Does a person who drives a pick-up while the price of gas keeps going up show any better judgement than someone who can't park straight?
27 -
andy marsh
Oct 26, 2004 at 12:18 pm
maybe my choice of vehicle 4 years ago would have been a little different if gas prices were what they are now. But what I drive, doesn't stop you from getting in your car when it's raining outside!
28 -
JR
Oct 26, 2004 at 12:27 pm
Anybody who didn't see rising gas prices coming probably doesn't have good enough judgement to vote.
29 -
andy marsh
Oct 26, 2004 at 12:39 pm
you're absolutely right...but I'm voting anyway (already did)...and I'm pretty sure it's not the way you would like.
30 -
boomcrashbaby
Oct 26, 2004 at 1:05 pm
I don't know when this polarization started, whether it was with Newt's failed policies as has been claimed, or with the 2000 election and the disenfranchisement of millions, but the days of referring to a candidate as "my distinguished opponent" is clearly over. Now, with pundits and bloggers and the political parties just basically in a verbal civil war, I can't help but feel that one of the casualties of this will be compromise. I think we are headed towards a winner-take-all mentality. What's next, civil war? We've already got large Christian groups that want to cede from America, making South Carolina it's own nation. Where are we headed as a country? Sometimes I wonder if terrorism, while a HUGE priority, isn't the most dangerous threat to our amber waves of grain anymore.
What is responsible for this polarization between us as a country? What did it?
31 -
JR
Oct 26, 2004 at 2:05 pm
What's next, civil war? We've already got large Christian groups that want to cede from America, making South Carolina it's own nation.
It only leads to civil war if we don't let them secede. If the Christian Right wants to start their own country, let them. I would no sooner compromise with them than I would with Stalin or bin Laden. As I said before, we can't get along together; so let's don't try.
32 -
Shark
Oct 26, 2004 at 3:45 pm
"...It only leads to civil war if we don't let them secede. If the Christian Right wants to start their own country, let them."
Then we can expect more "faith-based" terrorism -- similar to what brought down the twin towers in NYC.
Personally, I can't wait for an American Civil War; I'm armed to the teeth as it is; it's just a matter of me driving down South 35 to Waco with all three of my 12 year old brides.
It only leads to civil war if we don't let them secede. If the Christian Right wants to start their own country, let them. I would no sooner compromise with them than I would with Stalin or bin Laden. As I said before, we can't get along together; so let's don't try.
What do you do when they start harbouring terrorists?
34 -
boomcrashbaby
Oct 26, 2004 at 3:55 pm
The secessionists were actually to illustrate a bigger problem. While their views are extreme, there's still the polarization of the left and right, where conservatives call dissenters traitors, where election offices get broken into, etc.
The fundamentalists who want South Carolina were used to show a divide, but even if they 'leave' the divide is still there among the rest of us and just growing and growing. Does nobody know what is to blame? It started before 9/11, but Iraq seems to be the straw that broke the camels back.
35 -
boomcrashbaby
Oct 26, 2004 at 4:08 pm
Hmm, maybe it was the witch hunt by Kenneth Starr and the right. It seemed to be partisan motivated. The investigation never caught him in anything, but just kept changing what it was looking for, until it caught him in a lie about the investigation. There would have been no lie, if there was no witch hunt, right? Maybe the witch hunt started it and then the 2000 coup by the right, aided for the first time in history by the Supreme Court, sealed the divide? Since it immediately followed the witch hunt, by extension people would see them together as part of a massive political assault? Just wondering.
36 -
JR
Oct 26, 2004 at 4:12 pm
Does nobody know what is to blame?
Read up on Tom DeLay for starters.
37 -
JR
Oct 26, 2004 at 4:27 pm
What do you do when they start harbouring terrorists?
Good grief, you guys are even more pessimistic than I am.
It's a good question. I supposed we'd have to respond the same as we would if Canada or Mexico started harbouring terrorists. Close the borders, sanctions, declare war, hope the good guys win.
However, if one of our spin-off republics would harbour terrorists, then the implication is that there are currently significant elements in our own country who would harbour terrorists. And any "compromise" solution to governing would allow these elements a place in our collective government. In other words, if "they" would harbour terrorists, then together we will harbour terrorists. And what would we do when that happens?
The piece is long but worthwhile if you have any interest in beginnings.
39 -
Roscoe
Oct 28, 2004 at 7:34 am
JR put an intriguing notion out there.
We can just divide into two different nations. One would have 95% of college
professors, 80% of college students, 95%
of actors, majority of union members, 75%
of teachers, 90% of blacks, 66% of browns
, 75%of muslims and most subscribers to
the NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune,
Washington Post and others too numerous
to list (also too depressing).Oops, don't
forget Hal.
I leave to the rest of you the equitable
division of USA. A North Carolina gerry-
mander? The blues divvy it up and the reds take their pick?
"if a few bostonians die horribly should the red sox actually win the world series (which i doubt), consider it a small price to pay."
by rj elliott
two wrongs in the same sentence, elliott? come on, three little words - "i was wrong" - just one time, you can do it, if nothing else to prove that you don't think you're perfect...
