President Gore

Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Archives Thru July 2001: Topics Archived Thru Nov 2000:President Gore
 SubtopicPosts Updated
Archive through November 7, 2000  10   11/08 08:56am
Archive through November 8, 2000  10   11/09 08:33am

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 11:11 am: Edit

Guns for Vindaloo, Blackjack, you have a deal.

Anyway Black Rabbit I think Mexico have their own plans for Texas, they mentioned something about the Alamo being a practice run, couldn't understand what they were on about myself, anyway they seemed like a nice bunch I'm sure the Texans will be well treated. Maybe they might be interested in Southern California, we're not too keen on governing a bunch of health-obsessed hypochondriacs and anyway we wouldn't have enough shrinks to deal with them.

By Black_rabbit on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 04:50 pm: Edit

I told Texas about the Mexico deal. They mentioned that they will be glad to give you their guns, as long as you stand still enough for them to unload them first. That, and something about 'cold, dead hands' I don't quite remember.

As for Utah, you could lift it into space with huge rocket motors, and then drop it on the french. Hell, we'll even build you the motors.

By _blackjack_ on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 04:27 pm: Edit

Can I trade my guns for vindaloo?

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 02:32 pm: Edit


Yes you will have to boil all vegetables they become a puree. All meat must be cooked until it is burnt to a crisp. You will also have to smother your food in thick brown gravy.

Spare ribs, burgers, fries an other such foodstuffs will be bannned and the eating of Chicken Vindaloo will be compulsory.

Guns will only be permitted for members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces. All firearms currently in possession must be surrendered immediately, (no compensation will be paid).

God Save The Queen!

By _blackjack_ on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 11:46 am: Edit

Do we have to give up our guns? We REEEEEALY like our guns.

And do we have to boil all our food into submission?

(I came across an article recently suggsting that the British have actually become ADDICTED to curries, since they are so unaccostomed to the stimulating effects of food with, y'know, flavor.)

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 11:15 am: Edit

Black Rabbit,

We will not be accepting Confederate money from any of the Union States and actually we've already negotiated a deal with Mexico and they're happy to take Texas back. Russia has enquired about Alaska and Japan has also made approaches towards us regarding Hawaii, we will be considering their offers.

We also are not particularly keen on Utah and we've put it up for sale although as yet we've had no offers.

God save the Queen!

By Black_rabbit on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 06:14 am: Edit

Fine, we'll give you the taxes... but we're claiming both world wars as exemptions, and we're paying you in Confederate money. Also, we plan to repatriate the citizens of New Jersey en masse- they should be there sometime next Wednesday, assuming the boat doesn't sink.

Oh, and Texas said to tell you they aren't taking it quietly, and they'll be landing assault troops on Thursday, but it's OK if you haven't got all the New Jersians off the beach yet, they'll shoot around them.

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 11:59 am: Edit


Nice reply, I take my hat off to you.

(I think the Sex Pistols said "Englands Dream" as opposed to "Englands Dreaming", at least it sounds like that to me, although I could be wrong.)

Anyway we will still be expecting back-dated taxes to 1776.


By Black_rabbit on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 11:57 am: Edit

I cannot live under the sway of a monarch.

You see, I am an anarchist (not to mention an antichrist.)

I wanna be anarchy, and it's just that simple.

By _blackjack_ on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 11:27 am: Edit

>>Learn at least the first 4 lines of "God Save The Queen"

Um, isn't it:

God save the queen!
She ain't no human bein'!
There is no future
In England's dreaming!

(Nooooooooooo future...)

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 10:46 am: Edit


To the citizens of the United States of America,

In the light of your failure to elect anybody as President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves and, by extension, the freeworld, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories including New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, please comply with the following acts:

1. Look up "revocation" in the now official Oxford Dictionary ($75).

2. Start spelling English words correctly.

3. Learn at least the first 4 lines of "God Save The Queen"

4. Start referring to "soccer" as football

5. Declare war on Quebec and France

6. Arrest Mel Gibson for treason

7. Close down the NFL. Learn to play rugby

8. Enjoy warm flat beer and steak and kidney pudding.

9. Train waitresses to be more aggressive with customers and not to tell you their names before you eat.

10. July 4th is no longer a public holiday, this has been replaced with November 5th.

11. All members of this British Crown Dependency will be required to take 6 weeks annual vacation and observe statutory tea breaks.

12. Driving on the left is now compulsory - recall all cars to effect the change immediately.

13. Report to our Consulate General in NY - M Wragg - for your new passport and job allocation.

14. Have Meg Ryan report to the Prince Andrew's Bedchamber.

15. Add the Royal insignia to the top of the Washington Monument - and the Queens Christmas speeches to the Lincoln Memorial.

16. Stop referring to the World Series of Baseball and instead call it the National Series of USA, Cuba and Japan.

Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your cooperation and have a nice day!

God save the Queen!

By Bob_chong on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 09:57 am: Edit


And whenever a hurricane washes a boomer's seafront mcmansion into the ocean, it lends credence to the phrase, "act of God"?


By _blackjack_ on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 08:57 am: Edit

We (USA Today, my employer) ran a map of the dstrict-by-district breakdown of the presidential election last week. Almost all of the Democratic districts were on the coasts or along the Great Lakes, while the Republicans controlled the vast inland areas. Therefore... warming is a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to melt the ice caps and drown all the Democrats.

But, seriously, there is some very strong evidence that not only does sun-screen not protect people from skin cancer, it might contriute to it.

By Bob_chong on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 07:17 am: Edit

LH and BR,

I heard that the original Coppertone girl is being extradited to Spain for human rights violations...


By Black_rabbit on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 06:20 am: Edit

I wouldn't say that kind of thing in public if I were you LH.

I once knew a guy who said he'd uncovered evidence that the suntan lotion cartels were actually controlled by the shadowy organisations responsible for wrinkle creams and other skin care products. Two weeks later, he disappeared, his house was demolished, and they built a tanning salon in it's place. I told the FBI I had never met the man, and they said 'that's real good. Real good, cause if you had, well, there's always room for more tanning salons.'

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 01:10 am: Edit

No Bob, don't be so naive, it's not as simple as the CIA's involvement in Chile. The ever increasing depletion of the World's ozone layer is the result of an ongoing sinister conspiracy between Western administrations and the corporate interests of multi-national corporations involved in the production of sun-tan lotion.


(The sun-tan lotion producing multi-nationals have argued that all they are doing is creating new markets, boosting the economy and creating jobs.)

