BS: Mxyzptlk Politics

Subject: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: John Hardly
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 06:54 AM

The events and sour political atmosphere of the last three years have led me to conclude that we have finally come to the point of having to look at politics (and whom we vote for) almost completely backward (hence "Mxyzptlk").

First, it would appear that, because we now either no longer believe (we're irrationally skeptical of) press that comes from "the other side" (right wing/left wing) -- and therefore are so polarized that we can't have our minds changed no matter how concrete the evidence may be, politicians now know that they have their own base "sewed up".

So the current poitician spends more time guarding himself against being characterized as the cliche with which his party has been labelled, thinking this MAY win the hearts of the "independant"-- thus, a Republican, like Bush, has spent like a drunken sailor in order to not appear niggardly (as is the Republican cliche, and Democrats talk as though they wish to be tough on terrorism.

So, if you want smaller government and less spending it is now not entirely illogical to vote for a Democrat -- even though philosophically he has no problem with high taxes and big government. One caveat -- it would really help to have a Republican Congress to create the public friction that would force the Democrat to work against type. This is what worked in the 90's.

And if you want us to be safer from terrorism, it is also not illogical to vote Democrat even though the Democratic party has shown no interest in terrorism beyond playing "gotcha" with the Bush administation. The reason this would work is because I think there is a common understanding internationally that the way to defeat us (militarily) is to take advantage of our "divided house". Even though I know that the 9/11 attack was planned in the years before 2001, I still doubt that it would have taken place had Gore won. Maybe it would have -- but I think that NOW (with lessons learned from how divided we are currently) the world understands the depth our our division and sees that it is likely that we can only unite militarily under a Democrat president. If we have a Republican president, he will always (ever since Viet Nam) have to fight both the enemy AND the American Democrat, its public and press.

Thus, we are actually safer from terrorist attack under a Democrat president.

Bring on President Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 07:13 AM

I would love some explanation of the reasoning that arrives at the following:

"Even though I know that the 9/11 attack was planned in the years before 2001, I still doubt that it would have taken place had Gore won."

What would have been the significant difference between the Presidency of Bill Clinton and the Presidency of Al Gore that would have caused Al-Qaeda to cancel their operation?

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: John Hardly
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 07:18 AM

I don't know the nature of the plan -- whether it was planned within a time frame or was a plan of opportunity. But it doesn't matter to my premise because, as I stated later...

Maybe it would have -- but I think that NOW (with lessons learned from how divided we are currently) the world understands the depth our our division and sees that it is likely that we can only unite militarily under a Democrat president.

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 07:31 AM

All depends what definition you draw on to make the statement about "how divided we are currently". Who is the "we" by the way?

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 07:38 AM

I think, Teribus, that you have fallen into the strange belief that Americans never make use of irony.

The flaw in what John presents himself as saying, is the obvious one that it would involve assuming that politicians can be relied on to do what they said they would do, while running for office. That is never a safe assumption. (And that is a non-partisan comment on my part, not meant ironically.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: John Hardly
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 07:41 AM

The USA.

We are divided pretty much 50/50 politically speaking -- BUT -- re:terrorism and our safety from it -- a Republican will back a Democrat taking a military decision (sometimes begrudgingly) but a Democrat will no longer back a Republican who takes a military decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 12:08 PM

I wonder if the originator of this thread were to say Mxysptlk backwards he would disappear back to the 5th dimension and not be able to terrorize us with his impish mischiev for another 30 days?

Mxyzptlk politics. What a laugh!

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: DougR
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 12:12 PM

Humorous logic. I love it!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: John Hardly
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 12:16 PM

What does that mean, Martin Gibson?

I'll bet dollars to donuts that I have started more good-humored and informative posts in my short time here, as well as posting helpful information, lyrics, chords and chord charts, guitar information, etc than you ever have (your posts being mostly of the curmudgeon-like nature) And now, because you disagree with my premise, rather than arguing it, you wish me gone?

Good sport.

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 01:39 PM

Why would you think that Al Queda would not have attaced us if Al Gore was president?    It didn't stop them from the first world trade center bombing in 1993, the two US embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, Somalia, Yemen, or the apartments in Saudi Arabia.   All of these during the Clinton/Gore administration.

I don't think terrorists will stop their mission based on who is presendent of the USA.   Given the choice, I do think Ossama is one of those "foreign leaders" who supports John Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 02:13 PM

Mind, I don't think Teribus is the only one having that irony deficit problem...

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 02:28 PM

Hardly, John. God I always wanted to use that.

I just find it curious that you use the word mxyzptlk, which to my knowledge was based on a character Mr. Mxyzptlk appearing in the 50s/60s Superman comics. No real harm meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: John Hardly
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 02:37 PM

so it's my irony bone that's busted? Good laugh on me. That was the point of the "Mxyzptlk". I figured there to be at least a few superman comix readers in the bunch who'd get the whimsical title.

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 03:16 PM

Is that Jimmy Okson's signal watch going off?

zee.......zee.........

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: John Hardly
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 03:24 PM

I have a pair of glasses that TOTALLY change the way I look. When I am wearing these glasses even my wife doesn't recognize me. She acts as if I'm not there -- just completely ignores me. Kinda like when I want sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 09:50 PM

Why are women like that?

Question for the ages.

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: LadyJean
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 11:10 PM

Al Gore's family hasn't been working hand in glove with the Saudi Royals for a couple of generations. Bush's has. Most of the 9/11 bombers were Saudis, as is Osama bin Laden.
Gore won the popular vote, no question. Bush won the electoral vote, with some questions. It has been suggested that he allowed 9/11 to happen to prop up a shakey presidency.
As of September 10, 2001, George W. Bush was a joke. As of October 10, he was a hero.
I don't know if he knew. I don't know if he let it happen. I do know that 9/11 was the best thing that could have happened to George W Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 12:05 AM

I don't disagree that a Democratic president would be more likely to be successful in getting approval from the voters for military action against other countries than a Republican at this time, although I think he or she would approach it in the same way Clinton and previous Democrats have done... they would prosecute a war, but they just wouldn't call it a war.

I've been thinking this is a big part of the reason for all of the negative attention Bush has been getting in the media lately (as opposed to, for instance, before he attacked Iraq, when the popular media in the US did everything they possibly could to help Bush gain popular support for the war against Iraq). The people who want the US to continue to fight their wars for them, want Bush out of office so the US (the new president) will be in a better position to go after the next items in the "pax americana" agenda... most likely military action against Iran and Syria. And frankly, I'm far from convinced that Kerry wouldn't do something like this. I see him as just another cog in the machine like Clinton, and like LBJ and JFK (remember Vietnam?).

It's all about the people who pull the strings behind the scenes. It doesn't matter to them which party is in office. All they care about is getting the job done.

Subject: RE: BS: Mxyzptlk Politics
From: Peace
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 08:35 PM

So, it's the glasses then. Got it at last.