Manifesto of the Underdog Party

[mburbank]

Bin Laden's current stated strategy is to bankrupt us, they way they did the soviets.

Republicans will never believe this, because A. Osama Bin Laden is a sack of shit, which is true

and B.) They believe Reagan won the cold war, and go no credit whatsoever to the economic implosion of Russia, much if it caused by Afghanistan, or Gorbachev's noble attempt to allow Russia to change as opposed to initiating the end of the world.

I think Bin Laden's strategy is dead on, and I think we're well on our way. W will be safely out of office long before we are so deep in debt we can no longer function as a country. Republicans will find a way to believe the blame lies with Democrats, who have wielded little or no power for the last for years, will wield less during the next four, and once the Supreme court is packed may well have none at all, see the redistrricting of Texas as a precursor.

America is a pendulum. I had hoped it had swung far enough to the right to begin swinging back, but hope was not enough. I fear strongly though, that by the time the pendulum does begins it's inevitable swing backward, the damage we've done oursel;ves and the world will be truly staggering.

I now begin my countdown to Neocon implosion, which I said months ago I believed would take place if Bush won. Their arrogance which was without precedent before they had a popular victory under their belts will no reach a level of Hubris of the kind Rome knew shortly before it's fall. There will be some here who will think I'll take pleasure in this, and as my character is not so strong as I might like, it's quite possible I will. But in my current moment of clarity, I know there is no pleasure to be taken in the sorrow, death, destruction and betrayal I honestly believe is coming.

For those of you who are younger than I am and think I'm overdoing, tat nothing major will change, that this is simply bitterness and paranoia, we have something in common. We both hope most sincerely you are right about that, and I am wrong.

I ask only that you all, whatever stripe, remeber this time at least what the man said on his way to the white house. He promised to cut the deficit in half. He promised Freedom was on the march. He promised there would be no draft. He said he was a good steward of the environment. He swore he was a friend to the middle class, and that the privitization of Social security would not be a disaster.

The Republican party, who has always enjoyed the role of underdog, now has more centralized consolidated raw power than at any time in my life. For at verty, very least two years, far more probably all four and beyond, the Republicans are responsible for our country. Be honest. Hold them accountable. Never forget, they serve us.

For those of us who are now lesser Americans, don't give up. Our vission of America is valid, the things we believe make America great are in danger and the moment when things seem hopeless is the last time to give up hope. There may come a moment, as it did for my great grandparents in Europe when the best you could do for the future was run with the clothes on your back. That moment has in now way yet arrived.

We're the underdog now. Undeniably. Rush and Ann will have to find another song to sing. America loves and underdog. Don't forget it.

[Anonymous]

What do you think the conditions would have to be like before another civil war took place?

[Anonymous]

Since you're probably the smartest guy here, I'd like to ask you more questions, since my pathetic American education has crippled my brain. Not trying to e-blow you, I'd really like to know:

- You've said that something can be done about the administration in 2 years. What do you mean?

- Assuming enough of America wakes up to a point where there is widespread protesting and riots, what possible good could come from that?

- Do you think a mass emigration from the US will take place? If so, how do you think the current administration will reconcile it?

- What can people that actually enjoy freedom do at this point?

[Bass]

The two years thing refers to the house of representatives going into election every 2 years. I think 1/3 of the senate also has to deal with election every two years. It may help take some of the power away from the republicans, and change the administration.

[FS]

We're the underdog now. Undeniably. Rush and Ann will have to find another song to sing. America loves and underdog. Don't forget it.

They'll probably still have a ball branding all critics as traitors, communists, cowards and terrorists.

It would be funny though, if Rush Limbaugh's entire schtick would have to be reduced to remarks about people he met at the grocery store and inbetween long minutes of uncomfortable silence.