By Bob_chong on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 08:18 pm: Edit


As long as that ozone hole stays over Chile, I have nothing to worry about. ;-)


P.S. Or was the Chilean ozone hole installed by the CIA to overthrow Allende...blah blah blah...

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 12:51 pm: Edit


But what sort of planet would you be left with?
One without an ozone layer no doubt ;-)


By Black_rabbit on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 12:42 pm: Edit

Well, there is the argument that violent xenophobia is a good survival trait for a group of people to have. If you have two tribes and two sets of resources, and one tribe is pacifist (or just not as vicious), while the other are bloodthirsty bastards, you will end up with one tribe with twice the resources. So history will hand us the legacy of bastardry, not pacifism, to work with.

But now the world, I think, is too small. Too much likelyhood the weak will nuke the strong and make the question of who's in charge moot.

So while being a conquerer was in the past a trait much admired, I think now it is actually a negative to survival, or will be soon. Until and if we reach the stars and open our playing field up a bit. Then, in a generation, I bet being a conquistador will again be the aspiration of young folk everywhere, and xenophobia will come back into style.

I wonder what the origin is of the change in attitude? Eminent Domain, Christianising the pagans, and Civilising the savages were great things in the past, and are now known as the brutal acts of despots. What happened? Today, NATO would bomb Columbus, not give him his own holiday...

By Bob_chong on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 11:30 am: Edit


You're right, "no one nation has the right..."

But we may have the ability. ;-)


By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 11:11 am: Edit

As Black Rabbit says, nearly all major powers, past and present, "democratic" or "otherwise" are guilty of hideous atrocities. This includes the UK, USA, USSR, China, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Turkey etc. etc.

But this IN NO WAY excuses any of the atrocities, including those committed in recent years. We do ourselves no favours by letting our Patriotism or Nationalism or even Socialism blind us to the atrocites committed by the countries or causes to whom we affiliate ourselves. It may make us uncomfortable to admit that our nation, (or cause) has carried out such heinous crimes, but until we admit the reality to ourselves we will never be able to stop the crimes carried out in our name.

Crimes against ordinary people on the planet regardless of their nationality, political persuasion, skin colour, religion etc are inexcusable. These people are ordinary men and women like you or I and they deserve the same human rights as you or I. Furthering our own nation's, (or cause's) interests is no excuse whatsoever for commiting any such crimes, let alone crimes of murder, torture and rape(a commonly used weapon of suppression).

We all share this planet together as Brothers, no one nation has the right to control it for their own benefit.


By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 09:52 am: Edit

Tibet? They may come off as kum-by-ya hippies today (and I have every reason to beleive the present Dalai Lama is a decent fellow) but the Lamaist rule of Tibet was considered, in times past, to be the very model of Oriental Despotism--back when people used such terms, anyway. It's easy to come off as lambs after you've been slaughtered.

And I wasn't aware of all the details regarding Pinochet. That was, indeed, pretty awful, and I can certainly see where you are coming from. I still think there is a difference between that and what the Soviets did, but it's not excuasble. The key difference remains in that, in the US, the public has the ability to DO something about our government's wrongdoings.

By Absinthedrinker on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 06:37 am: Edit

I think that the Tibetans have a pretty good human rights record.

By Black_rabbit on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 06:11 am: Edit

Can any of you point out a government/nation that *isn't* guilty of such things as Britian, the US, the USSR, the Japanese, the Germans, the French etc etc etc? This is not sarcasm- I can't for the life of me think of one (no coffee yet today) and if there is, well, toss em out.

By Don_walsh on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 01:10 am: Edit

About Chile I only have two words to say:



However, if pressed I could recite the similarly significant words in the history of Britain's foreign adventurism to favor British commercial interests. For the sake of brevity I'd rather restrict myself to the last 300 years, predating the United States entirely. This would compell me to omit the entire subject of Ireland, for the same of the peace of mind of both myself and Lord H., because I'd rather not think about it.

Nevertheless, Brits pontificating to the US about national morality in the conduct of foreign policy must be particularly adept at hypocrisy. Or else abject ignorance of history.

By Perruche_verte on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 06:14 pm: Edit

I forgive you for not reading carefully, Blackjack, but let me quote one of the guiding stars of this forum, a man whose wit and wisdom on the subject of absinthe (and other things) impress me every bit as much as his politics horrify me:

"Pinochet is an old man, and the asshole he replaced was a Marxist badmash. One of my old friends (the late D.A. Phillips) ran that coup from Langley."

No, we didn't send in the troops. We usually don't do that when we can get the local military, security forces and right wing (mostly trained by us, naturally; Chile's "stars" included School of the Americas graduate Col. Manuel Contreas, Pinochet's security chief) to do the job for us. We just provided intelligence, planning and funds, and blocked for them diplomatically.

In 1976, Allende's former Defense Minister, Orlando Letelier, and his aide Ronni Moffit were killed by a car bomb in Washington, D.C., where they were lobbying in behalf of Pinochet's victims. The action was carried out by an American operative of the Pinochet government, Michael Townsley, and members of a Cuban exile group. The CIA promptly began a disinformation campaign suggesting the Chilean Left had killed Letelier themselves to make him into a martyr.

As Hobgoblin suggests, Amnesty International can tell you the rest much better than I can.

I hope you're not shallow enough to write off what Hobgoblin says because he's in Britain. The corporate press of every country gives a nationalist slant to its news coverage, because sales are higher that way and advertisers don't get offended. People like a little moral reassurance with their morning coffee. For that reason, I find that people living outside of the U.S. often have a somewhat better grasp of our country's failings, if not always those of their own.

Go ahead and pick on me if you like; I was born in the U.S.A. I love its land and its people. I despise its politics.

By _blackjack_ on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 02:30 pm: Edit

You can't really blame the US for Pinochet. We may have tolerated him in the name of fighting Communism, but it's not like we sent in troops to install him in power. Blaming the USSR for atrocities it commited directly is a very different thing than trying to blame the US for atrocities committed by others that we failed to stop.

By _blackjack_ on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 02:26 pm: Edit


By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 01:48 pm: Edit


Fair enough, the UK has more than it's fair share of blood on it's hands.

I could go on and on about Chile after August 1973, but if you want details of what went on Amnesty International can supply this. Some people would regard what happened here as an atrocity, some would view it as a mistake, some would view it as reasonable force, depends on your point of view I suppose.

I've never meant to attack the American people, just aspects of your foreign policy. It is heartening to see opposition to such action, and yes this wouldn't have been the case under the Nazis or in the USSR.