42 -
Dennis
Nov 12, 2004 at 4:39 pm
If there is a war, then liberals will loose, cause they are bunch of cowards
Article comments
26 - JR
Does a person who drives a pick-up while the price of gas keeps going up show any better judgement than someone who can't park straight?
27 - andy marsh
maybe my choice of vehicle 4 years ago would have been a little different if gas prices were what they are now. But what I drive, doesn't stop you from getting in your car when it's raining outside!
28 - JR
Anybody who didn't see rising gas prices coming probably doesn't have good enough judgement to vote.
29 - andy marsh
you're absolutely right...but I'm voting anyway (already did)...and I'm pretty sure it's not the way you would like.
30 - boomcrashbaby
I don't know when this polarization started, whether it was with Newt's failed policies as has been claimed, or with the 2000 election and the disenfranchisement of millions, but the days of referring to a candidate as "my distinguished opponent" is clearly over. Now, with pundits and bloggers and the political parties just basically in a verbal civil war, I can't help but feel that one of the casualties of this will be compromise. I think we are headed towards a winner-take-all mentality. What's next, civil war? We've already got large Christian groups that want to cede from America, making South Carolina it's own nation. Where are we headed as a country? Sometimes I wonder if terrorism, while a HUGE priority, isn't the most dangerous threat to our amber waves of grain anymore.
What is responsible for this polarization between us as a country? What did it?
31 - JR
What's next, civil war? We've already got large Christian groups that want to cede from America, making South Carolina it's own nation.
It only leads to civil war if we don't let them secede. If the Christian Right wants to start their own country, let them. I would no sooner compromise with them than I would with Stalin or bin Laden. As I said before, we can't get along together; so let's don't try.
32 - Shark
"...It only leads to civil war if we don't let them secede. If the Christian Right wants to start their own country, let them."
Then we can expect more "faith-based" terrorism -- similar to what brought down the twin towers in NYC.
Personally, I can't wait for an American Civil War; I'm armed to the teeth as it is; it's just a matter of me driving down South 35 to Waco with all three of my 12 year old brides.
Bring it on, Christoids! Wooo-hooo!
33 - Tim Hall
It only leads to civil war if we don't let them secede. If the Christian Right wants to start their own country, let them. I would no sooner compromise with them than I would with Stalin or bin Laden. As I said before, we can't get along together; so let's don't try.
What do you do when they start harbouring terrorists?
34 - boomcrashbaby
The secessionists were actually to illustrate a bigger problem. While their views are extreme, there's still the polarization of the left and right, where conservatives call dissenters traitors, where election offices get broken into, etc.
The fundamentalists who want South Carolina were used to show a divide, but even if they 'leave' the divide is still there among the rest of us and just growing and growing. Does nobody know what is to blame? It started before 9/11, but Iraq seems to be the straw that broke the camels back.
35 - boomcrashbaby
Hmm, maybe it was the witch hunt by Kenneth Starr and the right. It seemed to be partisan motivated. The investigation never caught him in anything, but just kept changing what it was looking for, until it caught him in a lie about the investigation. There would have been no lie, if there was no witch hunt, right? Maybe the witch hunt started it and then the 2000 coup by the right, aided for the first time in history by the Supreme Court, sealed the divide? Since it immediately followed the witch hunt, by extension people would see them together as part of a massive political assault? Just wondering.
36 - JR
Does nobody know what is to blame?
Read up on Tom DeLay for starters.
37 - JR
What do you do when they start harbouring terrorists?
Good grief, you guys are even more pessimistic than I am.
It's a good question. I supposed we'd have to respond the same as we would if Canada or Mexico started harbouring terrorists. Close the borders, sanctions, declare war, hope the good guys win.
However, if one of our spin-off republics would harbour terrorists, then the implication is that there are currently significant elements in our own country who would harbour terrorists. And any "compromise" solution to governing would allow these elements a place in our collective government. In other words, if "they" would harbour terrorists, then together we will harbour terrorists. And what would we do when that happens?
38 - Hal Pawluk
The thing is, bcb, that Newet's policies didn't fail. That's how we got to the Delays and Gillespies and Roves.
You can find out about Newt's roots in an interview with Vin Weber, right-wing sharpie supreme.
The piece is long but worthwhile if you have any interest in beginnings.
39 - Roscoe
JR put an intriguing notion out there.
We can just divide into two different nations. One would have 95% of college
professors, 80% of college students, 95%
of actors, majority of union members, 75%
of teachers, 90% of blacks, 66% of browns
, 75%of muslims and most subscribers to
the NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune,
Washington Post and others too numerous
to list (also too depressing).Oops, don't
forget Hal.
I leave to the rest of you the equitable
division of USA. A North Carolina gerry-
mander? The blues divvy it up and the reds take their pick?
40 - Hal Pawluk
What on earth are you nattering about, Roscoe?
Does what you say make sense to you?
41 - curt
"if a few bostonians die horribly should the red sox actually win the world series (which i doubt), consider it a small price to pay."
by rj elliott
two wrongs in the same sentence, elliott? come on, three little words - "i was wrong" - just one time, you can do it, if nothing else to prove that you don't think you're perfect...
42 - Dennis
If there is a war, then liberals will loose, cause they are bunch of cowards