[DamnthatDavid]

Well, can't fault you on the points. I see myself as a Republican this election, but only just. Hell, I at first thought that Kerry was the way to go.
But I also believed that a Leader should stand firm with the beliefs he has. And Kerry's switching led me to believe that Kerry would be a disaster. He would be pushed around by the EU, and other growing powers. Sure, we might be a bit more liked, but we won't be respected.

Bush is going to trash this country in the political and economic sense. But I believe this is only a Test of Fire. Like a piece of metal needing to be heated, pounded, beaten, before it forms a a useful item.
It has happened once, and will happen again.

[mburbank]

Choj; Thanks. I think there are a number of people here as smart as me, a few smarter and a few more quite a bit smarter.

The two years question got answered. Newt Ginrich's 'revolution' was on a two year cycle, and it's the first chance we'd have to win back the senate or the house. I think the house is outside of possability, as they've got two years to do semi legal redistricting ala Texas. The Senate is a real possability, and without control of the Senate, the President has to work a lot harder to get done what he wants.

I don't think widespread riots will help, and I don't honestly think they'll happen, although with some million more in poverty a year, I think it's possible. I suppose if W reacted badly and tried to turn an already thin national guard on the citizens of the country it would be really clear something was drastically wrong, but I'm never a fan of riots or anyt sort of violent resistance. I think if every one who'd been out of a job for more than a year went and lay down on the Washington Mall and didn't eat and refuwed to move, it would say a lot more.

I have to go now. I'll write more later.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think everyone who voted for Kerry should register Republican, talk about God a lot, and then run for office. We're more than half way to a Neo-conservative Politburo anyway, so let's just start the conversion now.

[AChimp]

Sure, we might be a bit more liked, but we won't be respected.
You have an inferiority complex if you think that you have to be macho and tough in order to be respected.

I laugh at how some Americans tell foreigners to sod off because they have no right to criticize "America's decision" and its choice of president because they get no input (Panty did it today), and yet you're always first in line to tell someone else how they should be running their country. Now you're in the business of invading them.

That kind of hypocrisy is why the world grumbles about everything America does.

[adeptninja]

Im not a big fan of Bush but I think hes a better choice then kerry. Kerrys plans if you looked at them were goning to drive us further into debt also like with his health care plan which was going to cost us roughly 653 billion while W. plan only cost 90 billion.

As for the downfall thing its bound to happen. Did we really plan to stay on top forever. Rome fell and so will we. Im making the prediction that china will be the next big country. People say there government is bad because they dont have all the freedoms we do but if you look at how fast they are technolgically growing it is far greater then ours. Their big down fall is gonna be the eniviroment. As dumb as it sounds its true. They dont care to much about this and soon there citys will be unfit to live in (this is in a number of years mind you)

[Stabby]

Their big down fall is gonna be the eniviroment. As dumb as it sounds its true. They dont care to much about this and soon there citys will be unfit to live in (this is in a number of years mind you)

Yeah, cause we all know in America the top issue for this election was the enviroment. That ranked way higher than dead babies and faggots.

[adeptninja]

we are still better off then them

[Burger Lord]

I find it amusing that if you ask any republican about the economy, they will tell you it is rising, there are plenty of jobs and all of the talk of depression is just democrat lies meant to help move the election their way. And the very few repub. I have met (I'm in Georgia, there are many) that actually do come out and say "yes the economy is down" have a X-files conspiracy theory about how Clinton really caused the depression and we just did not notice until W was well into office. Actually these same poeple are capable of blaming Clinton for almost every disaster for the last few years.
Violence, I believe any way, will not solve anything especially with the over-paranoid "there could be terrorists hiding anywhere" mindset overrunning this country. The massive amount of Bush votes shows how afraid most of the poeple really are since they seem to really not care at all how many jobs are lost, how many soldiers get bombed daily, or how many rights are taken away... as long as they are safe.

[Zbu Manowar]

Plus let's not forget the Republicans stand on shaky ground anyway. Most of them are rich and powerful and use religion to keep the more gullible of us in line with their way of thinking. It might come as quite a shock when those poor Republican supporters suddenly start getting draft notices in the mail and their religion and such can't save them from coming back from Iraq in a body bag.

But regardless, it's all in Republican hands now. They're going to fuck it up pretty badly as they already have done and when it comes down to it, this might be one of those instances were a political party goes too far then self-destructs. Faith in the American System of Government was already low starting with the Vietnam War, today it just imploded. We have no reason to trust our government. So fuck it. I'm still betting that we're going to have something big happen that's going to take them all down a peg. It's the way the world works, really. Something bad happens just at the peak of their happiness. Only thing we can do is do our best, keep our asses covered, and fight for our own beliefs. Just more strongly now.

Keep the faith. Not Christianity, however, if you're so dumb to believe that shit within politics today, you desperately need cyanide.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

"Im not a big fan of Bush but I think hes a better choice then kerry. Kerrys plans if you looked at them were goning to drive us further into debt also like with his health care plan which was going to cost us roughly 653 billion while W. plan only cost 90 billion. "

1. Kerry's plan would have cost more, but he would have taxed the top 5% of earners in the WAY THEY SHOULD BE! Unlike Bush, who will permentantly cut taxes for the RICHEST of the RICH, Kerry would have gotten some money out of them that they'd barely miss.

2. No matter what it'd be pretty damn hard to get any more in debt than what W has don.

3. You're an idiot. And you voted for Bush if you even voted. I can't believe people voted for that dick. :(

4. Thankfully, I'm Canadian.

[Perndog]

Tax cuts for the rich = more willingness to invest = stronger markets = more jobs. The motivation is to offset the rampant bear market that has been due for a while now. Though I'm a little skeptical about how effective the effort will be.

Hand a poor man an extra few thousand bucks, and he gets a nicer car. Hand a rich man an extra few million dollars, and he spends it all on a new business because he's already got enough money for himself.

Dipping into the pockets of wealthy business owners wouldn't do anything for the government deficit. A hundred thousand dollars each taken from a hundred thousand rich people would just get swallowed up in the political machine and redistributed among slightly-less-wealthy contractors.

At least cutting taxes for the wealthy has a *possibility* of leading to widespread positive effects. Taking money away from them just means giving it to more of the same people, and giving money to the lower classes just gives them an incentive to buy a couple more consumer luxuries.

[glowbelly]

yeah cause the first thing i would do with an extra grand laying around is buy a italian pink leather sofa :rolleyes

[FS]

I think that's confusing poor people with poor cartoon characters.

[Zhukov]

What would YOU do with a big bag with '$' printed on it, then?

[glowbelly]

well i know for a fact that i definitely would not put that money in a savings or ira account for my child.

no way.

i'm poor and i want a couch. i don't want to take care of my family >:

[sspadowsky]

I'MA GET ME SOME RIMS AN' A BOOMIN' SYSTEM. >:

[Helm]

Hand a rich man an extra few million dollars, and he spends it all on a new business because he's already got enough money for himself.

Or he puts it on a bank and lets it multiply and rot. Or generally invests it on ways that do not affect the market on the new jobs level at all. This reasoning is very faulty and it doesn't take a man with much economic knowledge to see why.

[FS]

What would YOU do with a big bag with '$' printed on it, then?

that depends on whether or not I'm wearing a little black eyemask and a striped suit.

[Dole]

That line about the rich constantly investing in new businessesis a laughable crock of shit.

It would be funny though, if Rush Limbaugh's entire schtick would have to be reduced to remarks about people he met at the grocery store and inbetween long minutes of uncomfortable silence.

:lol classic


I personally think its just fucking staggering that anyone could think it was a good idea to vote for Bush. Completely mind-fuckingly staggering.

[mburbank]

" Hand a poor man an extra few thousand bucks, and he gets a nicer car. Hand a rich man an extra few million dollars, and he spends it all on a new business because he's already got enough money for himself. "

The thousand on the car goes directly back into the economy and is multiplied by the vast number of poor people. The wealthy in our country have not in any way demonstrated they understand the concept of "Having enough money for themselves" Why do you suppose th disparity between the rich and poor has grown so dramatically in the last decade? Why do you suppose there are so many more people in poverty than there were four yeasr ago? How many jobs might have been created from the obscene bonus's given to CEO's whether they succeed or fail?

[Anonymous]

Tax cuts for the rich = more willingness to invest = stronger markets = more jobs.
Yeah, that's worked brilliantly so far. :lol

WOLVES. GONNA GET 'CHA. WOOOLVES.

[Miss Modular]

Tax cuts for the rich = more willingness to invest = stronger markets = more jobs.

They tried this in the '20s and the '80s. And you know what they invested in? Yachts, Mansions, Bling-Bling. Unless you're talking jobs like servants and butlers, it won't work.

Like communism, it works in theory, but human nature gets in the way.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Reagans trickle down theory....didn't work then, doesn't work now.

[AChimp]

People who sit around thinking up ways to "fix" capitalism or "make it better" are invariably losers (like OAO) who always fail to take into account human nature. Why? Because it's the one thing that they can't make an equation for or put on a pie chart.

"No one's going to do that because someone will come along and compete with them and the system will keep getting better because it will have to and blah blah blah blah..." :blah

Good on paper, bad in practice, like Communism.

[Perndog]

Alright, you got me. Allow me to fix my argument.

First, if you're trying to make intelligent arguments, leave out the references to communism. Communism was supposed to be a historical inevitability, not a system to be imposed on a nation. It would never "work in theory" because it's not a course of action. So I'll address Max and Helm who were nice enough not to be asinine in their responses.

My point was that at least the wealthy have the ability to contribute to the national economy, and despite the opinions of SO many liberals, plenty of them do so.

The Bush family, given a tax break, would buy that yacht.

But a lot of new money investors would put their extra cash to good use. Much better use, I guarantee, than Joe Welfare would or could.

A better plan would be just to offer easier loans for investors at all levels.

I know part of the point is to just line more bulging Anglo pockets.

But it's not a completely idiotic plan economically speaking, because it might (realistically, not in theory) be effective to a point given the tendencies of the newly wealthy.

Wait. Why am I bothering? I'm not rich. Or poor. Or politically involved.

Fuck.

Just nevermind.

[conus]

That line about the rich constantly investing in new businessesis a laughable crock of shit.


You mean that resultant blessings really don't trickle down like manna from heaven?

[Bass]

You can't rely on a select few (the rich) to rejuvenate the economy. If the middle and lower class don't have money to spend, the rich don't have profitable business. If the majority of the people have money to spend, a demand for items will go up. If the demand goes up, companys must raise output to a certain degree. In order to accomplish this, they just hire many unskileld workers and pay them. It's much more sound than paying off the rich who buy very little.

The rich do buy more expensive items, but I'd rather sell many, easy marketable, affordable items, each of which producing some profit, than selling few, high priced, difficult to sell items. that the return on is good but not that great In order to do this (stimulate business growth and sells) it's simplest to return the money to that majority of the people.

That's just my opinion though.

[The One and Only...]

I love how people assume that the majority of rich people are liberal spenders yet make claims that people like me fail to account for human nature. It amazes me.

Anyway, tax cuts allow for a more efficient allocation of resources based on supply/demand in the market and increase the incentive to become an entrepeneur.

[Ant10708]

My dad who is a small business owner received a nice size tax cut because of Bush and he put it back into his buisness by buying a piece of machinery he needed and he has hired an extra worker since then.

[Ant10708]

The tax cuts did not just go to the wealthy but to small business owners as far as I know.

I mean everyone techincally got a tax cut but the wealthy and small business owners contributed the most.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I'd be willing to pay a little more to the government just to keep jesus out of the constitution.