Is the Republican Party about to fall? Here is the short list of scandals associated with the corrupt bunch that controls our government:



Karl Rove/"Scooter" Libby treason: outing a CIA agent and an undercover operation to spy on terrorist assets (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=823)
Tom DeLay's Money Laundering (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39563-2004Sep21.html)
Jack Abramoff's political misdealings as a republican lobbyist (http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/indiangaming.html)
David H. Safavian (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901859.html), a former Rove business partner
House Administration Committee Chairman Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) (http://www.ourfuture.org/issues_and_campaigns/accountablecongress/ney/index.cfm) "Ney used the power of his office to help a Washington lobbyist buy a casino company in Florida. Shortly after the deal fell through, the company's owner was killed in what police describe as a professional hit."
Harriet Meirs (http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/bfein.htm)-) an unqualified nomination to the Supreme Court
The Iraq War (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=29234)
The Katrina/FEMA failure (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-09-07-our-view_x.htm)
Memogate: The Senate Computer Theft (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31803-2004Mar4?language=printer)
Halliburton's No-Bid Contracts (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041029/news_1n29halli.html) and "pumped up prices" for gas (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1220-07.htm)
Republicans jam Democratic Party phone banks (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2004/12/14/former_bush_campaign_official_indicted_for_phone_j) amming/)
Phoney News releases on medicare (http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/302710.htm)
Illegal Campaign Contributions: John Ashcroft (http://www.citizen.org/print_article.cfm?ID=10933)
George W. Bush AWOL (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/09/bush_guard_duty/) (might need to watch a short ad to see the article)
Abu Ghraib (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3596686.stm)
GITMO (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4150589.stm)

More to come....

Where are the Pro-Bush supporters now? Perhaps some would care to defend some of the actions above?

Bush always was unqualified to be President. His adminstration is stocked with cronies and unqualified hacks. WTF? We can't wait another three years.... that idiot has to go.

All I can say is spread the word. Don't just post it here, where 99% of the posters are anti-Bush anyway.

BBC had another story last night on how all but bush's most loyal (texan religious) supporters are starting to turn on him And how even they think he's been sidetracked when he should have been cracking down harder on stem cells, gay marriages and abortions.

Seems like no-one likes him much on either side at the moment.

The DeLay issue seems just as indicative of a party that has become so involved in the corporate and religious interests, and allowed its most extreme members to become its most powerful members, that it seems to ahve forgotten WHY its there in the first place.

But, on the other hand, this seems to be how two-party politics works. One party will get in power with a lot of momentum and support, then over the years people will notice more and more of their mistakes, then the press will turn on them, then all the dirty secrets come out... then they are defeated in grand style.
Then the other party comes in all full of promise, and everyone thinks it will be different... and the same cycle repeats itself.

We never seem to get anywhere, as the two parties are continually locked in a cycle of power where every 8 years or so they swap places and start undoing everything the other party did.

What is really needed on a lot of issues is for some people to start with a blank slate, and look afresh at how to tackle some problems... but all the ever get are the same ideas recycled and slightly altered over and over again.. and often canned before there is any chance they might have any effect. Its a total waste of time and money.

Yeah, well... the event of Katrina sorta turned a lot of people. All I have to say is: Screw it, I don't care any more.

I can't see anything happening to Bush. No one is moving at all to take him out of office, and I doubt anyone will... at least not yet... unless he screws up even more... on a huge scale...

I think there's a lot of old fashioned conservatives and members of the Republican party that are waking up to find that their party's platform has been totally hijacked by a Christian-Fundamentalist, NeoConservative, Big-Government political agenda. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of Heartland, Middle American folks currently scratching their heads and saying "Hey waitaminnit... THIS isn't what I voted for!" I've already seen that in a couple of the people I know voted for Bush in the last election. They're starting to become disillusioned with the Administration.
That, plus the fact that all the folks that voted for Bush/ Cheney out of fear of terrorism and the promise of safety are starting to question if the Government can't swiftly react to a very predictable natural disaster, how will they react to unpredictable man-made disasters?

It's also very hard to throw all your support behind a lame-duck administration... especially one that's doing so badly at this point. It's time to start looking for viable replacements at this point.

One more link for Miers (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/harriet_miers_a.html), from www.pandasthumb.org)

Is it just me, or did the top of the Republican party basically just implode over the last week?

That seems to be the gist of what they are reporting over here...

I gotta say that the whole process of Supreme Court Judges seems very odd to me. The fact that they seem blatantly politically motivated, and they are appointed for life seems odd.

I guess you could justify the "for life" bit based on the fact it should mean they aren't trying to always angle for re-election.

But the way the elections work seems to mean that you end up with a colleciton of the most hardline right wingers and the most hardline left wingers... and then the decisions are based on whoever happens to have the majority at the time due to recent deaths/appointments.

The problem, IMO, with the way the USSC works is the fact that they have only one panel of judges. In effect, whomever are on the court effectively are the court at the time. There simply isn't any second opinion until one of them snuffs out or retires.

More importantly, what will happen if the Republican party does fall?

Will the Democrats let anyone step up to the plate? Not that our two party monopoly was very good, but a one party system is even worse...

But, all this assumes that political parties can't weather scandals. Both parties have done excellent jobs at living those down for decades.

Out of the list of the Bush administration's sins, #7 is the worst. If it weren't for that I'd say no problem, they'll walk, just like past presidents have.

Personally, I think #8 is more likely to do the trick. #7 and #8 are equally spectacular screwups but #8 has an effective casualty count a couple of orders of magnitudes greater (effective as in vote-moving efficiency: It is common knowledge amongst reporters that one of your own countrymen is worth 100-1000 3rd world citizens in terms of public interest. Sad but true).

Um.

The Republican party falling?

Do we not remember all the scandals that raged across the news when Clinton was president?

It's Bush that's losing serious support - not the Republicans who are. You don't see any mass party defections, do you?

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the topic here ;)

I think you are misunderstanding.

Bush has lost a huge amount supporters after Katrina. Then there was the other 15+ things you put up there. I can't imagine the Republican Party falling. It's the Bush administration that's crap. I expect government will not agree to mostly what Bush wants anymore.

I mean, take money from the levees? C'mon!

But, what's done is done. I would like to see Bush out of there, but it seems very unlikely.

More importantly, what will happen if the Republican party does fall?

Will the Democrats let anyone step up to the plate? Not that our two party monopoly was very good, but a one party system is even worse...

But, all this assumes that political parties can't weather scandals. Both parties have done excellent jobs at living those down for decades.

You say that, but the Democrating party has been effectively in the wilderness ever since clinton (though i wouldn't say that is exactly down to Clinton's actions). So you have near-enough had a one party system for the whole of Bush's term in office. the opposition has been so unsure and divided that he's had a pretty free reign.

Its the same inthe UK, whent he conservatives fell out of power so spectacularly with such a whiff of corruption around them they let the Labour party back into power for the first time in 17 years.
But then they pretty much self destructed and even 8 years later are looking far from electable.

Which has meant almost no opposition, and therefore Tony Blair has gotten away with loads of things he would never have even tried with an effective opposition to call him to account.

The funny thing is that though Bush and Blair have both had open playing fields, no opposition and widfall opportunities like the War of Terror they have both spectacularly failed to make any major improvements.

But at least Blair hasn't managed to make any major disasters either (barring Operation Iraqi Screwup). And it's my impression that he hasn't been quite as heavy-handed as W. That has to count for something... One of the risks you run by playing heavyhanded during periods of weak opposition is that, unless you plan on staging a coup, the tables will turn on you eventually, and then the former opposition just might decide to play heavy-handed with you...

(And let's face it: If you want to make major changes during the short timespans available in politics, you'll almost always have to play heavy-handed)

Althought I agree that #7 and #8 are right up there at the top of Bush's worst failures, I'm more angry at #1. I'm almost 17 and even I see how bigheaded and selfish the government was in "letting slip" that agent's name. People all over the world could be getting killed specifically because of that "slip," all of them dying without recognition. And why is that happening? Because Karl Rove, Bush and his personal supporters couldn't stand seeing someone actually grow the balls to speak out against the Iraq War... especially when former Ambassador Wilson was correct in most, if not all of his statements.

I know the Iraq War and Katrina were and still are terrible disasters and causes, with thousands of good lives being lost for a cause that's becoming blurrier by the day, or because of a slow response to a natural disaster, but there is a more disturbing aspect to the CIA agent "slip" if you ask me. It's the fact that the people working for our own government to try and help our country out now know that Karl Rove and the other officials don't give a damn about their lives, as long as the Republicans can settle a grudge.

Another link about the ineptitude of Michael Brown. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/03/brown.fema.emails/index.html)


...This coming from a former supporter of Bush.

[...] but there is a more disturbing aspect to the CIA agent "slip" if you ask me. It's the fact that the people working for our own government to try and help our country out now know that Karl Rove and the other officials don't give a damn about their lives, as long as the Republicans can settle a grudge.

Welcome back Reborn. I sense a poetic irony in your choice of name, given your last paragraph... It's good to see that someone here has the moral courage to admit that he's changed his opinion in the face of evidence. Most, probably myself including, would just have backpedaled... My hat's off to you.

You've got a point, as well. One that I had previously overlooked: All of Skin's examples except #1 are either 'ordinary' corruption or criminal incompetence. But deliberatly compromising your own country's intelligence services out of sheer spite is an all-time low even for this administration.

I guess the casualty counts of Operation Iraqi Screwup and Katrina kinda blinded me to this point.

I still think, though, that Katrina is going to be the most serious of W's many failures and treasonably incompetent (or just outright treasonous) actions, because it took place on American soil, killed Americans, and incontrovertably demonstrated the inexcusable lack of preparedness against large-scale terrorist attacks. I don't happen to think that terrorism is all that important a consideration, but W's entire campaign has been focused on internal security. Katrina is going to hurt him.

I have a prediction: Cheney will resign after the New Year, citing his health as a concern. But the move will allow the Republican Party to position a likely Presidential Candidate since the President will be able to appoint a VP replacement.

The logical choice for VP would be his SecDef or SecState, but neither of these are electible. So I'm stumped for a replacement.

Could this cause Bush to swallow his pride and select a popular or Moderate Republican (http://moderaterepublican.net/id1.html)?) There aren't many of those. McCain? Chafee? Snow? Specter? Or perhaps he'll choose a rock-star like Guiliani.

McCain would be a problematic appointment. Last time I checked, far more Democrats seem to like him than Republicans. I once had a Neo-Con leaning acquaintance tell me flat-out that McCain "...isn't really a Republican." So Bush's base isn't likely to sit well with that type of move.
(Yet he's the darling of the many in the more liberal crowd, for some reason. Hey, I can understand it: I really respect him, too! I met him once. He really seemed on the ball.)

Add in the fact that McCain is pretty damn rip-**** over the prisoner abuse scandals and all the various other detainee rights violations, I honestly can't see him working well with Rumsfeld (who he clearly has no warm, fuzzy feelings for) and Rice (ditto) for any length of time, and they would have to be cut loose.
Pile that on even further with the fact that Rove pretty much attempted to ruin his live in a very personal way in the run-up to the 2000 election, and that's one name you can pretty much keep off that list.

I don't know the others that well, but I would love to see more moderates and centrists gain a foothold in Washington.

I just don't really see it happening as long as Rove is still pulling all the strings, though... moderation is not much of a respected quality in those circles these days.

Thats kind of when it all started to go wrong for the Republicans... when a very small minoroty with very extremist views managed to get control of the party.

I happen to think McCain would be the best guy to lead the country after bish, but thats probably because i agree with a lot of what he says. I can't help but think edlib is right when he says the republican elite extremists won't let him.

The Republican Party won't die, nither will the Democrates, and honestly, if the Democrates did stuff like the Bush Administration has done, you'd bet we'd be saying the same damned things about them stupid liberals destroying the nation, like how Republican naysayers are destroying the country.

Personally, I'm ratehr sad about the demise of the G.O.P, I was hoping to use them as a launch pad into power. ;_;

I think you suffer from wishful thinking, Skin. W is too head-in-the-sand, denial-of-reality bare-faced stupid to realise that he's even got a problem. The man is delusional. Besides, no matter what he does the Republicrats are going to take a beating in the next election if the Democans manage to find their ass with both hands for a change. And W and his crowd seem to me to be the kind of people who will grab onto power and wealth with both hands and not let go for as long as they can.

Maintaining their course until the next election would provide them no significant disadvantage, since the outcome of the next election depends less on his actual performance during the rest of his term than on whether the opposition get their act together (and how well W's people manage to rig the voting).

It would, however, both allow them to keep embezzling right until the end and fit well with the messian, marthyr-going-down-in-flames-for-the-cause-of-Good style they seem to favor.

Maybe they think that they are players in a Wagner opera...

Then again, maybe not. I somehow doubt the name would ring any bells with any of them...

I say all politicians are lier's and corrupt. Both major parties, I would like to see a independent win. I may vote independent in '08. I am tired of both major parties with the lies and scandals and all of that other crap.

Due to the atrocious way the American system works, you might as cast a blank ballot. If you're concerned about corruption, lies, and scandalous behavior, the Democans are probably your best bet.

the Democans are probably your best bet.
Are you trying to make a funny, or is that some new party I have not heard of? :)

Even Lt. Frank Drebin (of Police Squad) looked forward to the day when the Democrats would run a candidate worth voting for...

:lol:

I do happen to think Bush has not done what he should for this country (I am Republican and conservative, btw) but I have to ask: Would we be better off under the rule of someone who has these kinds of lines:

#1
"...and I'm... REPORTING FOR DUTY!"

#2
"I have a plan, that will stabilize this economy"
"What are the details of this plan?"
"The Bush Administration is a failure!"

Or, better yet...

#3
"And Oregon, and California... HYAHH!" (No real way to spell what Howard Dean said, er yelled)

Sorry to say it was the least of 11 evils in 2004, but that's exactly what we got.

And btw...

I mean, take money from the levees? C'mon!


That was the governor's bright idea, not Bush's.

I do happen to think Bush has not done what he should for this country (I am Republican and conservative, btw) but I have to ask: Would we be better off under the rule of someone who has these kinds of lines:

We'll never know. But if it were simply a matter of comparing quotes and soundbites, Bush would lose everytime.

Favorite Bush quote: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/multimedia/bushism_fool_me_once.mp3)

I said the least of 11 evils, not that he was good! :lol:

You know, personally I wouldn't give a jiffy if the Prime Minister of Denmark hooted like an owl if the alternative was W. I'll take an idiot over a fascist idiot any day of the week.

Are you trying to make a funny, or is that some new party I have not heard of? :)

I was trying to be funny. I was thinking of the Democrats.

We'll never know. But if it were simply a matter of comparing quotes and soundbites, Bush would lose everytime.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
- President George W. Bush

Okay, you made your point, and well! :lol:

But seriously, I agree with Frank Drebin. I don't even care what party; just give us someone worth voting for!

But seriously, I agree with Frank Drebin. I don't even care what party; just give us someone worth voting for!

Indeed.

Though it is just as much the public's fault as it is the parties. The public doesn't want skilled candidates. 90% of all voters vote the same way out of habit anyway.. so its just the last 10% you need to target to win or lose. And the best way to target them is to be as vague as possible, layout very few acutal policies (for the fear you might offend someone) and simply attack the other lot.

The parties wouldn't be giving us these kind of candidates/campaigns if they didn't know it was what worked.

Dean seemed to me to have refreshing policies, but the policies mattered little, one shout (for the media to grab hold of) and suddenly all those weeks of policies and years of experience mattered for nothing.

Kerry seemed to be picked as a candidate merely because he was thought to "look presidential" (whatever that means) and because he had a war record. QUite how either of those make him well qualified to be president I don't know.

Bush was picked as a candidate because of his name, and because his name recognition value made him seem more presidential (as a george bush had already been president). Looked at on an anonymous basis the guy would probably get turned down for a management job in a branch of Burger King.
---
In the UK we have Tony Blair who is the ultimate "style over substance" leader. A master of spin, and who's favorite phrase seems to be "there is no evidence, but trust me..."

And the main opposition is currently trying to choose their new leader, and who is the most popular? The guy who is basically a tory version of Tony Blair. Style, substance and charm over ability all over again.

There is a school of thought that says that the US public always likes to elect leaders who are dumber than them (or at the least "average joes") and the european public likes to elect leaders who at least seem smarter than them.
But it turns out that either way you still end up with the same bunch of loosers...

"Politics is one of the world's two oldest professions. The other has fewer amateurs and a higher moral standard."

- Anonymous

Though it is just as much the public's fault as it is the parties.
That is the truth. Most people are like cattle.


Though it is just as much the public's fault as it is the parties. The public doesn't want skilled candidates. 90% of all voters vote the same way out of habit anyway.. so its just the last 10% you need to target to win or lose. And the best way to target them is to be as vague as possible, layout very few acutal policies (for the fear you might offend someone) and simply attack the other lot.