By _blackjack_ on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Again, at least this century, the US is not nearly as bad as the USSR, or even the UK (ask a Tasmanian aboribinal--oh, wait, you can't. They're all dead.) We haven't outright taken any land by force since the Spanish-American war or put any people under our boot. We may have supported regiems that did, or sent CIA advisors, but we didn't send in our own tanks to do it. The closest thing you can find in recent years would be our actions in Haiti, Grenada and Panama, and in none of those cases did we commit any atrocities, although I still think our actions violated international law.

Wehne I look at US foreign policy, I see mistakes, some huge, but I don't see atrocities. Our embargo of Iraq may get to that level, but keep in mind that it is not just the US that is involved there. And, again, there is vocal opposition to that policy, something you would never have found in the USSR or Nazi Germany.

As far as the election goes, it is unlikely Gore will win on the recount, since the overseas (military) ballots are usually overwhelmingly Republican. Unless some judge decides to call for a revote in Palm Beach, which is unlikely and a bad idea, it looks like Bush will squeak by with a margin af a few hundred to a thousand votes.

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 12:19 pm: Edit


Granted there was probably less internal repression in the USA of it's own citizens this century than the citizens of the USSR this century (although last century your record was appalling), but this is small comfort to countless innocents, (usually in under-developed 3rd world countries) outside your borders who have suffered horrifically, as a direct result of American foreign policy this century.

It's not only citizens of the USA that have a right to life, liberty and self-determination, the rights to life, liberty and self-determination of citizens of third world nations should be as great. I expect you probably agree with this last paragraph and I'm not attacking you, just suggesting that all human beings should have basic rights, not just those residing within the borders of the USA and her Western allies. We share the planet amongst all Humanity it doesn't belong to one particular nation.

Anyway to go back onto the title topic of this thread. News reports we are getting here in the UK suggest that Gore is likely to squeak through on the Florida re-counts. Is that the same story you're getting in the USA?


By _blackjack_ on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 11:22 am: Edit

Come on. We are a LITTLE better than the USSR, at least this century. Even when we were engaged in genocide and imperialism, we still had a much geater degree of freedom of expression and self detremination (well, if you were a white male, anyway) than the USSR ever did.

This is not a defense of our crimes, just an attempt at keeping things in perspective...

By Black_rabbit on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 10:37 am: Edit

Don, does that mean you are espousing affiliation to the US demagogues of the past (and present?)

What you describe the USSR as is a state that agressively champions it's economic interests, using force when necessary, commits genocide, and expands and maintains it's sphere of influence by force or guile, making those states communist that it can.

I refer you to Buffalo Bill, and the 'indian question.' Planned, state sanctioned genocide.

Take a look at the westward expansion and Hawaii's history. Imperialist aquisition of territory (which we still do. Any group of Indians that doesn't meet a population quota will have land taken away by the federal government.)

Look at the Persian Gulf War. Defense of economic interest by force.

Look at the Vietnam war, the Korean war. Our sanctions of Cuba. The US stance on any state that wanted or wants to be 'undemocratic.' Expand and defend sphere of influence by force or guile.

We are no better than the USSR was (save that we never had our Stalin.) Our internal corruption just didn't topple us. We won the cold war.

That does not erase what got us where we are, and it doesn't make it right either. So while you are telling Lord Hobgoblin he is affiliated with Stalin, take a look at the skeletons in our own closet. There are men in our own history just as ruthless, just as evil, and who are still revered instead of reviled.

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 08:56 am: Edit


I think what actually triggered this off was someone mentioning that Wiz sold shots of absinthe out of the back of his van, (it wasn't even the Gore Bush thing which I suppose as it's politics some sort of very tenuous link could have been made), bizzare isn't it?

Time for me to to chill out I think, (after my blood stops boiling).


By Wormwood on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 05:03 am: Edit

Funny here how a debate on whether Gore or Bush
should be president quickly turns into a debate on
who was the better man Hitler or Stalin. It must
be that thujone effects the parts of the brain
used to view history with any clairity.

Hitler vs. Stalin: I think they were both evil
bastards. One killed 6 million Jews the other
killed 10 million of his own people. Neither were
nice guys. Someone with more insight into the
problem then we will ever have seems to have made
the correct decision in WWII who we should have
allied with.

Henery Ford was not a Nazi, he may have made some
favorable statements about the Nazis like "gee
that Autobaun sure is a nice road" but he didn't
furthur their cause very much. On the other hand
he did help the Russian cause. Before the war he
built them build the largest car/tractor assembly
plant in the country. Later when it was converted
to make tanks for the war it's production was
responsible for turning the tide of the war.

By Perruche_verte on Sunday, November 12, 2000 - 12:06 pm: Edit

I'd submit that this sad reductionism (socialism = Marxism = Leninism = Stalinism) has been responsible for most of the tragedies of U.S. foreign policy.

Plenty of conservatives in the U.S. (notably Henry Ford) backed Hitler in the '30s. I don't believe many of them like him very much anymore. The same is true for the Left and Stalin, so I think that's another canard that has gone on long enough.

Ah, the good old CIA and their crack analysis. Remember those photographs of that little fishing pier on the Pacific coast of Nicaragua? I forget now, what was that supposed to be... a submarine base? Or were the Russians going to be unloading tanks there? Whatever, it was a nice pitch for the black budget.

And then, speaking of Afghanistan, there's our old friend Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Muslim fundamentalist (when it suited him) and poppy farmer. One of the most fratricidal and least credible of the Afghan oppositionists, but good as gold to "our" side. The Taliban, who began as a reaction to his regime and its abuses, have banned opium growing, along with most human rights. Just like in Cambodia, we're content to pretend we had nothing to with creating them through our meddling.

Somehow nationalized industry and land reform (which I believe is about the extent of what Allende proposed for Chile) seem pretty mild compared to the horrors we have financed in order to prevent them, including that man's murder.

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, November 12, 2000 - 10:21 am: Edit


Find one example where I have defended Stalin let alone espouse affiliation. I have never defended any of the atrocities carried out by the Stalinist USSR. I have never approved of what happened in Budapest or Prague. I would not even consider the USSR to have been a Marxist state. But think what you like Don, no doubt you believe that a commie is a commie is a commie. If Marxism is as redundant as you say then why worry?

And no I don't think it's morally ok to suppress other nations right to self-determination, and back up all sorts of right-wing tyrants who oppress their own people just because it suits our interests, (financial and otherwise).

Anyway so we don't see eye to eye, I didn't expect we would. But I suppose we can at least both agree that Hitler and Stalin were tyrants.


