that these sources are corporately run and biased toward big business--the truth often gets filtered out (yep, Chomsky) or mellowed out (the truth on marijuana) when it is something that will impede the corporate agenda. We have a free press? There have certainly been many times in history when the mainstream media was completely biased and manipulative: e.g., Nazi Germany, Communist China, Saddam's Iraq--and maybe now the US? In the past, the mainstream media was biased and contorted in America. What else could have been the case when the nation was divided during the Civil War? So much for assuming that the mainstream press and the majority always hold the truth.

Ultimately, it is about logic. When you see a repeated use of logical fallacies and manipulative techniques, then you should question the validity of the source. When you see an argument or source that only relies on facts and logical conjecture, then you may be a lot closer to the truth. But the facts. . . the facts. These are thrown around like students' papers on the last day of school. Statistics are manipulated. People are misquoted or quoted out of context. Assessing what is fact is much more difficult than noticing when logic is fallacious (no, Al, not fellatio). When "facts" are unchallenged, then that leads me to believe that they are true, although I always wonder. If one side ignores a fact and avoids discussing it, then it also may be a sign that the fact is true. When I look at media which has a political bias, I evaluate the factual content in this way. If the logic holds up and it is not deceptive and manipulative, then it most likely is true.

What about these "loonies," then? If you are labeled a "loony," then you should try to make your case using logic and facts, citing seemingly factual sources that have not been legitimately challenged. Those who fail this essential step deserve to be labeled loonies--or at least idiots. If you are labeling someone a loony, then you must do so using logic and facts that stand up as well--else you deserve to be called a loony, idiot, lazy bastard, whatever. Merely labeling another's sources as invalid and unreliable is not so good either. Contest the facts. Don't be lazy. It will wind up being a benefit to you and to all with whom you argue.

Wait a minute. That sounds like a lot of work. It's a lot easier to be a lazy loony wacko idiot bastard--or to be someone who simply labels others thusly. The cool thing about blogging is that I am starting to develop a database of previous arguments that I have blogged. Often I can link to them to make some of my points instead of starting over.

Whatever you do, don't give up, man.

Mikey, there would be no Nova Scotia if America gave up its war on terror.

You're bitching about something you're sucking off of.

Dirtgrain, If Chris Matthews is considered a Liberal, then the End must truly be near.

Shit. I just switched over to Mike's side.

* * *

My advice to Mike is to study history: preferably, France, 1940-45.

Options:

1) sit back and do nothing;
2) flee the country;
3) work for the Vichy government;
4) get a black sweater, a black beret, join the FFI, and make some pipe bombs in your basement.

No wait, #4 would be terrorism. And a fashion faux pas to boot. Never mind. Forget it.

4) Just kill yourself now.


And save some for me. ...Chris Matthews...urgh...

Mike: "You know, this country's totally safe."

You are just being foolish. Nothing in life is safe. It's not safe to get out of bed, take a shower, drive your car, eat or anything else for that matter. Cell phones explode, meteors come through the ceiling and blow up printers. Grow up. Face reality.

"Since Bush will probably get re-elected, this means that the United States will shortly become a society not worth defending against terrorism."

If Bush is re-elected, then nothing will politically change from what it is now, so what's with the "will shortly"?

Such dribble.

Max

re: LOGIC and other illusions and armaments of the Verbose, Didactic Warrior, I have to quote the great Tristan Tzara, which sums it all up for Shark:

"The system of quickly looking at the other side of a thing in order to impose your opinion indirectly is called dialectics, in other words, haggling over the spirit of French Fries while dancing the method around."

"Options: 1) sit back and do nothing"

That's what I'll be doing.

Mike,

You are a real boofhead. Go to Canada now. But whatever you do, don't come down here to Australia.

People who bad mouth there own country and threaten to leave it should do so.

I'm sure you will increase the intelligence of both Canada and the USA by your emigration.

"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at will change." - Dr.Wayne Dyer

Well that's interesting - an Aussie calling the whole great country of Canada dumber than the U. S.

Too much Vegemite, mate?

"I didn't say I was rooting for the terrorists, you dufus [comment #1]. I'm saying the U.S. may shortly lose its legitimacy as a superior moral civilization."

We'd have to do an awful lot worse than Bush to lose our legitimacy as a moral civilization superior to the Islamist terrorists!

You really think that anything on your list would lead to a worse society than the ones that our enemies are running?

You might have said, "The society the GOP wants to create is not a society that terrorists will even waste their time attacking." I mean, if you were trying to say something REALLY STUPID, and not merely stupid.

Now scuse me whiles ah go look fer that there galldurned gun o mine. Pesky naybers are takin a dump on ma lawn. Prolly high on crack or sumpin. Billy Jo, put down that galldurned banjo and hep me find that there gun o mine, ya fat ass ya! Shheeeiiit!

Shark, give the Canadians a little more credit. They are far more than "really nice, incredibly well-mannered, extremely boring people who drink beer and watch hockey," although it's nice to be nice. They have really cool Northern Lights, great icefishing, are right next to the USA, including Alaska, have lots o trees, Montreal (a big, beautiful international kinda city), PLUS a recent white paper on the defence (that's how they spell it up there) of Canada states that "Canadian Forces will remain prepared to deploy on UN operations contingency forces of up to a maritime task group, a brigade group plus an infantry battalion group, a wing of fighter aircraft, and a squadron of tactical transport aircraft. Were these forces to be deployed simultaneously, this could conceivably involve as many as 10,000 personnel." (whoa!),
and their high-energy physics laboratories are the envy of the scientific community. Well...uh...maybe not that last thing....

Comment 26: hahahahahaaaaaaaa :0)