The parties wouldn't be giving us these kind of candidates/campaigns if they didn't know it was what worked.

Dean seemed to me to have refreshing policies, but the policies mattered little, one shout (for the media to grab hold of) and suddenly all those weeks of policies and years of experience mattered for nothing.

Kerry seemed to be picked as a candidate merely because he was thought to "look presidential" (whatever that means) and because he had a war record. QUite how either of those make him well qualified to be president I don't know.

Bush was picked as a candidate because of his name, and because his name recognition value made him seem more presidential (as a george bush had already been president). Looked at on an anonymous basis the guy would probably get turned down for a management job in a branch of Burger King.

In the UK we have Tony Blair who is the ultimate "style over substance" leader. A master of spin, and who's favorite phrase seems to be "there is no evidence, but trust me..."

And the main opposition is currently trying to choose their new leader, and who is the most popular? The guy who is basically a tory version of Tony Blair. Style, substance and charm over ability all over again

There is a school of thought that says that the US public always likes to elect leaders who are dumber than them (or at the least "average joes") and the european public likes to elect leaders who at least seem smarter than them.
But it turns out that either way you still end up with the same bunch of loosers....
Well put, I agree 100%. In the begining I was a Bush supporter, but the more I look at it, he is just as bad as the rest of them.

Agreed with above post.

I was a Bush supporter, because the Democratic candidates were "all hat and no cattle" as Abe Lincoln would say. Just... talk. But now, look at this country. Our borders are being worked on, but they are still obscenely open to Mexico and Canada. A treasure trove of escape opportunities for fugitives on both sides of the border.

Next, not very many immigrants are required to speak/learn English on the job. So... the rest of us have to learn Spanish to accommodate the immigrants, legal or not. I say we need to make a concerted effort in driving out illegals, and properly educate the legals.

Finally, can we cave a culture better than the rap culture? I can't stand the music, and I'm a teen! Can you define accurately what our culture is without mentioning rap or other music of some kind? The ancients are called ancient cultures because art, real music, and entertainment thrived. We can do the same, but the country is being as stubborn as ever.

So it boils down to three major improvements that would drastically improve the USA: Borders, language, and culture.

The President is not in charge of regulating culture. And I'm very thankful for that.

Just because YOU don't like a kind of music doesn't mean it's bad or should be stopped.

I never supported the banning of rap. I want more choices, is all.

True, the president cannot singlehandedly change culture. We aren't talking about ancient Egypt, here. But, if the government creates a public national system where culture is allowed to thrive... who knows, might be good.

You want more choices? Like....not listening to rap?

The problem I have is that some of the lyrics have the most terrible messages. Look up the lyrics to "My Gift to You" by Korn. The lyrics should freeze your blood. For a while, that song hit the top 10, even #1, IIRC. What are they trying to brainwash us with?

...I don't think anyone is trying to brainwash anyone...I also don't think the music is a government conspiracy...

If you don't agree with the music, don't listen to it. Just because people listen to it, doesn't mean they're brainwashed. It means they like the song. I like plenty of songs that I don't necessarily agree with the lyrics of.

Of course, none of this has ANYTHING to do with government..unless you want government regulation of all of our media :\

No, it is not a govt. conspiracy. However, the government can instill programs that encourage all types of music, not simply one kind. This is a good thing because it exposes kids to more music. A rap song can be fun to listen to, I suppose, but it doesn't do much if you are doing homework. Our school, for example, allows portable CD players on tests, but they cannot contain offensive content. (Offensive is defined in our student contract). 99% of rap CD's fail misewrably, on the grounds that


They are racist
They contain swear words
or
They are degrading to women, calling them b*****, f***dolls, etc.


Also, those CD's were confiscated (returned after the test) from 80% of the students! Tell me there is nothing wrong with that.

A great example of having more (popular) choices available is our locas FFA program. Not Free For All; Future Farmers of America. These people promote all kinds of jobs, not just in farming, but any field. If this were employed on a nationwide scale and directed at our culture, it would help the country significantly.

The govt. need not play a huge role. But they can fund this organization. It would help us considerably. Plus, if the Republican Party had the <guts, edited> to suggest such an action, it would redeem them from the disasters we've been through.

I think FFA is pretty much limited to the midwest / places where agriculture is a big role.

I've plenty to say on this debate on culture, but this isn't the thread for it.

So it boils down to three major improvements that would drastically improve the USA: Borders, language, and culture.

Borders and language have nothing to do with it. And culture is up to you, the people, to define. It'd be nice if you stopped exporting certain aspects of your culture, but hey, people over here want to buy it, so I guess the rest of us are stuck with it.

The real problems facing many western countries are the increasing gaps between rich and poor, the incredible power of multinational corporations, and the fact that the third world countries (with their huge populations) are starting to want what we have.
Its not going to work for much longer for us to have the cheap, disposable products that fuel our lives based on the cheap labour of the third world... and thats going to mean major culture shifts and economic problems over the next decade or two.

But i guess that when things look bleak and people feel disadvantaged its always easier to blame illegal immigrants or other groups... just look at the last US depression.

In the global market when its just as easy for big companies to outsource all their work to underpayed workers abroad as to give it to underpayed workers in this country its gotta be doubtfull whether immigrants will even NEED or WANT to come to the US in the near future.

However, the government can instill programs that encourage all types of music, not simply one kind.
I think the government has more problem to worry about, like...um...I don't know.... war, economy, foreign policies, homeland security, the list goes on.... It is not the job or right of the government to censor anything. If they do than we might as well start burning books like in Nazi Germany. I don't want the government in anything I do or like except running the country. Just look at the video game industry. It's just plain censorship and it is wrong and unconstitutional. If we let the government start with the small things than they will take more and more rights from us.

Finally, can we cave a culture better than the rap culture? I can't stand the music, and I'm a teen! Can you define accurately what our culture is without mentioning rap or other music of some kind?
That's the problem with this country. One person does not like say GTA:SA so he/she campaigns to take it off the shelves because he/she does not like the content. If you don't like something don't listen, watch it. That is not freedom. Why must people, even though I am a Christian, mostly religious people, try to make everyone conform to what "they" think is right. That is not the way this country was formed to be. That is not Democracy.

No, it is not a govt. conspiracy. However, the government can instill programs that encourage all types of music, not simply one kind. This is a good thing because it exposes kids to more music. A rap song can be fun to listen to, I suppose, but it doesn't do much if you are doing homework. Our school, for example, allows portable CD players on tests, but they cannot contain offensive content. (Offensive is defined in our student contract). 99% of rap CD's fail misewrably, on the grounds that


They are racist
They contain swear words
or
They are degrading to women, calling them b*****, f***dolls, etc.


Also, those CD's were confiscated (returned after the test) from 80% of the students! Tell me there is nothing wrong with that.


Want a quick fix to that? DON'T ALLOW THE CD PLAYERS. Then nobody feels singled out.

The problem I have is that some of the lyrics have the most terrible messages. Look up the lyrics to "My Gift to You" by Korn. The lyrics should freeze your blood. For a while, that song hit the top 10, even #1, IIRC. What are they trying to brainwash us with?

Yea, because Korn has been blamed by EVERYONE about EVERYTHING recently. The only people who think that My Gift to You is a terrible song are people who don't understand where Jonathan Davis gets his motivation. And if you don't know, you don't NEED to know.

I think it's probably safe to say that the problem is that we are ruled not by the intelligent, who might actually be some good at ruling, but by the popular, who know how to get into office but don't seem to know what to do once they get there.

Case of point: The "Terminator" winning the guvernous position because he's a famous movie star.

The govt. need not play a huge role. But they can fund this organization. It would help us considerably. Plus, if the Republican Party had the <guts, edited> to suggest such an action, it would redeem them from the disasters we've been through.

I doubt that. On both counts. What America needs is a high-quality, full coverage, independent and hardhitting, and FFS make it government funded. What you want to do is break Murdoch's de facto monopoly on electronic media, and the best way to do that is making an institution like the BBC.

But that would only be the first step towards solving the problems the US faces. The next couple of steps would be fixing the trade imbalance, convincing the EU that we're not going to be fighting a colonial war over the Middel East within the next half-century, reduce pollution pr. captia drastically, and make a quantum* giant leap in the quality of your education. Then, maybe, we can talk about setting things right on minor issues like border security and what kind of music kids listen to.

*Quantum leap is a silly expression since quantum leaps are actually the smallest possible leaps...

BTW, BADGER, you'll want to watch your language, lest someone invokes Godwin's Law.