Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian Winston The wonderful 200 year experiment of republicanism, democracy, and freedom has drawn to a close. I mourn for my country.

Which you abandoned when you moved to New Zealand.

Underlying this is the assumption that if someone else had been *elected* president yesterday it would have made some sort of "difference". Not so.

A HOMEOPATH ought to be able to understand and empathize with....anyone...even someone espousing unpopular beliefs...and refrain from JUDGING....

Dr. Manish - I cannot disagree with what you have said. We are all responsible and we will all pay for OUR share of it. This is evident.

Allen Coniglio

Absolutely correct and directly to the point.
AC

Yes, Dave - You are right on some things and wrong on some things. It is not only brain dead "xtians" who are responsible for the state of the world, it is also the brain dead of every stripe, nationality, culture, philosophy and religion. Ranting about the rich is not the answer any more than is ranting about the poor. ALL are responsible. Even you must claim your share of it. As usual, you make large assumptions and large categorizations which open you to charges of inadequate thinking. Unlike many on this list and in the world at large, you DO think, even though you are often victimized by your prejudices and intellectual blind spots. Yes, democracy IS a sham - here and in all parts of the world. None of us can claim any longer to control our own destiny. Rather than worry about that, however, we should be preparing to meet our destinies, individually and collectively. The handwriting is on the wall. Can any of you see it? Most of you cannot understand my thinking as it is too large and encompassing for you. There are, however, one or two who can and who have let me know it. Thank you for your encouragement. Dave, calm yourself down and try to think it through. you have a chance but, I must say it seems to be slipping away. Don't worry, however, as Nature has a way of waking us up - sometimes just in time and other times, maybe a little late to our way of thinking but, either way, we WILL be awakened. Good luck to you.

Your old friend.

AC

I honestly have to say that I seldom hear anything as disjointed, confused and illogical as what you have written except when I am talking to a Kerry supporter or should I say, a Bush hater. Is there anything logical about such rabid hatred? Only a person who gets their news from Fahrenheit 911 could have written what you did. Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the electoral vote. The presidency goes to the winner of the ELECTORAL vote according to the US constitution. California and New York, the first and third largest states in terms of population were not considered as viable targets by the Bush campaign and no campaigning was done there, thus sacrificing thousands of "meaningless" votes. They were written off to Gore before the campaign started and there was no "get out the vote" effort made in either state. Bush knew he could win the presidency without them. He did not NEED to win the popular vote to win the presidency and, in fact, he was not the first person to do so without winning that vote. He did in fact, however, take a greater percentage of the popular vote in losing the popular vote in 2000 than Bill Clinton did in winning the presidency in 1992 and 1996. Clinton NEVER won a majority of the popular vote, taking the presidency with only 43% of the vote in 1992 and winning that year only because Ross Perot won 19% as a third party candidate, siphoning off votes primarily from George Herbert Walker Bush, the current president's father. Had Perot not run, Bill Clinton would never have been president. I am not so surprised that the left ignores this fact when they complain that Ralph Nader took a miniscule less than 1% of the vote from Gore in 2000. The 2000 election was called for Gore by his lapdogs at CBS at 7PM EST. Millions of people in the West did not bother to vote after that and this is likely a factor in Gore's victory in New Mexico and Iowa by just a few hundred votes each. Millions of Rebublicans in New York, Calif and other states written off to Gore by the Bush campaign strategists such as New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc. never went to the polls at all. You do not have a good grasp on the realities of political science. This is evident from the things you say. Impeachment from the 911 families? This is beyond belief. Washington, DC. Who cares how they vote? What of any importance has ever come out of Washington, DC? Please . . . think a little bit. Study your facts.

Allen

The self pitying lampoon written by Julian Winston is representative of the last gasps of the dying and increasingly irrelevant Piscean Age. Such trash is to be expected from those who are weak minded and misled as this is the type of thing that happens at the beginning/ending of every age. It is those who look backward who are impressed with such foolishness. I, for one, choose to look forward, to the more ingenious, rational and elevated world that I know will soon come. The truth CAN sting, can't it?

Allen Coniglio
Proud Thinker

Wow Allen. This has to be the most hateful thing I have read in a long time. Why respond to a message of sadness with seething anger? That seems out of proportion.

Everyone seems to forget that there are other issues besides terrorists and the war in Iraq. What about the environment? If Bush and whomever follows him continues to rape the environment, it won't matter whether there are terrorists or not. Bush is short-sighted and out for his own gain. I don't admire those traits in the leader of the world's last superpower. We have alienated our friends in our arrogance and will pay for it shortly - of that I am sure. I am embarrassed to be an American on this day.

Tracy

I've been baffled at how little (almost none) the environmental issues seemed to figure into this!!! Mm, probably my fault for not sending bigger donations to the right places (joke, joke). Tracy, I totally agree with you--the rate at which we're trashing (our country and) the planet should be *every bit* as compelling as some of these other issues. (E.g. IMO a heckuva lot more urgent than the issue of gay marriage, yawn, sorry, I realize that's insensitive, but...) Or stem cell research.

*Why*???? I read that Bush has turned back our environmental laws by 30 years--already! We all know about how the US dumps toxins in other parts of the world, and we (?)know about the flaps around e.g. finding "safe" places to store nuclear waste (uh, somewhere that will be "safe" for 10,000+ years?????? Sheeeeeshhhh....). I guess this stuff hasn't been "suppressed", but maybe it's just not suited to sound bites? Anyone have thoughts about why it didn't seem to figure in the debates at *all*? I'd be happy to hang Bush on that account alone (tho i can think of other reasons too).

Shannon

So true. I don't know why so many of us Americans can't see this either, but apparently most of us cannot (based on election results).

Sheila