By _blackjack_ on Sunday, November 12, 2000 - 09:44 am: Edit

Holy tangents, Batman!

The election:

Both sides are acting like six-year-olds. Bush is screaming "No take-backs!" and Gore refuses to make a speech without pointing out that he won the popular vote. The republican assertion that all of the Buchanan votes in West Palm Beach were INTENDED for Buchanan is absurd. _Buchanan_ doesn't even believe that. But the Democrats need to accept that, under law, there isn't too much to be done about it.

Where does that leave us? Well, we will likely be spending the next four years with A president (Bush) who any rational person must admit may very well have won the election only because of poor page layout. But he did win, and we have to move on. It would be very wise of the Republicans to include some Democrats on the cabinet, but that would negate the point of putting an idiot puppet like Bush in the Oval Ofice in the first place, so I doubt it will happen.

The next four years should be very odd. The congress is nearly deadlocked. We are due for an economic slow-down. And, historically, whoever is president will die in office or get shot at.

Wiz's free enterprise:

I don't think this warrents discussion. It's unlikely he cares what we think anyway.

Hitler v. Stalin:

I think this is going to go down in history as one of the great quandries of the 20th Century. I don't think anyone can say, for sure, whether more good was done by allying ourselves with one monster to bring down another. I'm glad I wasn't one of the people making the descision. The fact is, the US didn't get into WWII to stop the Holocaust, no matter how much we like to pat ourselves on the back about it, now. Stopping the Holocaust was, at best, a lucky by-product of our involvement in a war that included, during our brief tenure, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our civilian body-count didn't equal Hitler's or Stalin's, but it could have been, given time.

Consider this: Bertrand Russel--one of my favorite philosophers, a pacifist, and founder of the Committee for Nuclear Disarmament--advocated a nuclear first-strike against the USSR, because he considered them such a potential threat to human freedom.

Like I said, I don't know. I wish we didn't live in a world where that kind of descision had to be made, and I sure as shit don't trust it to the sort of people who seem to want to be President.

Optimism v. Pessimism:

I consider myself a micro-cynic and a macro-optimist. On a day-to-day level, humanity is comprized by a bunch of selfish monkeys who love to dance on the edge of self-obliteration. Yet, somehow, on the large scale, the world has managed to get better and better over time, almost in SPITE of our individual idiocy. When you compare our society to what it was 100 years ago, or 500, or 1000, it simply cannot be denied that people live longer, in more freedom and in more comfort. Somehow, despite all of the eddies and riptides in the flow (like Facism and Stalinism), the stream of progress moves forward.

This is the only thing that keeps me from going nuts.

By Don_walsh on Sunday, November 12, 2000 - 08:56 am: Edit

Dear Lord H

I fear you and I will never see eye to eye about this. The people you defend, my friends worked hard to crush. The causes you champion, I see as nothig but Soviet fronts. And you call American defense of Western interests, jack-booted. You never heard of Budapest and Prague? Sorry. You are a little past your time. Now armchair intellectuals can playact at being marxists, because the marxist states have collapsed from the weight of their own corruption and inefficiency and inability to compete on ANY level. In the future pls confine any exchange with me to absinthe, I am not interested in discussing politics with someone who can espouse affiliation to the authors of the purges under Stalin, or the crushing of their eastern European satellites, or their adventure in Afghanistan, or their genocidal proceedings against the ethnic minorities (20s to the late 40s) and the Jews. Stalin alone killed 2X more of his own people than Hitler managed (to kill Soviet peoples). Go sing the Internationale to someone else. Being a drugstore Commie is not something that impresses me at all.

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, November 12, 2000 - 08:09 am: Edit


The man you call a "marxist badmash" was the man the people of Chile democratically chose, and Pinnochet may be old but age is no excuse for his hideous crimes against humanity. Don, Allende may have been no saint but Pinnochet was a butcher surely you can't defend his attrocities. I know ordinary trade unionists and socialists who have suffered terribly at his hands, (for no reason other than being a trade unionist or a socialist).

I find it saddening that that a country whose governments make a big thing out of defending "democracy" seems to have had scant respect for the democratic wishes of other nations, (unless it coincides with their own wishes). And as for Cuba, why do you fear a tiny little Carribean island? Why feel the need to stamp your jack-boot all over the planet, is it because you feel you can or is it just obsessive paranoia? Live and let live. American administrations don't have a monopoly on righteousness and people in other countries do have the right to self-determination.

As for bright moments in Yugoslavia, Milosevic has gone, (off to live a life of luxury) but his replacement is unlikely to be any better, he in fact criticised Milosevic for capitulating at the Daton Peace Accord. He's never criticised the atrocities in Kosovo, he believes in a "Greater Serbia" and has stated that he wishes to regain control over Kosova. I'm sure the people of Kosovo and Macedonia don't share your optimism in him. Tito held Yugoslavia together and kept the peace, it fell apart after Tito.

And we do owe thanks to the Russians, (and many other nations) for the fall of Hitler. You can't honestly be suggesting that it would have been better to have fascism spread all over Europe and beyond. I can sympathise to a degree with your views on Stalin but Hitler was by far a much much greater evil.

Anyway, I hold an optimistic view of human nature rather than believe Man is evil and we're all doomed. I believe circumstances corrupt Man and Man's behaviour can be changed by altering his circumstances.


By Don_walsh on Sunday, November 12, 2000 - 03:26 am: Edit

Lord H you are an optimist.

Hitler was toppled in the microcosm by some semiMongol hordes under Bolshevik control. Having Stalin triumph over Hitler was no great bargain for the West. It took us another 46 years to be well shut of the Bolshies and we still have a few outposts to suppress (N.Korea and Cuba) although, the process seems well under way.

A lot of the others just got old or the wheel just revolved (hence 'revolution'). Pinochet is an old man, and the asshole he replaced was a marxist badmash. One of my friends (the late D.A.Phillips) ran that coup from Langley.

If you stay long enough at the fair, you see a lot of silliness. Is a Sukarno daughter a democratic alternative in Indonesia? Can the Burmese junta be reasoned and massaged and blustered out of power? Are the Viets going to love us if we piss money at them?

There are bright moments (Yugoslavia got itself shut of its main old stalinist asshole rather neatly). And not so bright moments (who wants to examine the role of Washington, London, Paris and Beijing in supplying the Khmer Rouge through Thailand, to screw the Viets?)

