Q. Who will win this fall?
A. Fucking capitalists.
A. Fucking capitalists.
Bush or Kerry -- Who will win this fall?
bush will win and a bunch of ppl will complain…unless kerry's daughter wants to keep showing her nipples…..then kerry will probably win.
Either way, Beetsnotbeats is right. But I would add fucking fascist capitalists! I know that Bags and GGW would never agree with me in a million years and I would defend their right to do so but, in my opinion, they are both the very same thing in different suits. They appear to play a different game but in the end, we all pay more in one way or another as tax payers and consumers and our youth and young adults will be drafted in order to allow the biggest of corporations to make more money that they don't share in anyway, including fair jobs, and our rights will continue to dwindle as our jobs rush overseas and more and more illegals are encouraged to come in in order to destroy even more of our job and tax base. In the meantime, the lower paid workers who receive little or no tax breaks still will have no appropriate health care while the rest of the world continues to increase their hate towards us as if the average American really has a say as to what our fucking idiot leaders (of BOTH parties) do regardless of our desires. It wouldn't be so bad in that regard if the rest of the world understood the difference between many Americans and our out of control nut cases fucking everything up. And no, that doesn't mean that other nut case leaders and factions aren't out there doing fucked up shit too! They are but our dumbfuck media is obsessed with anti-American reporting and progaganda. (No GGW, I don't have the links to back this up and don't feel like searching for them. If you want them so badly, feel free to research them on your own. I'm going by my experience as a very frustrated tax paying voter who is never fairly represented by either party. And no, I don't have a lot of faith in any of the 3rd parties either mostly because I don't think any of them have a good grasp on any realistic way of successfully running a country. It's sad because I wish so much that there was one.)
Feminists Stand By Their Man
Abortion, Judges and Kerry
By BRANDY BAKER
The thought of anti-abortion zealots winning appointments to the Supreme Court under a Bush presidency was the one factor that terrified many into staying the course with the Democratic Party in 2000. Voters, many with pinched noses and sick stomachs, pulled the lever for Al Gore and the idea of Roe V. Wade being overturned has motivated many to promise support for John Kerry this November.
On Wednesday, John Kerry told the Associated Press that he was open to the idea of appointing anti-abortion judges "as long as it doesn't lead to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade."1
All hell would be breaking loose right now if Ralph Nader said something like this. The leaders of the feminist movement were ready to tar, feather, and run Nader out of DC when he blundered and proposed that if Roe V. Wade were overturned, abortion would be protected because the decision would go back to the states. Elizabeth Cavendish, Interim President of NARAL Pro-Choice America has only this to say about Kerry's statements: "There's a huge difference between Bush and Kerry on choice and this is not going to undermine the pages-long documentation that Kerry is pro-choice."2 Yes, Nader was wrong to say what he said in 2000, and no, he is not perfect, but what many do not know (and what the mainstream feminist movement will not tell you) is that Ralph Nader recently signed to NOW's platform of political, social, and economic rights for women.3 Kerry has not. And not long before Kerry told all of us that he was no redistribution democrat, Nader spoke up for cleaning people4: a segment of the workforce that is overrepresented by women and people of color. Cleaning people only are noticed if someone is unhappy with their work.
The problem is that we have a single issue women's movement that is not equipped to address the collective oppression of women who are on the lower rungs of the economic ladder because the movement restrains itself with blind support for the Democratic Party. Ralph Nader knows that abortion is not the only concern of the majority of this country's women, which is why he will stick up for those who clean the houses of the limozine liberals who are campaigning the hardest for Kerry.
Despite the fcta that we won Roe V. Wade under the anti-choice Nixon administration and we did not have abortion providers in over 85% of all counties under Clinton, many see a Democratic Party presidency vital to securing abortion rights. Kerry's statements kill the myth we are guaranteed pro-abortion judges if he becomes president, it also kills the other argument that ABBers have been promoting: you know, the one that claims that we can build a movement after we get a Democrat in office and that Democrat will do all of the right stuff. John Kerry said that he would be open to appointing anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court only 24 days after what many have said was the largest demonstration in American history. Movements work, but the two party system does not.
Abortion, Judges and Kerry
By BRANDY BAKER
The thought of anti-abortion zealots winning appointments to the Supreme Court under a Bush presidency was the one factor that terrified many into staying the course with the Democratic Party in 2000. Voters, many with pinched noses and sick stomachs, pulled the lever for Al Gore and the idea of Roe V. Wade being overturned has motivated many to promise support for John Kerry this November.
On Wednesday, John Kerry told the Associated Press that he was open to the idea of appointing anti-abortion judges "as long as it doesn't lead to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade."1
All hell would be breaking loose right now if Ralph Nader said something like this. The leaders of the feminist movement were ready to tar, feather, and run Nader out of DC when he blundered and proposed that if Roe V. Wade were overturned, abortion would be protected because the decision would go back to the states. Elizabeth Cavendish, Interim President of NARAL Pro-Choice America has only this to say about Kerry's statements: "There's a huge difference between Bush and Kerry on choice and this is not going to undermine the pages-long documentation that Kerry is pro-choice."2 Yes, Nader was wrong to say what he said in 2000, and no, he is not perfect, but what many do not know (and what the mainstream feminist movement will not tell you) is that Ralph Nader recently signed to NOW's platform of political, social, and economic rights for women.3 Kerry has not. And not long before Kerry told all of us that he was no redistribution democrat, Nader spoke up for cleaning people4: a segment of the workforce that is overrepresented by women and people of color. Cleaning people only are noticed if someone is unhappy with their work.
The problem is that we have a single issue women's movement that is not equipped to address the collective oppression of women who are on the lower rungs of the economic ladder because the movement restrains itself with blind support for the Democratic Party. Ralph Nader knows that abortion is not the only concern of the majority of this country's women, which is why he will stick up for those who clean the houses of the limozine liberals who are campaigning the hardest for Kerry.
Despite the fcta that we won Roe V. Wade under the anti-choice Nixon administration and we did not have abortion providers in over 85% of all counties under Clinton, many see a Democratic Party presidency vital to securing abortion rights. Kerry's statements kill the myth we are guaranteed pro-abortion judges if he becomes president, it also kills the other argument that ABBers have been promoting: you know, the one that claims that we can build a movement after we get a Democrat in office and that Democrat will do all of the right stuff. John Kerry said that he would be open to appointing anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court only 24 days after what many have said was the largest demonstration in American history. Movements work, but the two party system does not.
Originally posted by Jaguär:I'm not sure what you're getting at, Jag. Are you using me and GGW as examples of the two parties (is "they" Dems and Reps?)? I don't know how you would achieve what you want to achieve, as stated in your post. Alas, at some point there is a level of reality that has to be factored in to any solution or any system of governing. If you could have to power to tip things in a particular direction, how would it tip?
Either way, Beetsnotbeats is right. But I would add fucking fascist capitalists! I know that Bags and GGW would never agree with me in a million years and I would defend their right to do so but, in my opinion, they are both the very same thing in different suits. They appear to play a different game but in the end, we all pay more in one way or another…
Originally posted by Bagalicious Tangster:You and GGW are the extremes on this board of the conservative and the liberal factions. Though I respect both of you personally in your own ways, I have learned not to trust either extremes of these groups. In fact, I tend to not trust extremes in most groups. They tend to become too engrossed in their own propaganda rather than weighing things out fairly. It's very hard for me to word my thoughts on this properly but I've seen way too much crap and heard way too many lies and distortions from both sides throughout my years. More importantly, I have much less respect for either the Republican or the Democratic parties than I do for extreme conservatives or liberals. If anything, there are many issues that I can side with either one or the other. In my opinion, both parties have taken many good people with good intentions and have used and abused them for their own twisted and greedy agendas.
Originally posted by Jaguär:I'm not sure what you're getting at, Jag. Are you using me and GGW as examples of the two parties (is "they" Dems and Reps?)? I don't know how you would achieve what you want to achieve, as stated in your post. Alas, at some point there is a level of reality that has to be factored in to any solution or any system of governing. If you could have to power to tip things in a particular direction, how would it tip?
Either way, Beetsnotbeats is right. But I would add fucking fascist capitalists! I know that Bags and GGW would never agree with me in a million years and I would defend their right to do so but, in my opinion, they are both the very same thing in different suits. They appear to play a different game but in the end, we all pay more in one way or another…
When I read The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn I had thought to myself, 'at last, someone who understands what I'm thinking and can explain it better than I can'. Well, at least my thinking involving idealologies. But the basis of my thinking is there. Not the details on this exact subject.
I actually believe that, in the end, both parties have exactly the very same agendas with only small differences. They are just very, very, very crafty at making it look different. Granted, a few of these differences are very important to a few groups of people but I'm thinking of the collective picture. The whole package because I'm not obsessed with only one issue. I don't see the potential for any tipping going on when it still only ends up in the same basic sectors. Imagine a clock. We have a choice between tipping it to 1 or 2 o'clock when we need it to tip towards 7 or 8 o'clock. Sorry if you don't get what I mean but that's the best I can come up with at the moment. I just don't see either of them as being all that different or having the average American's best interest at heart. Sure, you can pick on a few things but they both always play great games of illusion that end up pretty much in the same places. To me, both the Republicans and the Democrates are inside the box. It is my belief that we need to get outside the box. How should we do this without a major fuckfest? I have not the slightest clue. I just know it won't be a Democrate or a Republican who will straighten things out. At least, I very highly doubt it yet pray that I'm wrong. Nope. Not Nadar or any other 3rd party candidate that we've known of to date either. And the freaking UN scares me even more! That's all we need to do; lose our souvernity(sp?) and become subserviant to even more fascists!
Whos going to win this fall?
thats easy!
<img src="http://peninsulaclarion.com/images/100703/sox.jpg" alt=" - " />
thats easy!
<img src="http://peninsulaclarion.com/images/100703/sox.jpg" alt=" - " />
Hey Jag, maybe the aliens can straighten things out. :)
Kidding…I like your line of thinking.
Kidding…I like your line of thinking.