Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Look for the Republicans to throw the 2004 election.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Relying on whispers from the back rooms of power in DC...........

Republican leaders in Washington are debating the wisdom of deliberately losing the Presidential election in 2004 as a political strategy to enhance their power and control possibly through 2020.

The rationale goes like this: Bush very well may loosed in 2004 big-time, so why waste the money in a loosing cause. Use the money to build the base and modernize the communication and information systems.

The next President will be faced with solving the monumental problems that a Bush Administration has created. If Bush gets a second term his Administration’s policies will exacerbate the problems so as to sear into the memory of the votes so it will maybe 1 04 2 generations before they come to power once again.

If Democrat is elected he will be forced to raise taxes to finance the exploding national debt, its maintenance, and pay for the increases required to support doubling the strength of the military required to defend the country from a belligerent world.

The repair of Bush “fixes” to SS and Medicare will require the benefits to be adjusted to the resentment of many soon to be seniors. All in all – the next 4 years promises to be a rancorous period in American politics much suite the back biting skills of Republicans.

The International situation would challenge the powers of a ‘Jesus” to solve and will require the assistance of the U.N. – also an issue Republicans can harp on. The draft will have to be re-introduced because the Guard and Reserve has been decimated by Bush’s over use and abuse. Recruitment rates in all branches are even now down 30%. The Military needs to be reorganized to respond top the new world demands and can easily be mistaken as a reduction in strength and the distortion then can be sold as Democrats selling out America’s security.

And after four years, with the problems well on their way to being resolved an electorate angry with Democrats the Republicans can then offer themselves as ‘saviors’ and with good planning maintain power for some time.

Look for the Republicans to throw the 2004 election.




posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Eh, I don't think anyone with half a brain is willing to hand the nation over to the biggest sack of crud to hit the fan since the Democrats destroyed America in 1867 by abolishing legislatures at free will as if they were King George himself.

Either Bush wins, or America falls, the option is very clear.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I have always appreciated the interjections of FreeMason for comic relief.

Either Bush falls, or Bush falls, the option is very clear indeed.

External forces may work to prevent Republican kamikaze rushes.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I have always appreciated the interjections of FreeMason for comic relief.

Either Bush falls, or Bush falls, the option is very clear indeed.

External forces may work to prevent Republican kamikaze rushes.


AS for myself I am often reminded of something that may be relevant that Benjamin Disraeli said: "He was distinguished for ignorance - for he had only one idea and that was wrong."



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I would expect such responses from you MaskedAvatar and gmcnulty since neither of you even know what I am talking about. Neither of you know Kerry's position on anything, nor do you even know what I mean about the Democrats abolishing legislatures.

Because neither of you know what is going on, why are you even bothering to post? You should be busy reading something more important, such as Kerry's proposed party platform. How about you read Bush's 2000 and 2002 platforms while you are at it so you can compare Kerry's plans and Bush's performance, since at least Bush has maintained a good record of keeping his promises.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Rather than presenting you conclusions as fact it might give readers some indication of the merits of your argument if you were to post the body of your prescient thoughts................

Rather then faulting us for out lack of mind reading or remote viewing skills.

Don't you think that might be a better, more positive approach than to practice passive-aggressive behaviors?

We would love to debate the merits of your ideas if we knew them.


[Edited on 3-6-2004 by gmcnulty]



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I wish I could develop a stronger interest in US partisan politics. But the world is becoming a smaller place and things being enacted on the world stage determine whether an industrial military machine rules this little speck of dust in favour of a corrupt few, or whether a level of reasoning can be applied to what resources remain on the speck and how it is shared between homo sapiens and other sentient creatures.

Anyway, there is always the Mudpit for those so inclined!



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   
gmcnutly-My, my, my, that's certainly the pot calling the kettle black. I normally do not post to your threads due to their lack of substance or great leaps in logic.

This thread is no different. If the Repubs win, it is part of larger conspiracy, if they lose, that was their intention all the time. Kind of convenient.

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Bleys]



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Be hopeful Masked one, the select few alwys pervail.......it is the eternal challenge of us "little people' to find a meaningful, productive and fulfilling life, as we drag our backward thinking brothers with us towards the "light"...

I know it's a tough job but someone must do it for the sake of civilization.......

Have strength.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Quite the opposite.........try a re-read...........unless you've mis-spoke.

As for you not reading my posts.............it's your loss. As for what you view logic to be..........if as most here, you're ill informed to even comment on the science.............

If you were to take the time to read ALL my posts you might then be able to form more then a passing and imperfect judgment.

True knowledge is found throught the careful and openly consideration of all ideas. Unfortunately, both those of the left and right will only read their own while dismissing out of hand anything else then the "gospel" message required for belonging.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by gmcnulty]



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty
Rather than presenting you conclusions as fact it might give readers some indication of the merits of your argument if you were to post the body of your prescient thoughts................

Rather then faulting us for out lack of mind reading or remote viewing skills.

Don't you think that might be a better, more positive approach than to practice passive-aggressive behaviors?

We would love to debate the merits of your ideas if we knew them.


[Edited on 3-6-2004 by gmcnulty]


Well see, what I'd wish is that you'd all just trust that I know what I'm talking about, since that will never happen I am forced to continue to just simply banter at you people when you are wrong.

If you want to learn what I have in my head from tens of hours of lecture after lecture after lecture, I'm afraid you're just going to have to read everything I write, remember it verbatum, and start assembling things together yourself.

I don't have time to educate you on how nations were created in the early 19th and 20th century, how the Reconstruction forever changed (for better or worse) America from what it was created as, to something totally different, how Kerry's policies are generally poorly thought out, and how Bush's policies have done much good for America.

You see, I've spent HOURS learning about things like, New York solving its water problem when the Safe Drinking Act of 1974 was amended in 1986 declared that you had to either filter your water or prove that it was a potable enough source, having to cover issues like Democratic Pragmaticism.

Spending hours talking about how Bush supports a Nuclear Posture that would replace the "old triad" with a "new triad" that would be more functional for the post-cold war, you probably don't even know what the "old triad" is...

Spending house talking about concentrated and diffuse benefits and costs and who wishes for what and how that affects public policy making.

Covering everything from Zero-base Budgeting to State and Local versus Federal tax options.

Do you even know what Zero-base Budgeting is?

I've had to delve deep for quite some time now in a myriad of areas, sure I do have bias, I am a conservative after all I don't like government control such as Kynesian economics.

But I don't just pull things out of my arse as you'd expect from some common person who knows relatively little and can expand upon nothing I mentioned above.

Now you can either just trust that I know a little of what I'm talking about, or you can go and exist in your own little fantasy. When we enter specifics, I can give you sources, but when we are discussing generalities such as right now all I can really do is share my knowledge with you.

I can not however, educate you, there's simply too much material to cover and no way to link it all so that you understand the "big picture".



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:21 AM
link   
gmcnulty what you don't seem to understand is neither political party has the coordination to pull off what you are talking about. They are diffuse and very de-centralized organizations that have a platform set by the President but are not even able to choose their own presidential candidate.

See this is where my higher knowledge in this area comes in ~.~

The political parties have gone through something like 4 stages of forced evolution, but to keep it short basically it used to be that the political party CHOSE who the candidate would be, and people voted.

Eventually it's worked down to the party primary system it is today where parties really have only the power to "get out the vote" compared to what they used to have. Ugh why am I making it sound like it's comparably smaller?

The only power political parties have now IS to get out the vote. They used to have so much more power.

Now if you think that these parties can "plan for the future" you are pretty mistaken. At most they can only plan their position on issues, but more than anything the parties are just names for like-minded individuals.

It is nothing like say, Nazism, where Hitler sat with his highest officers and planned out what they'd do in 1932, and 1936 and so forth to "win Germany from the clutches of the incompitent November Republic."



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   
The subject here is the "sellout" by Republicans considering throwing the 2004 election, if you recall. “Phumphoring” your stores are off the mark.

This is not a string for your demonstration of Yeats like "stream of conscientiousness", free association, or a place designed for presentation of your C.V.

If you plan to do something other then focus and respond to the subject in question try and starting your own string and not boring folks with your demonstration of your need to be the center of attention.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty
The subject here is the "sellout" by Republicans considering throwing the 2004 election, if you recall. “Phumphoring” your stores are off the mark.

This is not a string for your demonstration of Yeats like "stream of conscientiousness", free association, or a place designed for presentation of your C.V.

If you plan to do something other then focus and respond to the subject in question try and starting your own string and not boring folks with your demonstration of your need to be the center of attention.


It is amazing how when I put my money where my mouth is, you immediately retreat to the only stronghold you think you have, the original argument.

Well you must have posted this while I was making my next post, as I already took that stronghold too.

You have no where to hide from me really, I know too much about politics.

Though I am interested how you try to explain how a diffuse group with no leadership except President Bush, is going to plan ahead 20 years, or even a few years.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
gmcnulty what you don't seem to understand is neither political party has the coordination to pull off what you are talking about.


How can you possibly assert that with out proof?

Astounding.

Starting an argument with an uproven A proposition? Untinkable.

Plus you are off focus once more, the discussion is not if they can/can't pull it off but that they are talking about it.

Are you asserting because they can not pull off such a feat that they therefore are not talking about it?



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
much about politics.

Though I am interested how you try to explain how a diffuse group with no leadership except President Bush, is going to plan ahead 20 years, or even a few years.


Son. I am but the messenger of the idea under consideration. Call the NRC if you want an explaination................



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   
As Ellen Glasgow once remarked: "He knows so little and knows it so fluently."



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   
GMC do you really trust the UN? I mean just look at what happened with the food for oil program with Iraq. Scam Scam Scam. Here's another way to save money, stop contributing money to the UN, and move their headquarters out of New York to France or Germany, because it seams that their say is the only important one. The US has to worry about itself not any other country.



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom Fighter
GMC do you really trust the UN?


Did I say I trusted the UN?

God! What is this? Word association Wednesday??????????????

Today is Friday. You're 2 days late.

What is the subject?

What is the main idea author states?

What is your response to author's main idea?

Are you with me still.........................



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:42 AM
link   
It's not an assertion...right here in the simpleton's book called "The American Democracy: Sixth Edition by Thomas E. Patterson" on the page 242 there is a subheading called, "The Weakening of Party Organizations."

I'll give you some excerpts.

"Party organizations also lost influence over elections because of a decline in patronage. When a party won control of government a centruy ago, it also gained control of public jobs, which were doled out to loyal party workers...."

"In the process of taking control of nominations, candidates have also aquired control of most campaign money. At the turn of the century, when party machines were at their peak, most campaign funds passed through the hands of party leaders."

"Primaries are the severest impediment imaginable to the strength of the party organizations. If parties did not exist, candidates would have to work through party organizations in order to gain nomination, and they could be denied renomination if disloyal to the party's goals. Because of primaries, however, candidates have the option of seeking office on their own, and once elected (with or without the party's help), they can build an independent electoral base that effectively places them beyond the party's direct control."

Now how do you think the Republicans can "throw in the towel" on Bush? Bush is running on his own money.

The organization is not powerful enough to do what you are claiming it will "do".

Really now I hate having to draw-up sources, I much rather to just state the facts, and you listen.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join