Text 24162, 108 rader
Skriven 2006-10-30 23:26:57 av Gary Braswell (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 24157 av RICHARD HELM (1:123/140)
Ärende: Election
================
RICHARD HELM -> GARY BRASWELL wrote:
 RH> On 30 Oct 10, GARY BRASWELL wrote to RICHARD HELM:
 RH> on the subject: Election

 GB>> I guess I am still a fool then, because I don't want to believe it.

 RH> The only thing in your whole post that I won't argue.

<G>


 RH>>> entire world.  In fact that party's last candidate for the Office of
 RH>>> President of the United States has openly stated on two occasion that

 RH>>> the
 RH>>> peoples of the countries where we had soldiers on line didn't even
 RH>>> understand democracy.  He said it about the Vietnamese and he's said
 RH>>> it about the Iraqis.

 GB>> I don't think the people have to understand democracy to want it. They
 GB>> understand freedom and that is all that is needed to get things
 GB>> going. Then they have to have the will to fight and die for it.

 RH>>> Clearly the ONLY way that the Democratic Party can win in the coming
 RH>>> election is that people don't vote.  *IF* that happens the terrorists
 RH>>> HAVE won.

 GB>> Well, its the off season vote, right? Where in times past, mostly
 GB>> only the loyal base votes.

 GB>> There is a lot of discontent out there. I guess if the Democrats can
 GB>> get the Republican base not to vote it would be a landslide.

 RH> A terrorist's objective is to undermine the confidence the people have in
 RH> the governmant.  In the U.S. one well documented effect of underminded
 RH> confidence is when that "the base" doesn't vote.  *IF* the Democrats can
 RH> affect the voting of the Republican "base" they do so using TERROTIST
 RH> tactics.

I think from this we are talking about two different things.


 GB>> I don't think that will happen.

 RH> That *IS* the stated goal of the Democratic Party leadership.

I guess then all parties out of office are terrorists by that yardstick.


 GB>> Discontent and uneasiness does not have to be defined in people for
 GB>> them to vote a different way.

 GB>> Cynically we all know that what a politician says is not always what
 GB>> he does and just because you have a plan, it may not be the right one
 GB>> or even one the people want more of at the moment.

 GB>> I think the Dems can win if lots of people come out and vote.

 RH> You thing wrong.  "Lots of people" includes Republicans and its base.  The
 RH> Democrats simply can NOT win if there is a high turn out.


Why not?

 GB>> I know a lot of Dems who are all fired up now. I know a lot of
 GB>> Republicans who are not happy with the way things are going.

 RH> It all comes down to the vote.

True.


 GB>> I also know its all anecdotal.

 GB>> But I do know one thing. Whenever we do engage in the democratic
 GB>> process, unfettered by terrorist propaganda that one party or another
 GB>> gives them victory, we win. If we left them divide us, we have lost.

 RH> The Democrats ARE using terrorists propaganda.  They must to supress that
 RH> Republican base.

I see what you are saying now. I am sure they are going to try.

But the Republican party itself seems determined to turn its own base away.

I saw on Hannity & Colmes tonight a poll that Dick Morris quoted that
Republicans who normally voted Republican are going down to I think he said 68%
from 77%.

I know many fiscal Republicans disgusted with the spend mentality of their
party, they are voting Democrat. Others will not vote at all.


 RH> Go do your homework.  See what a terrorist is and what a terrorist's
 RH> objectives are.  So far all that I've seen from you on this topic
indicates
 RH> that you have no idea of what a terrorist is.

 RH> Hint:  It's not the guy that blows himself up.

Since that is what I was talking about and what the others in this thread were
talking about, I assumed you were too.

It would seem terrorism is a long held tradition here in the US in politics by
your point.

--- Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)