I am not prepared to say People are basically Good, or Bad. At a half century I have seen them be Both. I prefer to see things as they are rather than as I'd like them to be. I guess that makes me a Manichean or one of their splinters. Basically a reform Zoroastrian. Sort of theological Dynamic Tension. Like the ambiguous Jesus figure (D.Hoffman) told Jean D'Arc, good and evil are not so easy to tell apart. Case in point: just try to fathon the Palestine/Israeli affair.

Was Menachim Begin a terrorist when his Irgun blew up the King David Hotel?
Was Lev Stern a terrorist when he and friends were shooting Brit police in the back of the head?
Did they get rehabilitated after '47?
Was the IDF innocent in the sinking of the USS Liberty or do great states like rampant cocks, just have no consciences?
Ariel Sharon in the Lebanese camps: a 'fat fascist fuck' or not? The phrase is not mine own; my publisher who is the editor of the Middle East Digest (and he;s an Irishman named Dunn) said that at the time!
And here we are on the brink of peace and both sides seem determined to piss it away. By the body count, the IDF etc seems adamant about turning into jackbooted thugs worth of a reverse krystallnacht. The SS didn't overreact worse than that.

And FYI I am No antisemite. My sister was married to a Jew. He's now her widower. Surely many American Jews and Jews elsewhere are sickened to the core by the state of things in the Holy Land? Triggered by an inappropriate but government sanctioned visit by good old Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount?

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, November 12, 2000 - 02:41 am: Edit


You have my apologies for the Hitler example, this was a very unfair example and no personal offence was intended.

I entirely disagree with you that Man's nature is basically dishonest, immoral and selfish and just because Kant may have believed this doesn't make it a fact. And it is not the only place to start when dealing with progressive morality.

The views of philosophers should be treated with a large grain of salt. Just because Aristotle, or Kant, or Hegel, or whoever said something doesn't make it a fact. In fact most of the "Great" philosophers did no more than sit on their asses and play intellectual games, abstract speculation, most of them never changed a bloody thing. We do ourselves a great disservice by revering such people.

Morality is not contrary to man's nature. Man is basically Good and it is circumstances that corrupt this. How can we explain spontaneous acts of humanity, (the very term embodies the positivity of man's nature). If we change the negative circumstances that surround Man for the positive then we will see a change in Man's behaviour. To view otherwise means we are doomed without hope because if Man's nature is basically rotten, Man can never improve himself.

I never said that it is just simply enough to change yourself to change the world. However this is the most important step as to jump this step and then try to change things, (by whatever means) will only lead to mis-guided, self-serving action. The term revolution does not necessarily mean violent revolution, it can also mean peaceful change. Sometimes violent revolution is appropriate, sometimes peaceful revolution is appropriate, but neither can work unless the motivation is positive and selfless.

Yes we still have many despots and many revolutions, (violent and otherwise) have become corrupted. But many despots are no longer in control; Hitler has not been replaced by a German despot; Pinnochet is no longer in control of Chile; Idi Amin is gone, Mussolini is gone; Franco is gone; in the West we are no longer owned by Feudal Lords; slavery is abolished in the West. Change is not always as futile as you suggest.

You are right when you say idealism doesn't change anything. My point wasn't suggesting this however. It's not about idealism it's about taking responsibility to change yourself first before you can change others. Changing things is not something that can conveniently left to others, everybody has a part to play.


By Bob_chong on Saturday, November 11, 2000 - 02:55 pm: Edit


Didn't realize Goonies was such a touchy subject with you.



By Marc on Saturday, November 11, 2000 - 12:25 pm: Edit


being lost in dreams sounds okay to me. Playing with my armadillo sounds okay to me.
As far as being an old timer is concerned:
i't all in the mind.

By Chrysippvs on Saturday, November 11, 2000 - 10:57 am: Edit

I never said it was right or wrong, I just said it just was that way.

When we start dealing with the progressive morality of the issues we have to start using Kant's catagorial imparitive, which honestly is not natural. Morality is very contrary to man's nature.

"This attitude of "the world's a rotten place and man's nature is rotten so there's no point in me being any different, I'll be just as rotten", an arguement used by selfish people to justify their own wrong-doings."

I also didn't say that. I said that is the way the world is, idealism doesn't change it and the romantic notion of "change yourself to change the world" doesn't work. Every revolution in history was about throwing out this despot so I can be the despot, and if it wasn't that way to begin, it sure ended up that way.

As for Hitler, Pol Pot, Caligula, Tepes, and the lot...that is a biased example. I lost most my European family in the camps, my great aunt and uncle both have numbers on their forearms. The Shoah was not a matter of right or wrong, it was more or less what happens when a serial killer gains control of an army. The moral issue pales in comparison to the sheer madness of men like Himmler, Nero, and others.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, November 11, 2000 - 10:03 am: Edit


"...It appears that some people have forgotten that man first and foremost is a creature bent on conquering our fellow man..."

Therefore it follows that it is ok to rip people off as all you're doing is being true to nature. Therefore morality is unnatural, so it follows that it's ok to steal, kill, rape do what you like, look out for number 1 and sod the others. Naturally Hitler was doing nothing wrong when he slaughtered 6 million Jews, he was just conquering his fellow man and being true to his nature.

I'm glad that most people in the world don't hold this selfish view. This attitude of "the world's a rotten place and man's nature is rotten so there's no point in me being any different, I'll be just as rotten", an arguement used by selfish people to justify their own wrong-doings.

Also if you wish to change the world it can only be done by first taking responsibility and changing yourself. This is much more important than glorious revolutions as without changing yourself first any subsequent action will be dishonest and false.


By Chrysippvs on Saturday, November 11, 2000 - 09:30 am: Edit


"Jews were not in a commercial society, and moneylending was rare and could hurt the community..."

The Israelites may have not been captialists at Sinai but by the 11th century BCE we obviously see that Tel Hatzor, Tel Meggido, Tel Jericho, and many others have gone from minor outposts to full fledged economic centers run by Hebrews, by the 10th BCE, we see the famous Solomonic gat complex in Megiddo, and Hatzor and Jerusalem. The Shekel dominated that areas currency and even the Phoenecians called the "`eibroes" greedy, and we both know that is bad off. Only the Lydians outmatched the Hebrews as economic power mongers. And Moneychanging and intrest styled banking was evident atleast in the 10th century and we know from some Tablets that there was massive debts to Israel all the way to the Tigris.

God may have not taught greed per say, but when you have a rule like that in the most economic areas in the ancient world if kinds happens that way. It was only after Solomon spending all that money on his building projects that Israel was bankrupt..and we know from the Tel that he built and built and built. God didn't teach greed, but he turned the blind eye in his peoples case.

By Chrysippvs on Saturday, November 11, 2000 - 08:56 am: Edit

It appears that some people have forgotten that man first and foremost is a creature bent on conquering our fellow man.

I have worked for some of the most corrupt men in power, and been prosecuted by men even more corrupt. An I have learned that the heart of man is not some mystical fuzzy place where man is really good after all..The peligians were worthless in the 3rd century and it is worthless today.

If you don't like the corporations, governments, professors throw them out, have a glorious revolution, die for your cause...if not quit complaining. It is like Epictetus, recently made a cripple said, "I told you that you would break my leg."

By Wiz on Saturday, November 11, 2000 - 06:26 am: Edit

I point the finger back at you and call you the name "Tubob the old timer lost in his dreams who plays with his armadillo"

You can misquote me and tell all the lies you want, but the fact is your justification's a fantasy based on the sad fact of your life, nothing going nowhere!

"Perhaps the Wiz is counting his patchouli stench as atmosphere and his Phish tickets and VW van as overhead.
Peddle a few lies about "how fucked up you'll get on absinthe," and you get the picture..."
Sheez I can't stand the smell of patchouli or the sounds of Phishflakes, and I don't own a VW van, where ever that came from who knows.
This is the only lie being peddled around here Mr B.C., I love the words people make up when they don't have any truth to back up their version of a story.
Such a lovely fantasy world that has been created.
One person makes a false statement, then everyone must believe, and then everyone chimes in to preach their own falsehoods to match their own truths.
Sounds typical here. Sounds like the experiment "pass it on" When a statement is made to one person who then trys to pass it on without altering it in any fashion, and when it get to the end of the line it's a whole new story.

The fact is selling 8 drinks/bottle at $20.00 a drink does not make me greedy or whatever.
I snipped your wire long ago Tubob. Shout to the Glory on High.


By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, November 11, 2000 - 03:23 am: Edit


The feeling is mutual.


By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, November 11, 2000 - 03:18 am: Edit


The EURO's current weakness against the dollar bears no relation on who controls who. Before joining the EURO the Irish was stronger than the UK , did that mean the UK was a vassal state of Ireland? Not so long ago the Pound was stronger than the $ Dollar, did that mean the USA was a vassal state of Britain? I don't think so.

Anyway I hope you lot can get your act together about who your President is going to be, as the ramifications of this uncertainty may even lead to an interuption in the supply of Big Macs worldwide leading to World chaos and the disintegration of your "empire". Scar-r-r-ry :-O


By Marc on Saturday, November 11, 2000 - 03:17 am: Edit


You are wise and compassionate. You have my respect.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, November 11, 2000 - 03:05 am: Edit


"...I still say if you present a price and people are willing to pay it then more power to you...look at the latte of costs around 8 cents to make all in all and people pay almost 3 bucks for it...Absinthe, espresso, Gas, Gucci. Just a matter of what people are willing to pay..."

What a load of hogwash, come to the UK and try buying Petrol/Gas, it's nothing to to with what you're prepared to pay it's all about what you HAVE TO pay, if you're not prepared to pay 85p ($1.28) per litre then you'll just have to walk. It's not about a "free market", it's about greedy corporations (with some help from governments) monopolising and colluding in order to rip us off.

If people want to make a modest "profit" to cover their costs and efforts in order to allow them to live moderately then fair enough. But ripping people off with huge profit margins is just pure dishonest greed and shows nothing but contempt and disrespect for one's Fellow Man. It is totally immoral and cannot be justified.


By Bob_chong on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 08:35 pm: Edit

Here's the FL law, if anyone cares:

"(6) Voting squares may be placed in front of or in back of the names of candidates and statements of questions and shall be of such size as is compatible with the type of system used. "

From Florida Voting Statutes sec. 101.5609 Ballot Requirements

By Anatomist1 on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 07:53 pm: Edit

It's funny. I'm pretty accomplished at producing complicated rationalizations for my various behaviors, but this kind of pithy capitalism is something I just can't stomach... literally. I have a physical reaction to the experience of selling something for more than it seems like it's worth to me. The sensation is similar to the reaction I have had to any attempt to misrepresent myself, pretend to be something other than what I am, or pretend that something other than what I really think is the truth. I guess this is what one would call conscience, but to me it seems as basic as breathing. This is why I could never be any kind of salesman or schmoozing businessman: my body physically rejects any transformation towards becoming a whore of any stripe. It makes for a lonely life, all in all... but at least I don't have to scrub rancid semen out of mouth every night...


By Bob_chong on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 06:12 pm: Edit


Perhaps the Wiz is counting his patchouli stench as atmosphere and his Phish tickets and VW van as overhead. Peddle a few lies about "how fucked up you'll get on absinthe," and you get the picture...

And the Starbucks rationalization/analogy is a bit weak. Just because you know about Spiritscorner, that entitles you to a $97 mark-up, per bottle (i.e., the $120 Deva)? I guess.


By Marc on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 06:06 pm: Edit

Wiz sells Deva out of the back of van at rock concerts for $25 a shot (Wiz's original quote).
People buying absinthe at a rock event (where X, pot, acid etc. is being sold) are more than likely
under the impression that they are buying psychedelic booze. My instincts tell me that Wiz
is probably exploiting the drug/absinthe connection in order to turn a 2500% profit.
This is the kind of shit that will bring the heat down on the absinthe community. Some underage dumbass buys Wiz's "psychedelic booze", gets in a car wreck,kills someone, blames it on absinthe, hires a lawyer, who uses an absinthe defense, and voila! Headlines read:


The difference between a bar or restaurant selling booze and Wiz's bootleg business is:
A bar has to have a liquor license, a bar pays rent, pays a staff and is insured in the event of some sort of calamity. Even with those expenses,
I would sell Deva in my bar for about $5 a shot.
That's based on a litre of Deva costing $30.

Wiz, your Jah has been wired shut a long time ago.
The sound your hearing is not God, it's the roaring of your misguided ego.

By Anatomist1 on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 05:21 pm: Edit

One big problem with the WIZ/Bar analogy:

Nightclubs aren't just selling booze. They are selling atmosphere - a public place where people can meet other people and be served booze and snacks, rather than having to go get and make them themselves.

That "If people volunteer to pay for it, it's OK" argument is a tired, pea-brained one. One has to look at context: isolated things don't just happen in a vacuum. If you're sale depends upon deceit and fraudulence, is the person really making a free choice? That kind of talk reminds me of Harry Lime's ferris wheel speech.

You know I blew this guy's head off the other day. I don't feel bad because he saw me pointing the gun at him, and it was his free choice not to duck...


By Bob_chong on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 04:57 pm: Edit


God didn't teach greed. There were reasons for why the Jews had to behave certain ways (e.g., Jews were not in a commercial society, and moneylending was rare and could hurt the community, such as cutting down on common goodwill towards each other; thus, the same discouragement doesn't apply in order to lend to a foreigner, as Jews were their own closed tribe and didn't really "need" foreigners as part of their community).

Anyway, here are some quotes:

Exodus 22:25
If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest.

Leviticus 25
"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you.
Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you.
You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit.

Deuteronomy 23
Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest.
You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess.


By Wiz on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 04:27 pm: Edit

Did I say it was supposed to? I didn't evoke a'thing. Cry all you want. There are bars out there that charge $16.00 for a shot of crappy whiskey, why should I feel ashamed? Just because you didn't do what I've been doing along...sorry. I don't judge you because you have penis envy and wave it in front of the crowd.

JAH Love

By Chrysippvs on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 04:14 pm: Edit

If Jah and Yah are the same it is funny that Torah says one can only charge interest on a loan to someone ourside the covenant...Looks like God did somewhat teach greed.

I still say if you present a price and people are willing to pay it then more power to you...look at the latte of costs around 8 cents to make all in all and people pay almost 3 bucks for it...Absinthe, espresso, Gas, Gucci. Just a matter of what people are willing to pay...

By Marc on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 04:02 pm: Edit


Poseur. Hypocrite.
You evoke the name of God all you like, that don't make you holy or righteous. And it certainly doesn't excuse your greed.

By Wiz on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 03:41 pm: Edit

So I type a bit to fast and don't pay attention.

By Wiz on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 03:32 pm: Edit

Paid for my summer this year and last, I think next year also.

Jah Love

By Wiz on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 03:30 pm: Edit

That was $20.00 a glass and what a deal, what a profit!!!

By Wiz on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 03:28 pm: Edit

Hey if people want it ...
and it was 420.00

By Marc on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 02:11 pm: Edit

By the way, I am not against capitalism. I am against rampant greed and the unhealthy amount of power that corporations have in the world. I think it's time to find a balance between acquiring stuff and cultivating a healthy planet.

By Marc on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Why would people deliberately vote twice?
The ballot was confusing.

What about Blacks and Hispanics who were intimidated into not voting?

What about missing ballot boxes?

Why did the recount uncover 1700 more votes for Gore?

This thing ain't over.


if anybody's an expert on illiteracy, it's you. The word is "candidates" not "canidates".
The beast is not dead by any means. As long as Coca Cola and McDonalds proliferate throughout the world, capitalism and corporate tyranny will
flourish. Of course, you and your $25 shots of Deva fit right into the culture of exploitation and deception.

By Wiz on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 01:57 pm: Edit

19000 people purposely voted for 2 canidates. There was no mistake, it's just another sham being put on the people of the Nation. Here in AZ we had the same type of ballots years ago. You'd have to be illiterate to not be able to understand those ballots. It's the last gasp of a dying beast.

Jah Love

By Perruche_verte on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 11:46 am: Edit

The Cuban government has suggested that there be a new ballot in Florida, and has graciously offered to send election observers.

Like Dave Barry says, "I am NOT making this up." ;-)

By Bob_chong on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 11:14 am: Edit


Examine all the facts.

First, 19,000 is not aberrant for that county.

Second, the design was legal. (I had the FL code ready to cite but misplaced it.)

Finally, punching two holes cannot be justified in any way, no matter who you vote for. "Select one" means just that. No one in their right mind can claim that they believe they were allowed to punch two holes. If they can't figure it out, they can ask for help while at the polls. Or they can read their fucking mail which had a pretty high-fidelity sample enclosed.

We could go around and around, but please don't give just one side.


By Marc on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 11:05 am: Edit


It wasn't just "some" old people who were confused by the ballot. It was 19,000 people, some of whom were young. The ballot appears to be illegal in it's design. A judge will have to determine whether it is or isn't. Gore's lawyers say the ballot is illegal.

At this time it appears that Gore has lost Florida by 327 votes. The 19,000 votes that were tossed out would have made Gore the clear winner.

By Don_walsh on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 10:06 am: Edit

Lord H:

Denial is understndable. Appearances can be deceiving. Europeans will twist and turn and flaunt. It means little. Do you really think France is a nuclear 'power'? Anyone familiar with the 'Force de Frappe' will snicker. France is a nuclear unPower. A strategic nonentity, a tactical irrelevance.

The fleur de lis wilted a long time ago.

Lord H., we are compatriots. I take no joy in analyzing the reality of American hegemony.

Have a peak at the 'Euro' vs US$. Need I say more?

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 08:53 am: Edit

What I find hard to understand is why the hell you can't have a simple standard voting system in the USA with simple ballot papers marking an "X" against your choice. This would avoid a lot of the current farce about people supposedly being confused by the voting system and would give less opportunity for politicians to make accusations that suit their own purposes.

Why do you have to complicate what is a basically a simple procedure? It's not Rocket Science, why pretend it is? These complications do not save time otherwise you wouldn't be having to wait possibly another week to get your result.

And what drugs are your press on? First they say, (they don't even use the term predict) Bush has won, then it's Gore, then it's Bush and now it could be anybody, maybe it'll be Mickey Mouse,(who'd probably do a better job than either Bush or Gore). Somebody should explain to them that it's not over until all the votes have been counted, a strange concept but most other countries seem to understand this.

(And what is this idea of having 2 main Presidental candidates who are both as thick as pig-shit, backed up by 2 clever Vice-Presidential candidates. A bit perverse. Like have an incompetent pilot flying a jumbo jet and a competent pilot doing the filing. But I forgot it's not about brain-size it's about wallet-size.)

And Don, think what you like but the world's nations aren't vassal states of the USA. The EU doesn't look too much like a vassal state of the USA, many of it's members aren't even in NATO, (France is a non NATO nuclear power)and many ex Warsaw Pact states will soon also be joining. America may arguably be the most powerful nation on Earth at the moment but just because we eat Big Macs and drink Coca-Cola doesn't mean we feel any alliegance whatsoever to the USA. Arrogance was perhaps the major factor in the fall of the Roman Empire and it didn't take very long to fall from it's great height.


By Petermarc on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 07:46 am: Edit

i used to live in florida before i moved to france, i didn't vote...hell,
my wife isn't even registered at the american's my fault, i'm sorr....arrggghhh...

AH, Ameerican pig-dogs, we wave our genitals in your general muther was a pute and your fazzer smelled of ahb-sant...we 'ave the bomb atomeek and very smelly cheeze and now we 'ave mad cows and are not afraid to use zem all..ah hahahahah!!!

By Absinthedrinker on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 07:40 am: Edit

It is already too late Don. Here in London hoards of American tourists are being humiliated by Filipino shoe shine boys. The US Embassy is under siege by East European slum landlords offering to buy it so that they can turn it into a brothel. MacDonalds and Burger King have started to sell Moules Marinier and the servers are all learning French. I hear that over in France Mickey Mouse has been run out of EuroDisney and replaced by Asterix the Gaul. A team of UN observers has been despatched to Florida to supervise the elections and President Jiang Zemin and President Vladimir Putin have been asked to offer advise on running an election.

By Don_walsh on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 06:54 am: Edit

Fellow Americans:

Domestically people seem to be worried about partisan issues, or single
issue impacts (gun control, gay marriage/right to whatever). Well, folks,
what is at stake is nothing less than our international prestige, so it is
time to put the side issues aside.

The Presidency ought not to be decided by the whim of a federal judge. If
there were 'irregularities' (which is far frtom certain) then these should
be looked into and the malefactors sanctioned. But that has NOTHING to do
with the outcome. There are always micro-irregularities. These are only of
interest now because the Floridian outcome will be decisive. For example,
apparently some senior citizens in Palm Beach were confused by the ballots.
But frankly, some senior citizens in Palm Beach (or Sun City, whatever) are
going to be confused about what day it is, or whether they are voting for
GoreBush or Dewey. It just doesn't signify anything other than Alzheimer's.

All the nations of the world are watching. It does not behoove the United
States of America to have a transition of power that is other than orderly
and clear. Like it or not it IS an American Imperium, and if the vassal
states smell weakness and rot at the center, they will grow restive. Look at
the downfall of the Russian Bear as a paradigm.

My proposal is a simple one. The official Florida tally ought to be final.
We are waiting for the absentees, the expats and (mostly) the APO/FPO crowd,
to be counted, by Nov.17, a week away. As painful as that week will be, once
those numbers come in, the results ought to be IT. Gore or Bush, I don't
give a damn. But God help us if this goes litigious. The result can only be
a crippled executive without a clear mandate and with 49+% of the voters
feeling cheated. Americans love conspiracy theories, we are still debating
who offed Lincoln, don't even mention Kennedy (I'm fron New Orleans!).

In this situation unless we unite quickly, we ALL lose. No fun in being a
21st Century 'Roman citizen' -- if the Vandals have already sacked the
center of the world.

Just as a minor example: the MidEast (laughable, lamentable) 'peace process'
hinges on the influence of the US on both sides and on the Arab world.
Clinton had his shot, the present debacle in the Holy land is the outcome.
What can an American president of either party do if he has LESS stature and
mandate than Bill?

Not a pretty picture.

Lets's get our act together. The whole world IS watching. We can't appear to
be a banana republic. We are not Peru. We are not Columbia.

By Petermarc on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 05:54 am: Edit

the germans have sunk the lusitania!

By Absinthedrinker on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 04:25 am: Edit

I agree. Yesterday I started writing a reply to a post in one part of the thread and by the time I posted, it turned up in another with the original post archived. (if you follow my meaning)

By Marc on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 11:02 pm: Edit

this new forum configuration is terrible for sustaining conversation. Everything is fragmented. kallisti, darling, please rethink this.

By Don_walsh on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 10:37 pm: Edit

And I'm speaking as an experienced (if retired) 'print' journalist with friends in that oxymoron called 'broadcast journalism'.

By Don_walsh on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 10:35 pm: Edit

This Archive thing is absurd; I can't reply to Anatomist1's post in the main thread, only in the archive from Nov 9! one day ago. Absurd! Admin pls take note.

Anatomist, I believe your anecdote. EVERYTHING you have ever heard about the 'suits' at the networks is probably true. In fact it's probably not as bad as reality. Unless you are in TV or have friends in TV, you just never see. Or worse, you get TV's version of TV's warts: HBO movies about the network wars at NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN. An incestuous, tunnelvisioned, very NYC/LA axis worldview. Horrid people!

By Marc on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 01:27 pm: Edit


"a Methodist on meth"

"a Christian on crystal"

" a Catholic on crack"

your right. It's bennies. It's been awhile.
Used to buy em by the bag full. Dirt cheap.

By Billynorm on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 11:37 pm: Edit

My predictions:

Whoever wins the Presidency in 2000 won't win in 2004.

The 2004 presidential election won't be a Bush vs. Gore contest again.

You heard it here first.

By Perruche_verte on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 11:12 pm: Edit

It's 242 to 246 for Bush as I write. Florida
is not in yet, nor Washington, Oregon, Iowa.

In a mild breech of my principles, I voted Nader/LaDuke. I'm not sorry. No word yet on whether they got their 5% -- it's frustrating.

Hope this topic doesn't become another "Dewey Wins"... ;-)

By Marc on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 08:19 pm: Edit

It looks like it's coming down to the wire.

By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 08:09 pm: Edit

Bush was too drunk to remember whether or not he was a cokehead, as he bumbled around wondering what to do with his life. Gore remembers quite well the hundreds of joints and bong hits he had with his friends, only he hired henchmen to make sure his former buddies lied if anyone important was asking the questions. I think these stories would be more fun if they included murders and torture sessions...


By Bluedog1 on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 07:33 pm: Edit

I said running on the squeaking clean platform, not actually a squeaky clean candidate. No "politician" could claim that by definition

217 to 173

By Bob_chong on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 07:30 pm: Edit


What planet do you live on? Gore = squeaky clean?

LOL! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.


By Bluedog1 on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 07:03 pm: Edit

C'mon, at least Bush is (was) a drinker. Gore's running on the squeaky clean ticket. I like a candidate with a little vice. At 196 to 173 electoral vote in favor of Bush, don't count your chickens.

Whatever the outcome, I intend to have a drink, being a member of the "green" (muse) party.


By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 06:33 pm: Edit

If he does make it, that son of a bitch better keep his word about the Alskan Wilderness, National Parks and the like. That seems like the only potentially real distinguishing factor between him and the other son of a bitch...


By Malhomme on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 06:16 pm: Edit

Don't hold yer breath friend....

By Marc on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 05:59 pm: Edit

It looks like Gore is gonna take it! Thank goodness.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation