GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

FOX Strategy Really Paid Off...........Idiots

POSTED BY: CAPTAINCDC
UPDATED: Friday, March 12, 2004 14:47
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 10565
PAGE 2 of 2

Sunday, March 7, 2004 7:27 AM

ECMORGAN69


Quote:

Originally posted by Butterfly043:
You say that like it's a bad thing? You don't acknowledge all the other troops that aren't american that are out there dying needlessly also. More of the British soldiers who died were killed by so called friendly fire than by the enemy!! How grateful should they be.

...

Keep it shiny eh?



You're bang on right. A whole bunch of soldiers from UK, other Commonwealth nations, Pakistan, etc. have served and died in a number of overseas battles that they probably had no stake in, just like American soldiers. The only difference is that these other nations aren't vilified in the UN for either "interfering" in the affairs of others, or "not getting involved soon enough".

So, in order to avoid all this international hatred and bile, we should just pull all our overseas assets back to our borders, and tow the UN building into the Atlantic While we're at it, we can also dump all the diplomatic vehicles with hundreds of ignored and unpaid summonses into the Atlantic, right next to the UN Building.

Oh, and I definitely agree that this political argument has no place in this thread, or on this board. But I do so hate being left out

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah, you, FOX TV!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 7, 2004 11:19 AM

LTNOWIS


Quote:

What that means, in essence, is that nobody gives a good gorram what some hoodlum warrior chief in Africa who happens to be on the UN Human Rights Commission thinks about how the USA conducts her affairs.


And of course nobody on Earth cares when that African warlord violates those human rights.

And the whole "screw the UN" approach is why people from the rest of the world hate us. And then other people can't understand why there's so much America-bashing throughout Europe. UN approval was a good idea because it would've reduced this anger. It's perfectly ok to have think that European nations should mind their own gorram business, but you then have to accept their ill will.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 7, 2004 11:28 AM

LTNOWIS


Quote:

I do hope Wonderfalls is a big hit for them, but I'm afraid they will wind up cancelling it for The Littlest Groom 2.

A while ago, I saw the preview for Forever Eden, and they called it "groundbraking." Then I thought "Yeah, just when you think they've hit rock bottom, they sink to a lower level." I'm glad Fox is failing, as it killed all my shows, but I have doubts. Sure, they're making a lot less money, but reality TV shows cost like 1/4 as much money to make. So they might be having more profits despite their lower ratings.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 7, 2004 11:36 AM

LTNOWIS


Quote:


Not a Republican so I frankly don't care. If the Republican Party falls then hopefully that will be a sign that the two party system will end.



I also don't like the 2-party system. Right now, each party has various aspects that disgust me. I side with the democrats because I hate Bush, but I hate their softness on drugs and immigration, and their reluctance to let people have guns.

PS: sorry for the triple-post, I go through and respond to each post I'm gonna respond to. Frankly, I prefer this to an ultra-long post, as is popular in political boards

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 7, 2004 5:08 PM

ECMORGAN69


Quote:

Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Quote:


Not a Republican so I frankly don't care. If the Republican Party falls then hopefully that will be a sign that the two party system will end.



I also don't like the 2-party system. Right now, each party has various aspects that disgust me. I side with the democrats because I hate Bush, but I hate their softness on drugs and immigration, and their reluctance to let people have guns.

PS: sorry for the triple-post, I go through and respond to each post I'm gonna respond to. Frankly, I prefer this to an ultra-long post, as is popular in political boards



Frankly, I miss Ross Perot. He kept it interesting.

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah, you, FOX TV!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 7, 2004 5:19 PM

ECMORGAN69


Quote:

Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
And of course nobody on Earth cares when that African warlord violates those human rights.

And the whole "screw the UN" approach is why people from the rest of the world hate us. And then other people can't understand why there's so much America-bashing throughout Europe. UN approval was a good idea because it would've reduced this anger. It's perfectly ok to have think that European nations should mind their own gorram business, but you then have to accept their ill will.



I would believe in multilateralism more if it didn't seem like the rest of the world thought the USA was worse than whatever problem we were attempting to help solve. As a good SF fan of long standing, I agree that our petty differences here on planet Earth will have to be put aside in order for the lot of us to advance. However, why is it that the USA has to be the one to advance, while the rest of the world gets to retain their petty jealousies and squabbles (ie, Palestine, Central Europe, Africa, etc., ad nauseum...) and then make snotty comments about our behavior at the same time?? With the attitude of the whole lot of holier-than-thou, snooty, self-important non-Americans, it's no wonder that so many Americans believe in the "Screw the UN" approach. In all honesty, I don't give a good gorram what Jackie Chirac, Schroeder, his cat, or Putin think about what the USA "should" do, about anything at all.

Oh, while I'm ranting, "The Simple Life" and every other reality show on Fox TV. I just didn't want to leave that out

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah, you, FOX TV!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 8, 2004 3:28 AM

DTT


This thread makes me happy.

"You didn't have to wound that man."
"Yeah, I know. It was just funny."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 8, 2004 5:03 AM

ECMORGAN69


Quote:

Originally posted by dtt:
This thread makes me happy.

"You didn't have to wound that man."
"Yeah, I know. It was just funny."



I must admit to a certain satisfaction in lobbing the occasional Apple of Discord like a grenade.

Oh, I finally found where your sig came from. I thought it was from "Safe", but I don't have a photographic memory for scripts

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah, you, FOX TV!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 8, 2004 5:30 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


*Sighs*

Shame to see a thread about the fall of Fox degenerate into a political debate, then a debate on isolationism.

Take it elsewhere people. Politics only leads to arguements which have no place in this thread.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 8, 2004 7:32 AM

STEVE580


Right...left...what's the differance, anymore? They're both equally wrong.

100% Libertarian
-Steve

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 6:23 AM

DYAIRVATREE



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 7:10 AM

DYAIRVATREE


Quote:

Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Quote:


Not a Republican so I frankly don't care. If the Republican Party falls then hopefully that will be a sign that the two party system will end.



I also don't like the 2-party system. Right now, each party has various aspects that disgust me. I side with the democrats because I hate Bush, but I hate their softness on drugs and immigration, and their reluctance to let people have guns.

PS: sorry for the triple-post, I go through and respond to each post I'm gonna respond to. Frankly, I prefer this to an ultra-long post, as is popular in political boards



Well LtNowis I don't like the the two party system either I think their both parties are corupt and foul.But but to suggest the Republicans are tough on immigration is a joke Bush always without exception wants amnesty for illegals so do most of his fellow Republicans. We have Republican Senate and Congeress and yet nothing is ever done about the illegals who disrespect our nations laws except to give them amnesty.

And I must say to suggest Democrats are soft on drugs they love locking up non-violent drug offenders I wish they were soft on drugs. The war on drugs is an utter failure. Prohabition only creates crime and lawlessness. We should return to the country our founding father created where there was no drug prohabition.

We didn't have any drug laws until the turn of the century. And why did we get these laws was it because drug users were creating crime and havoc no it was because some do gooders thought it was ungodly. Yes we used to have addictive drugs like opium and cocaine,but they never lead users to commit any crimes why? Because these drugs aren't worth anything that is unti you make the illeagal. Then the price goes up a thousand fold and addicts need to commit crime to maintain thier habit. You also end up with stronger and more addictive drugs like heroin why?

First off heroin because it's stronger you can make more money off a pound of that than a pound of opuim. And it's so much more addictive you can ensure more repeat bussiness. The same happened during alcohol prohabition the criminals that ran the alcohol trade prefered hard alcohol to soft for all the same reasons. The only real change that took place before and after alcohol prohabition is now there is a higher consumption of hard alcohol then before prohabition. And just like illegal drugs has spawned insane drugs like heroin and crack, alcohol prohibition spawned the drinking of wood alcohol and moonshine. We need to stop this madness and end the drug war. It hasn't worked in the 90 some years it's existed and it won't work in ninety more.

Liked your point about Republicans and guns though the gun issue is one of the few issues Republicans are still mostly good about.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 7:27 AM

DYAIRVATREE


Quote:

... All I'm saying is that it isn't secret.The whole damn world knows about it means it isn't secret.


The whole damn world dooesn't know we are about to have an all skull and bones election Christheynic. If even 5 percent of the American people know about it I'd be supprised. I watch mainstream news media news every day except for the examples I mentioned above I never see it mentioned ever for any reason.

Fine if you want to think it's just college club and it's just a coincidence that a club that graduates 15 members a year is running two for the highest office in the land fine.

Perhaps skull and bones conpiracies don't exist that would require people working in secret and not telling everyone what they are really are up too. And if Discovery Channel does a hard hitting investagation and discovers everything is cool maybe it is. And if every bonesmen isn't wildly successful perhaps that proves it. Me I just have a different way of looking at it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 7:57 AM

HATEHATEHATEFOX


Quote:

Originally posted by ecmorgan69:
Quote:

Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:
...Whatever, I hope your all your sakes that Mr. Kerry will take over come November and you guys can get back to where you were 4 years ago. No deficit, not so many ppl hating you, more of your ppl working, fewer ppl dying violently, fewer ppl homeless and/or without medical aid. Well done, Shrub.


Quote:


Ok, now I have one political thing I have to say. You sir, based on your statements in your previous posts, must be from outside the USA.



First of all, sir or madame, I happen to be a MADAME!
Quote:


People from other countries, and liberals from the USA, seem to be under the misguided notion that we have to go along with the "recommendations" and "suggestions" of other countries. I, sir, think not. I admit I voted for Bush in 2000, and I also admit I will most likely vote for him again this year. One of the biggest reasons for me voting for him over some Liberal Democrat is he, largely, doesn't feel the need to get a "by-your-leave" from the UN, EU, NATO, or any other organization. IMHO, we in the USA have the right to go with our national interests over the wishes and desires of other nations. What that means, in essence, is that nobody gives a good gorram what some hoodlum warrior chief in Africa who happens to be on the UN Human Rights Commission thinks about how the USA conducts her affairs.


I happen to be a Canadian, your nearest neighbour and largest trading partner. And what you are saying saddens me a great deal. This kind of thinking is exactly why ppl the world over are angry at and despise you (I am reluctant to say hate).

Your country does NOT have the right to act unilaterally when your actions have global consequences. Might does not make right.
Quote:


IMHO, I think we in the USA should become totally isolationist, since all we do is piss off every other country every time we do anything overseas.



I could be wrong but maybe that because your country acts unilaterally without consulting neighbouring nations and/or the UN!
Quote:


Of course, that would also involve eliminating foreign aid, pulling the thousands of troops we have stationed overseas back to our own borders, and telling the rest of the world to gen hou zi bi diu shi



Your industry leaders (in tight with the Bush family) would never permit it. There's too much money to be made. First from all the armaments for tearing down a nation and then from the gov't contracts to build it back up and then, of course, there's all that yummy OIL! I say again, they would NEVER allow it.
Quote:


From now on, we could use all the money we save from not sending it out to ungrateful, corrupt international organizations and collapsing military juntas to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless right here in the USA. That would make foreigners and liberals happy. We wouldn't be "interfering" in the affairs of other nations, and we would be fulfilling that do-gooder wish list that all Liberals have handy in their PDAs, in case anyone asks.



I can't believe that Liberals are the only ones who dream of feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless! I am sure that right-wingers must have at least a drop of human feeling for those who suffer.

Plus, your gov't has shown many times that they are quite adept at supporting military juntas and corrupt, tyrannical regimes when it suits their own short-term myopic goals. Why, wasn't Hussein himself graced with weapons etc by the last Republican president? And wasn't it the Iranian guys who got the weapons from the one before him?
Quote:


Ok, that's enough of my speechifying for now. Oh, and off Fox TV.



I quite agree. This thread has nothing but heartache in it for anyone regardless of your political position.

Didn't Voltaire say and Benjamin Franklin quote:
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?

Quote:


They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah, you, FOX TV!!



Hey, something we CAN agree on! Yay, Firefly!


~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 9:53 AM

ECMORGAN69


The three things we definitely can agree on:

1) The, uh, "HATEHATEFOX" thing,
2) Our universal agreement that we may disagree, and
3) Our universal right to opine to the rooftops for all to hear.

Oh, and uh, apologies for the "sir" thing. I had a 50% chance of being right, and I figured that it'd be best to be polite anyway


I just want to mention that I loved "Canadian Bacon"

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah, you, FOX TV!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 11:10 AM

HATEHATEHATEFOX


Quote:

Originally posted by ecmorgan69:
The three things we definitely can agree on:

1) The, uh, "HATEHATEFOX" thing,
2) Our universal agreement that we may disagree, and
3) Our universal right to opine to the rooftops for all to hear.

Oh, and uh, apologies for the "sir" thing. I had a 50% chance of being right, and I figured that it'd be best to be polite anyway

I just want to mention that I loved "Canadian Bacon"



ROTFLMAO! Canadian Bacon? You are too funny. Anyway ... see you at the theatre (or you may say theater) ... see we CAN all get along!


~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 11:14 AM

RKLENSETH


Quote:

Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:
Quote:

Originally posted by ecmorgan69:
Quote:

Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:
...Whatever, I hope your all your sakes that Mr. Kerry will take over come November and you guys can get back to where you were 4 years ago. No deficit, not so many ppl hating you, more of your ppl working, fewer ppl dying violently, fewer ppl homeless and/or without medical aid. Well done, Shrub.


Quote:


Ok, now I have one political thing I have to say. You sir, based on your statements in your previous posts, must be from outside the USA.



First of all, sir or madame, I happen to be a MADAME!
Quote:


People from other countries, and liberals from the USA, seem to be under the misguided notion that we have to go along with the "recommendations" and "suggestions" of other countries. I, sir, think not. I admit I voted for Bush in 2000, and I also admit I will most likely vote for him again this year. One of the biggest reasons for me voting for him over some Liberal Democrat is he, largely, doesn't feel the need to get a "by-your-leave" from the UN, EU, NATO, or any other organization. IMHO, we in the USA have the right to go with our national interests over the wishes and desires of other nations. What that means, in essence, is that nobody gives a good gorram what some hoodlum warrior chief in Africa who happens to be on the UN Human Rights Commission thinks about how the USA conducts her affairs.


I happen to be a Canadian, your nearest neighbour and largest trading partner. And what you are saying saddens me a great deal. This kind of thinking is exactly why ppl the world over are angry at and despise you (I am reluctant to say hate).

Your country does NOT have the right to act unilaterally when your actions have global consequences. Might does not make right.
Quote:


IMHO, I think we in the USA should become totally isolationist, since all we do is piss off every other country every time we do anything overseas.



I could be wrong but maybe that because your country acts unilaterally without consulting neighbouring nations and/or the UN!
Quote:


Of course, that would also involve eliminating foreign aid, pulling the thousands of troops we have stationed overseas back to our own borders, and telling the rest of the world to gen hou zi bi diu shi



Your industry leaders (in tight with the Bush family) would never permit it. There's too much money to be made. First from all the armaments for tearing down a nation and then from the gov't contracts to build it back up and then, of course, there's all that yummy OIL! I say again, they would NEVER allow it.
Quote:


From now on, we could use all the money we save from not sending it out to ungrateful, corrupt international organizations and collapsing military juntas to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless right here in the USA. That would make foreigners and liberals happy. We wouldn't be "interfering" in the affairs of other nations, and we would be fulfilling that do-gooder wish list that all Liberals have handy in their PDAs, in case anyone asks.



I can't believe that Liberals are the only ones who dream of feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless! I am sure that right-wingers must have at least a drop of human feeling for those who suffer.

Plus, your gov't has shown many times that they are quite adept at supporting military juntas and corrupt, tyrannical regimes when it suits their own short-term myopic goals. Why, wasn't Hussein himself graced with weapons etc by the last Republican president? And wasn't it the Iranian guys who got the weapons from the one before him?
Quote:


Ok, that's enough of my speechifying for now. Oh, and off Fox TV.



I quite agree. This thread has nothing but heartache in it for anyone regardless of your political position.

Didn't Voltaire say and Benjamin Franklin quote:
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?

Quote:


They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah, you, FOX TV!!



Hey, something we CAN agree on! Yay, Firefly!


~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies




Could you please, close the html next time? It is kind of hard to read what is being quoted and what you are saying. Thanks!

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 12:06 PM

ECMORGAN69


Quote:

Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:
ROTFLMAO! Canadian Bacon? You are too funny. Anyway ... see you at the theatre (or you may say theater) ... see we CAN all get along!


~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies



Whenever I envision the "Ugly American" abroad, I often think of John Candy in the boat returning to the USA from Canada. The pollution-filed view of Northern NY and the clean, sweet view of Canada. Let's not forget the ultimate irony that John Candy and most of the rest of the cast was, of course, Canadian

Anyway, let's make "Serenity" a box office smash!

Oh, and keep buying FRFLY stocks!

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah, you, FOX TV!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 12:12 PM

HATEHATEHATEFOX


Quote:

Could you please, close the html next time? It is kind of hard to read what is being quoted and what you are saying. Thanks!


I'm sorry about that, I did try but when I went back to edit the post, my pc froze and had to be rebooted and then by the time I got back in it seemed pointless.
Sorry.

~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:56 AM

DRAKON


This has mutated in a very strange direction.

First off, two party systems. This is one of the envitablities of life on planet earth. Any third party that comes along is either going to have their agendas co-opted by one of the major parties, (or usually just the parts that they can agree with) when that third party becomes popular and starts winning elections.

Political parties, like a lot of man made mental constructs are organic critters. They adapt, or die, just like everything else. If they ever want to become a major influence in politics, instead of just color, they have to appeal to a large base, a pluarity of the electorate.

And it seems to be human nature to settle with only two choices. You may have liked Mary Carey's positions in the gubernatorial recall drive here in California last year. And may have wanted to vote for her. But she had no chance against the majority of voters.

Voters tend to think about whom they like, first, and then who has a chance of winning. And that usually falls down to two major parties and a bunch of smaller third parties whose policies and positions get adopted by the major parties once that position becomes so popular as to threaten it.

Also there is the problem of third parties "souring" the process. Think of Perot in 92, and Nadar in 2000. Sometimes a 3rd party candidate does make a big showing and ends up electing the guy that his supporters wanted least. Some of us learned that lesson the hard way in 92, and some others learned it in 2000.

So short of changing human nature, the two party is here to stay. Now, whether the same two parties stay is secondary. (Remember the Whigs?)I know a lot of folks are predicting and hoping for a Republican trouncing come November, but that really does not look to be in the cards.

Right now, the Republicans have a pretty good lock on the House, and more Democrats are challenged in this race than Republicans for the Senate. Which means that the Republicans have a better chance at maintaining or building on their slim majority in the Senate than the Democrats do of taking it back. The economy is doing pretty good (could be better, but still) and looks to be much better come November. There is also the fact that April 15th is not far off, and the voters know whose on the side of those tax cuts, and who wants them repealed. So that works against the Democrats out of the box.

Not to mention the war, which will be the other major issue for the campaign.

As for Skull and Bones, I am not at all sure what the deal is. They still have to run for office, and that means appeal to the voters. Unless they are sacrificing virgins, I don't think its going to be a big deal. There are other more weightier issues to deal with than what either candidate did in college over 30 years ago.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:19 AM

DYAIRVATREE


In my opinion the only reason Perot lost in 92 was his intentional self sabotage. He was way ahead of Clinton and Bush largely for his anti-NAFTA stance. He was more appealing to the right then the left on most issues, but what pushed him well beyond Clinton and Bush was his stand on Nafta wich both the hardcore right and left could agree on. And the media hated him the right loves to say the media is left but all true left folks I know say otherwise. The point being the media with all their hate drove both sides to him.

And then Perot dropped out something or another to due with his daughters wedding photos? Then he dropped back in but after that he was a joke. I don't know why he ran but it wasn't to win.

Yes if the Reform party had been run by a real canidate not Ross Perot I believe you could have had grounds for a third party. This is because what the Reform party offered would have drawn in the people who only vote democrat or republican because they feel the alternatives are worse.

Most of the definitions of left and right are artificial any way. Most true right-wingers hate Nafta so do left-wingers a whole new way of looking at things could have been formed by these two groups getting together.

My point is if Perot had wanted to win and did. A whole new paradigm could have formed. Now this was a long time ago and I hardly remember what this party was supposed to be about but I do believe they were pro-gun ownership, well gosh so am I and I'm by current standards supposed to be left. I can't recall anything said about environmental issues but with a huge bunch of left folk in there party I doubt they want to piss us off and I bet a bunch of former right would love to be pro-environment. Just as I a former left folk would like to be pro-second amendment.

Why because the current standards don't fit a lot of people. A new party what ever it is could create new standards.I mean who the hell decided gun ownership was right-wing who decided giving a damn about our forests and air and water is left-wing. I mean why not have pro-gun folk be left and environmentalism be a rabid right wing cause?

I like alot of people think these standards are competely arbitrary. For example my doctor he's a born-again Christian yet he gets an environmental magazine by Bible folk which I read in his office every time I go. It's all about doing what the book of Genesis talked about being a care-taker of the Earth and what not. Shows all the bad things being done to our planet. Don't know how he votes but I bet he votes Republican because more of his issues are Republican than not. He has to swallow those enviromental callings for a greater cause.

But perhaps not if there was a third party of power and maybe even a fourth party that was electable.

Now lets just say there was a third party out there. A real third party that could get votes both Democrats and Republicans would have to revitaize themselves just so they didn't become the Whigs. This would help democracy and restore peoples faith.

Look I read one of your posts up top in reaction to someone who said they wanted the two party system destroyed. And your reaction seemed to indicate you thought this was the worst idea you had ever seen. What I don't get is you seem to need duality. Everthing needs to be right-wing or a communist plot one or the other(I kid). The truth is most people hate the right-wing and left-wing paradigm it no longer fits most of us. The question becomes what do you think is so worth while about it because I don't know?

I want a radical pro-environmental,pro-second amendment,pro-school choice, anti-drug war, pro-death penality for murder,pro-prison-eradication for non-violent offenders home incarceration,type party.

Now of course I'm a realist but in what way does voting republican or democrat suit my needs my only hope and the hope, of a hell of a lot of folk is the begining of melding between the current duality in too many new forms.


Here's the new solgan America's diverse why aren't our parties.

And from now on America will be an isolationist country that will only keep it's military on it's own soil and will not fund any foriegn nations.Wich will save alot tax money, tax refunds all around! We can build our nations infrastructure and fund the schools of our choice and help the homeless. Damn! My party is so damn cool!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 10:16 AM

DYAIRVATREE


Quote:

...And it seems to be human nature to settle with only two choices.


I have to disagree with that one we have two choices for a reason the game is rigged. Remember when Pat Buchanan ran for president the first time he got 5% of the vote enough to allow him in the Presidential debates in the 2000 elections. Well those elections came around he had a spot in the Presidential debates as determined by law but then.

Here's what happened get this the Bi-Partisan Commission said no. It used to be 5% but now you we've changed the law retroactively so it's now 15%. And yes it's called the Bi-Partisan commission Bi,meaning two. Notice how it's not called the Tri-Partisan Commision which would mean three it's the Bi-Partisan Commission. If thats not rigged I don't know what is.

Pat Buchanan earned the right to speak at the Presidental debates by law. But when the real powers find the law not to their taste it can be changed at random.

Skull and Bones don't worry it will never be a issue. It will not be brought up at any time during the elections. It's not a secret it just all news media know it's not important enough to bring to any ones attention ever.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:50 PM

DYAIRVATREE


If anyone is interested in finding out more about Skull and Bones I have an interview with Alexandra Robbins Best Selling author of, Secrets Of The Tomb, Skull and Bones, The Ivy League, And The Hidden Paths To Power.

This is from the radio show Democracy Now and by the way if you have dial up connection you should have no problem listening.

http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/demnow/dn200401
22.ra&start=9:54

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:42 PM

KOBAYASHI


Okay, I haven't read this entire thread, only about the first ten posts... but you wacko liberals make my head spin.

Conspiracy, corrupt 'Big Business', only the right-wing conservatives care about money, no liberal slant to the media, Skull and Bones... geez, do you leftists have a SINGLE original thought about anything? All I hear is the same crap you get from NPR. You are obviously not paying attention if you BELIEVE any of it.

As a conservative I'm not running around saying that 'Rush is right', or Bill O'Reiley is speaking the truth... why is it that you believe everything YOU hear from your liberal media? I can listen to Rush or Glenn Beck and make up MY OWN freekin' mind. Why can't YOU?

Now stop with all the BS. Please.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:14 PM

GETUPKID


the people at fox are being a bunch of gou tsao de huh choo-shang tza-jiao duh tzang-huos.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:15 PM

CUDA


For god sake, let this thread die...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:22 PM

RKLENSETH


Quote:

Originally posted by Cuda:
For god sake, let this thread die...



Right, I agree. Oh, wait. What am I doing?!?!?!?!?

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 12, 2004 2:18 PM

DYAIRVATREE


Hi, Kobayashi nice Star Trek reference by the way. I have many original thoughts and I pay a lot of attention. So you think that my discussion on why Pat Buchanan was robbed of his right to speak in the presidential debates given by law at the 2000 elections is leftist huh? And pointing out both Kerry and Bush are Skull and Bones is working for the left huh? How does that work exactly?. I listen to both the "liberal media" and the A.M. radio crowd next time read the last ten posts please.

And you want me to let this thread die Rklnseth well how about this I like irony at least as much as you.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 12, 2004 2:47 PM

THECRAZYIVAN


What idiots! (Stupidest reality TV ever...lilist groom...god...)

~~~~~~~~~~
Take me out to the black.....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Rush Limbaugh dead at age 70
Thu, March 4, 2021 21:56 - 76 posts
Canadian actor Christopher Plummer dead at age 91
Wed, March 3, 2021 23:16 - 4 posts
NASA Lands the Perseverance Rover on Mars
Wed, February 24, 2021 23:22 - 12 posts
'Clarice' ... or How I Learned To Love My Lotion Bucket
Wed, February 17, 2021 19:08 - 3 posts
Victorian Female Batman???
Tue, February 16, 2021 21:04 - 46 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Tue, February 16, 2021 15:29 - 19 posts
Alan Tudyk Resident Alien Series Premiere Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 10/9c Syfy
Sat, February 6, 2021 19:47 - 7 posts
Joss to create new SciFi show for HBO, “The Nevers”
Thu, February 4, 2021 11:46 - 60 posts
Brenda? Are You Watching FBI: Most Wanted?
Sat, January 30, 2021 18:21 - 62 posts
The Rookie Season 3 Episode 1 airs tonight on ABC 1/3/2021! NEW! Nathan Fillion!
Wed, January 27, 2021 16:25 - 3 posts
WE WAITED 18 YEARS FOR A REBOOT AND DISNEY IS GOING TO DO IT...AND THEN STERILIZE COMPANIONS???!
Tue, January 26, 2021 21:51 - 93 posts
Actor Mira Furlan has died at age 65
Sat, January 23, 2021 13:38 - 6 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL