This was on the BBC radio this morning and it regarded a new book coming out accusing the US and British governments of escalating the cold war.
According the the book, the Russians never had any intention for global conquest nor to actively spread communism. Any country been invaded twice and lost 20million people to the Germans would natrually want to control neighbouring countries as a buffer zone against the future threats. And the paranoia of the west after seeing how the Russian military can steamroll German troops so quickly was scared and reacted out of proportion.
TThe spread of communism was like evolution in some countries and it wasn't because revolutions were incited and supported actively by Russia.
What do u all think?

i think that's a big load of bs
if they were such peaceloving people who only were protecting their
own borders, then why the missiles on cuba ?
i think they had something nasty in mind, but then the country went broke and it all came to an end
i still don't trust them though

<font color = lightgreen>Like many theories, communism looked good on paper but flopped miserably in practice. You cannot dictate that people willingly not strive to advance economically; people are too self-oriented to blindly follow "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need". Most people are just not that selfless.
Anyway, Russia never posed the threat that the US thought it did. True, they had nuclear missiles, but their technology was overrated. Stalin was too anti-science for Russia to truly succeed (that nutcase killed more Russians than the Germans did in WW2).
I agree that communism would be a "natural" reaction against centuries of monarchies/dictatorships, because when many people grow tired of being ruled by an aristocracy they will eventually revolt.

On the other hand, the Cold War was really profitable for the military-industrial complex, yes? [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

I am puzzled as to what they hope to achieve with this book. Escalating problems already buried?

Great thoughts! My opinion exactly. Take away the carrot of economic advancement and the mule of the populus quits moving. Another problem is with a central government so powerful, it's bound to be abused. It would eventually degenerate into a "Rich and powerful nobility vs. Poor working peasant populus" system. Power is almost ALWAYS abused in one way or another. Even in the US you see a lot of rich staying that way by leeching off the poorer common citizen. It's economics. That's the way it works. When you have control of what you pay the work force and what you charge for goods, it's easy to control the flow of money. The only deterrent to abuse is competition. Large corporations and unchecked monopolies pose problems to this system though as they undermine the spirit of competition.

<font color = lightgreen>Herein lies the inherent problem with capitalism: in a capitalistic society, eventually some corporations will become so large and powerful that they will either buy out/absorb their competitors or make their products so well (or for such low cost) that their competitors go out of business. What you will eventually have is not healthy competition but a small group of extremely wealthy, large, and powerful companies who literally dominate the market place. Strangely enough, capitalism will result in a situation similar to some of those that led to the 19th- and 20th-century communist revolutions--a small group who are in de facto control of the rest of the population.

Getting back on topic, now.... I'm sure the Russians never considered global conquest (that is an impossibility) but they did consider--and pursue--the spread of their version of "communism".

Also consider this: without the Cold War, some of the technological advances made during the last 50 years would not have occurred; at the very least they would not have occurred at the rate that they did occur.

Just out of curiosity, Avatar, you didn't happen to catch the name of this book, did you?</font>

the Amerian had missiles in Turkey. Russia reacted to USA a great deal less hostile.

While the Cuban missile crisis is not really a good example of Soviet expansionism... there ARE a few out there. I seem to recall tanks were a Soviet standard method of "helping out" the small countries that surrounded her. And the blockade of Berlin certainly wouldn't have helped the security of Russia had it succeeded.

Their covert operations in central America also don't make much sense given a non-expansionist USSR.

That being said I agree that the Soviets didn't pose the threat the West assumed she did... a lot of their actions were really REACTIONS to things that we were doing. (of course the same assertion could be made in the opposite direction)

We can all play the armchair quarterback and come up with all sorts of assessments, but in the end there's no debating that the Balance of the Superpowers kept them both in check for quite a while. There's no way to know what the USSR would have become and done if the West hadn't resisted her actions. In the Stalin era Russia was essentially a dictatorship, and putting too much power into too few hands is exceedingly dangerous. This is why I wince every time our President asks for more authority, something he's been doing far too often lately.

[ 04-18-2002, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

I think the cold war was great because it seemed to have no begining and no recorded end, it also never got "hot" and as far as I'm concerned I think that we wouldn't have been on the moon by now had it not been for them much less would be be creating an international space station. Another thing: I wouldn't be in Cuba right now had it not been for the cold war so I think we have alot of things to attribute to it. Though China being communist REALLY REALLY bugs the hell out of me... They just recently started a program to launch "men" into space... *has a conspiracty theory* it's probably a coverup for them to build orbiting nuclear satelites just ready to RAIN DOWN on us *bites nails and sweats* Just kidding by the way...

...well i guess 'soviet way of helping out countries' is a lot better than nowadays US-American active Expansionism isn't it..? I hope that soon all European countries will realize that the USA is currently led by a complete maniac and act accordingly.

...well i guess 'soviet way of helping out countries' is a lot better than nowadays US-American active Expansionism isn't it..? I hope that soon all European countries will realize that the USA is currently led by a complete maniac and act accordingly.

As far as I can recall, from my history classes, Russia alwyas claimed it just desired to protect itself....and Poland, and all of the Balkans and East Germany and Cuba and.....Well you get the idea, It is when Russia whent from being Russia to being the USSR that things got tense. Even duringWorld War II both Britain and the USA knew that there was a clash of IDEALS coming, comunism vs democracy.

Personally I think any claim that either side was the sole cause of the cold war is ridiculous, the cold war rose from fear, suspicion and distrust on both sides....Of course Nikita Krucschev beating his shoe on the podium in the United Nations screaming "We will burry you!!!" could not have made anyone in the west too awful comfy....

That actually made me laugh [img]smile.gif[/img] thanks :D I needed a good chuckle [img]smile.gif[/img]

I am actually quite happy that now that europe has started pulling together into the EU the USA can quit bothering to send all those tens of billions your way in aid for every little disaster that strikes [img]smile.gif[/img] YOu all can pull together and maybe be as successful as the USA. I can see it now..the United States of Europe.... well eventually.

Actually I do believe the "official" end of the cold war was when the Soviet Economy collapsed and it ceased to exist as a political entity...right around the time when the Berlin wall came down.

the Amerian had missiles in Turkey. Russia reacted to USA a great deal less hostile.</font>[/QUOTE]You forget, we were flying U2's over their airspace and thumbing our collective noses at them too, well untill they shot Gary Powers down...

As for Missiles, the US had them in Turkey, france was developing their own, and the Brits had them as well. The soviets worked darn hard to make sure that they "aquired" buffer zones between their cities and the west because of those missiles.

<font color = lightgreen>Herein lies the inherent problem with capitalism: in a capitalistic society, eventually some corporations will become so large and powerful that they will either buy out/absorb their competitors or make their products so well (or for such low cost) that their competitors go out of business. What you will eventually have is not healthy competition but a small group of extremely wealthy, large, and powerful companies who literally dominate the market place. Strangely enough, capitalism will result in a situation similar to some of those that led to the 19th- and 20th-century communist revolutions--a small group who are in de facto control of the rest of the population.

Getting back on topic, now.... I'm sure the Russians never considered global conquest (that is an impossibility) but they did consider--and pursue--the spread of their version of "communism".

Also consider this: without the Cold War, some of the technological advances made during the last 50 years would not have occurred; at the very least they would not have occurred at the rate that they did occur.

Just out of curiosity, Avatar, you didn't happen to catch the name of this book, did you?</font></font>[/QUOTE]ou know, capitalism isn't just about the "Evil Corporations" It also applies to individual entrepenures, every day people who through hard work succeed and get ahead. The one unique thing about America is that ANYONE from ANYWHERE can escape a birth in poverty, if they are smart and hard working. That does kind of leave out the stupid lazy people but...well no system is perfect...and there is no gaurentee for even the smartest people, there is an element of luck....I know one woman who I swear has been cursed by the Universe. She makes all the right choices....just seemingly at the wrong times :( I feel bad for her.

That actually made me laugh [img]smile.gif[/img] thanks :D I needed a good chuckle [img]smile.gif[/img]

I am actually quite happy that now that europe has started pulling together into the EU the USA can quit bothering to send all those tens of billions your way in aid for every little disaster that strikes [img]smile.gif[/img] YOu all can pull together and maybe be as successful as the USA. I can see it now..the United States of Europe.... well eventually.</font>[/QUOTE]He wasn't kidding, he was serious. Although all European countries already know that we're being led by a maniac.

Doesn't it mean something not only when Bushie is hated by the entire Western world, but on top of that, he didn't even win the popular vote in the United States?

Does it mean anything to you that so many people didn't (and still don't) like him at all?

That actually made me laugh [img]smile.gif[/img] thanks :D I needed a good chuckle [img]smile.gif[/img]

I am actually quite happy that now that europe has started pulling together into the EU the USA can quit bothering to send all those tens of billions your way in aid for every little disaster that strikes [img]smile.gif[/img] YOu all can pull together and maybe be as successful as the USA. I can see it now..the United States of Europe.... well eventually.</font>[/QUOTE]He wasn't kidding, he was serious. Although all European countries already know that we're being led by a maniac.

Doesn't it mean something not only when Bushie is hated by the entire Western world, but on top of that, he didn't even win the popular vote in the United States?

Does it mean anything to you that so many people didn't (and still don't) like him at all?</font>[/QUOTE]Well now we're just making stuff up... hardly a way to win points and make friends.

American Active Expansionism? - When did that start? I would like to see some data on countries we've taken over recently. Does this mean there's going to be some new states soon?

There's a lot of cranky foreigners out there who begrudge us the role of world cop... yet I see very few other countries stepping up to do THAT thankless job. We free Afghanastan from a group of murderers who were systematically destroying the country, we empower the PEOPLE of that country to choose their own destiny, and still I hear rediculous claims of imperialism. Too many people these days have no idea what IMPERIALISM and EXPANSIONISM really mean. The US as a country has not grown by one acre in almost a hundred years.

The fact is whenever someone sticks their neck out and takes a stand on something, a LOT of people aren't going to like what he's doing. Those same people don't come forward with solutions of their own... they just pi$$ and moan about it. GW worries me, but so far I don't have a big problem with anything he's DONE, more with the level of control he's trying to get.

Last time I checked, GW... for all his faults... WON the election.
He won 30 out of the 50 states.
The popular vote was within half a percent

All the Dem's who're whining about popular vote are the same ones who'd whine about State's rights if it would get them the election. The electoral college is in place EXACTLY for the role it played in the last election... to keep large states like California and New York from essentially dictating the Presidency by weight of numbers.

Great thoughts! My opinion exactly. Take away the carrot of economic advancement and the mule of the populus quits moving. Another problem is with a central government so powerful, it's bound to be abused. It would eventually degenerate into a "Rich and powerful nobility vs. Poor working peasant populus" system. Power is almost ALWAYS abused in one way or another. Even in the US you see a lot of rich staying that way by leeching off the poorer common citizen. It's economics. That's the way it works. When you have control of what you pay the work force and what you charge for goods, it's easy to control the flow of money. The only deterrent to abuse is competition. Large corporations and unchecked monopolies pose problems to this system though as they undermine the spirit of competition.</font>[/QUOTE]Excellent points, Sir K! Re your last, we appear to be heading for some serious problems on this front.

Mergers and acquisition activity by the largest companies, some of whom are gargantuan, mean that competition in some sectors is dwindling fast. Media, f'rinstance. Financial services - where the big five just turned into the big four... and so on. I see a future where one day, we're fed, dressed, entertained and so on by the same huge entity. Or maybe not. But how can small business compete when the giants can undercut almost any price a small business sets? Oh brave new world where Wal-mart rules!!!

That actually made me laugh [img]smile.gif[/img] thanks :D I needed a good chuckle [img]smile.gif[/img]

I am actually quite happy that now that europe has started pulling together into the EU the USA can quit bothering to send all those tens of billions your way in aid for every little disaster that strikes [img]smile.gif[/img] YOu all can pull together and maybe be as successful as the USA. I can see it now..the United States of Europe.... well eventually.</font>[/QUOTE]He wasn't kidding, he was serious. Although all European countries already know that we're being led by a maniac.

Doesn't it mean something not only when Bushie is hated by the entire Western world, but on top of that, he didn't even win the popular vote in the United States?

Does it mean anything to you that so many people didn't (and still don't) like him at all?</font>[/QUOTE]Well now we're just making stuff up... hardly a way to win points and make friends.

American Active Expansionism? - When did that start? I would like to see some data on countries we've taken over recently. Does this mean there's going to be some new states soon?

There's a lot of cranky foreigners out there who begrudge us the role of world cop... yet I see very few other countries stepping up to do THAT thankless job. We free Afghanastan from a group of murderers who were systematically destroying the country, we empower the PEOPLE of that country to choose their own destiny, and still I hear rediculous claims of imperialism. Too many people these days have no idea what IMPERIALISM and EXPANSIONISM really mean. The US as a country has not grown by one acre in almost a hundred years.

The fact is whenever someone sticks their neck out and takes a stand on something, a LOT of people aren't going to like what he's doing. Those same people don't come forward with solutions of their own... they just pi$$ and moan about it. GW worries me, but so far I don't have a big problem with anything he's DONE, more with the level of control he's trying to get.

Last time I checked, GW... for all his faults... WON the election.
He won 30 out of the 50 states.
The popular vote was within half a percent

All the Dem's who're whining about popular vote are the same ones who'd whine about State's rights if it would get them the election. The electoral college is in place EXACTLY for the role it played in the last election... to keep large states like California and New York from essentially dictating the Presidency by weight of numbers.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh do give over on the 'America standing up for the right' crap. America gets involved when those who are currently in office decides that it's in her interest to do so. Not unless. Get off of that moral high ground. It don't belong to you. Not nowise, not nohow. Does the word Rwanda ring any bells?

<font color = lightgreen>I never said it was. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] I was simply stating that this appears to be the route that capitalism is taking--the trend towards larger corporations wielding a lot of economic power and how that parallels the old monarchies/aristocracies of Europe.
If a really large company allocated $100 million to hire and train a company of mercenaries they could effectively field their own small army. For $5 billion or $10 billion they could almost buy their own small country.
Anyway, capitalism, or capitalist theory, can be abused just like Stalin and China abuse communist theory. When wrongly combined with capitalism (free-market theory), representative democracy (the republic) may also be abused by becoming a forum for selling votes to the highest bidder. As far as I know this illegal but, of course, it goes on anyway.

Anyway, the spread of communism was an evolution away from monarchy. The Cold War was always about paranoia and suspicion and I still agree with this book's premise that Russia never wanted to control the world, just prevent us from controlling it.</font>

Great thoughts! My opinion exactly. Take away the carrot of economic advancement and the mule of the populus quits moving. Another problem is with a central government so powerful, it's bound to be abused. It would eventually degenerate into a "Rich and powerful nobility vs. Poor working peasant populus" system. Power is almost ALWAYS abused in one way or another. Even in the US you see a lot of rich staying that way by leeching off the poorer common citizen. It's economics. That's the way it works. When you have control of what you pay the work force and what you charge for goods, it's easy to control the flow of money. The only deterrent to abuse is competition. Large corporations and unchecked monopolies pose problems to this system though as they undermine the spirit of competition.</font>[/QUOTE]Excellent points, Sir K! Re your last, we appear to be heading for some serious problems on this front.

Mergers and acquisition activity by the largest companies, some of whom are gargantuan, mean that competition in some sectors is dwindling fast. Media, f'rinstance. Financial services - where the big five just turned into the big four... and so on. I see a future where one day, we're fed, dressed, entertained and so on by the same huge entity. Or maybe not. But how can small business compete when the giants can undercut almost any price a small business sets? Oh brave new world where Wal-mart rules!!!</font>[/QUOTE]Cheetah! :D I havn't seen you in a while. What have you been up to?

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depnding on your point of view. Corporations are the natural evolution of the business world. As efficiency increases, so do profit margins. Efficiency is usually enhanced by having a centralized controlling element. Control invariably leads to power. Power seems to always lead to abuse and greed. This usually leads to the tearing down of that entity in some way, shape, or form. Then the whole process starts over again. It's pretty interesting to see how the flow of money works. How growth leads to recession. Businesses try to tweak profits by reducing the buying power of the population. They slowly pay the workforce less relationally by slowing raises and upping prices. Once the buying power of the workforce degrades to the point where it affects business substantially, prices drop due to competetiveness and the desire to raise sales. The government also gets involved by cutting interest rates, upping minimum wages, etc. This ups the relational buying power of the workforce and helps stimulate the economy. Since the number of dollars paid to the workforce doesn't really change, just the buying power of them, you get inflation. Rapid inflation is usually a sign of an unhealthy economy. It shows lots of fluctuation.

well we don't see any one from the eu stampeding for the moral high ground silver cheetah.WE keep taking the MORAL HIGH GROUND be cause we know it to be right.so many of you people over on the other side of the atlantic have to be dragged kicking and screaming.
and what about rwanda?you people didn't do a god damned thing about it either.hell,look how long it took for anyone to do any thing about the idiots in the balkins murdering each other.and that is in YOUR backyard not ours.
alexander,why should i care if you don't like him?he's OUR president not yours.i view your leaders as weak men and women who don't have the courage to make a stand for what is right.look at germany.their top dog is more worried about people accusing him of coloring his hair than any thing else.and if you discount the massive democratic vote fraud bush probably won by a nice margin.

What post were you reading? Don't try to put words into my mouth... it may be big enough but I've got exclusive use of it for the time being. Where in the aforementioned post did I even come close to a word that looked like "morality"? Morality has no place in world politics, EVERY country acts in its own self interest - to do otherwise would lead to a brief existance.

I stated simple facts... the US DOES have the role of world cop, not out of a sense of morality but because it's in our best interest to have stable trading partners. But that doesn't change the fact that we do it, and that nobody else wants to do it (although a number of countries do contribute, we've got the bulls-eye painted on our forehead). It also doesn't change the fact that cops aren't popular guys... everything they do gets second guessed, and people have a natural tendency to resist anyone who they feel is in a position of "authority".

Yes you're ABSOLUTELY right... we didn't intervene in Rwanda when horrible things were happening there. It's a good thing that all those other countries who slam us not being there stepped up to the plate and saved all those Rwandan lives THEMSELVES... right?

[ 04-19-2002, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

well we don't see any one from the eu stampeding for the moral high ground silver cheetah.WE keep taking the MORAL HIGH GROUND be cause we know it to be right.so many of you people over on the other side of the atlantic have to be dragged kicking and screaming.
and what about rwanda?you people didn't do a god damned thing about it either.hell,look how long it took for anyone to do any thing about the idiots in the balkins murdering each other.and that is in YOUR backyard not ours.

Quote:

Doesn't it mean something not only when Bushie is hated by the entire Western world, but on top of that, he didn't even win the popular vote in the United States?

alexander,why should i care if you don't like him?he's OUR president not yours.i view your leaders as weak men and women who don't have the courage to make a stand for what is right.look at germany.their top dog is more worried about people accusing him of coloring his hair than any thing else.and if you discount the massive democratic vote fraud bush probably won by a nice margin.</font>[/QUOTE]Ya gotta think that at worst he has at least HALF the voting public behind him..and the fact that his aproval rating is still hovering around the 80% range, indicates that he is in fact, liked by quite a few more than not. Now normally I don't believe the poll statistics..but this is from the same pollsters as did the polling for clinton..sooooooo I guess I can at least believe they are not just making it up. (and Clintons aproval rating wasnt too shabby either, despite the fact that I didnt like him or his politics)

You can't know it to be right, and it has occured sevral times where evrything went badly pear-shaped, and they thought they were doing fine.
Please feel free to ask if you want examples.

Morality shmorality... anytime you introduce such a subjective term you open the door to chaos. My morality can be significantly different from the guy who lives next door... much less someone who lives in a totally different country. I think if you ask Bin Laden about his moral stand on issues you'll get an enlightening response. SO... since it's obvious our frames of "moral" reference are all different, why do people continue to pull up such a useless framework with which to compare/contrast the actions of COUNTRIES. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Exactly Thoran, that's the problem, basically it seems, like SC said, to be America trying to take the moral high ground when it isn't there.
If that were possible, then one of the sides would have to know they were evil and doing the wrong thing, but I doubt you'd get that sort of response from Osama.

[ 04-19-2002, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Talthyr Malkaviel ]

well we don't see any one from the eu stampeding for the moral high ground silver cheetah.WE keep taking the MORAL HIGH GROUND be cause we know it to be right.so many of you people over on the other side of the atlantic have to be dragged kicking and screaming.
and what about rwanda?you people didn't do a god damned thing about it either.hell,look how long it took for anyone to do any thing about the idiots in the balkins murdering each other.and that is in YOUR backyard not ours.</font>[/QUOTE]To pretend that Desert Storm was about anything but protecting our oil is naive. In fact, if I remember correctly, it's the Republican party's platform not to get involved in conflicts abroad unless it is in our national interests. To rephrase, Republican leaders will never go on a mercy mission, and they seem to be proud of it.

alexander,why should i care if you don't like him?he's OUR president not yours.[/qb][/quote]

What in God's holy name are you blathering about? He's not MY president? What, is Connecticut not part of the United States? I know you're from the South, but you can't be THAT ignorant.

Why are you bringing Germany into this? I don't live in Germany, and I don't live in Europe.

Quote:

and if you discount the massive democratic vote fraud bush probably won by a nice margin.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that - very easy to forget lies, you know. What about all those absentee military ballots that were no doubt sent after Election Day to help boost Bush's numbers?

I love it - the smartest guy with the most votes loses. Corruption at its best. Or should I say worst?

well we don't see any one from the eu stampeding for the moral high ground silver cheetah.WE keep taking the MORAL HIGH GROUND be cause we know it to be right.so many of you people over on the other side of the atlantic have to be dragged kicking and screaming.
and what about rwanda?you people didn't do a god damned thing about it either.hell,look how long it took for anyone to do any thing about the idiots in the balkins murdering each other.and that is in YOUR backyard not ours.

Quote:

Doesn't it mean something not only when Bushie is hated by the entire Western world, but on top of that, he didn't even win the popular vote in the United States?

alexander,why should i care if you don't like him?he's OUR president not yours.i view your leaders as weak men and women who don't have the courage to make a stand for what is right.look at germany.their top dog is more worried about people accusing him of coloring his hair than any thing else.and if you discount the massive democratic vote fraud bush probably won by a nice margin.</font>[/QUOTE]Ya gotta think that at worst he has at least HALF the voting public behind him..and the fact that his aproval rating is still hovering around the 80% range, indicates that he is in fact, liked by quite a few more than not. Now normally I don't believe the poll statistics..but this is from the same pollsters as did the polling for clinton..sooooooo I guess I can at least believe they are not just making it up. (and Clintons aproval rating wasnt too shabby either, despite the fact that I didnt like him or his politics)</font>[/QUOTE]Remember Daddy Bush's numbers - in the 90's a year before Election Day, in the 30's a day before. Junior's numbers were in the 90s in October, I think, but now they're in the low-to-mid 70s. Seems that his numbers are evaporating pretty quickly, I wonder why?

If he keeps this up, November 2002 will be a landslide for the Democrats.

They wouldn't, even if the Electoral College wasn't in place. True, New York, California, and Texas all have millions of voters, but in last year's election, the difference between the winner and the loser was only a few hundred thousand.

Plus, who visits the small states, even now? How many times have you read about Bush visiting North Dakota, or Gore visiting Rhode Island?

I think that since only on a few occasions the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral vote, the elections would turn out mostly the same no matter what system we use.

ooooo!so i didn't notice where you're from.big deal.and i would rather be a southerner than a yankee anyday.hey,alexander,ya know what sucks about livin' in the south?so many yankees movin' down here.

smartest?gore?he failed his gollege classes and dropped out.he failed divinity school and dropped out.of course the divinity school was just his dads way to get him out of the army.what has he ever done to make you think that he's smart?
but as for most votes,thats a matter of conjecture.you know what the dems say:vote early and vote often.
the man is nothing but a political whore.he sold his vote on the persian gulf resolution in order to get some face time on tv for gods sake.before clinton picked him to be his running mate he was pro-life.just like clinton claimed to be.but once they made the run for higher office they suddenly became pro-choice.

Preach IT Brother :D

thank you,thank you.of course the reason for my bad opinion of yankees is my ex.AND SHE WAS NUTS!

Well, if you don't bother to read what I type, why bother responding? You'll just sound more and more like an idiot.

Quote:

and i would rather be a southerner than a yankee anyday.hey,alexander,ya know what sucks about livin' in the south?so many yankees movin' down here.

Wonderful. I see I cannot have an intelligent conversation with the likes of you. If you are too immature to handle a serious conversation, then maybe you should go somewhere else.

As much as I'd like to retaliate to your incredibly *witty* post, it is beneath me to engage an unarmed man in a battle of wits.

smartest?gore?he failed his gollege classes and dropped out.he failed divinity school and dropped out.of course the divinity school was just his dads way to get him out of the army.what has he ever done to make you think that he's smart?</font>[/QUOTE]

I never said Gore was a genius - but he's smarter than Bush, of course. Bush is just a spoiled rich kid who got C's and D's in high school but was accepted to Yale just because his daddy went there (and he got similar grades there, too). He has never done anything productive or useful with his life, and his greatest accomplishment is that he is no longer an obnoxious alcoholic.

I would list Gore's accomplishments, but I have a funny feeling that you'd twist them and ignore them, so my words would probably fall on deaf ears. If you really want to know all the reasons why I prefer Gore, then I'll tell you, providing that you're not just looking for more reasons to tear into the man.

Yup, those crazy Democrats, they went and stole another idea from the Republicans. :rolleyes:

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Oh, please, everyone flip-flops on their viewpoints. Even Bush did in recent months. "Killing Osama bin Laden is our highest priority" was his tagline back in September, and now it's "Maybe we don't need to get Osama bin Laden after all". You make it seem like most politicians never do it. It's to be expected, sadly enough. Those who are honest and stick to their guns (can anyone say "Mondale"?) always lose.

thank you,thank you.of course the reason for my bad opinion of yankees is my ex.AND SHE WAS NUTS!</font>[/QUOTE]You're judging an entire region of the country based on an ex.

If all Southerners are like you, then I can see where racism came from...

hey you wanna talk racism take a look at your part of the country bub.you have far more hate crimes commited in other parts of the country than you do down here.of course everything you know about the south you learned by watching tv.
you seem to have trouble grasping the concept of humor.i might not care too much for my ex but it doesn't REALLY affect the way i see northerners.hell,i think her family's wonderful.