Next 4 Year Predictions

Cory089 · November 4, 2004, 12:53am

First, there are some things on this board which are just obscenely insane. Gas at over $3.50 a gallon?! Come on. If it does happen it will because of the increased demand in places like China, not because of anything that anyone could control. Predictions of civil unrest due to a spread in the have and the have-nots? Severing of NATO? An end to all supplements (especially as more and more people use them to fight obesity)? National sales tax?

These are all things which take much too much effort to actually get done. NATO isn’t going away, a national sales tax is much to difficult to impose and we aren’t heading for a civil war.

Honestly people, how much has your life changed since 2000, post 9/11 included. Granted, if you’re in the military or have a military family it’s changed, but it the same could have been said (albeit to far fewer people) when we went to Bosnia or Somalia under Clinton. And for those things which have changed, how much of it is just the effect of a world economy or the global impact of Sept. 11th?

That being said, I do think some of these are accurate and would be my predictions as well.

1.) Bush will nominate 3, possibly 4 Supreme Court justices.

2.) There will NOT be a draft. It is too politically costly. It is also too difficult to just bring in masses when you have a 21st century technology based army.

3.) There will be NO Social Security changes. It will be too politically costly with the middle class and not enough young people who either A.) vote, or B.) put their support behind republicans if they made the move.

4.) “Separation of Church and State” and Getting back to its Purpose. This notion that there can be no religious considerations in the public/government realm is A.) a joke, B.) incorrect, C.) inconsistent with the purpose of the 1st Amendment. When is everyone going to understand that rejecting religion (and adopting an atheist view) is just as offensive to many Christians as holding Church during school would be to non-Christians. Absence of religion is as much of a choice as being religious is. I think we’ll have judges who will do a better job recognizing this, which is a good thing.

5.) Expansion of Hybrid Vehicles, including a Hybrid SUV with HUGE sales.

6.) At least one major terrorist attack throughout the world.

7.) Boston Red Sox will one at least one more World Series. The Cubs, however, will not.

8.) A 1 in 2 chance of the NHL starting back up again.

9.) Plans will be laid for a NCAA Football playoff.

10.) Gay marriage amendment will fail.

JD430 · November 4, 2004, 1:19am

Vroom wrote:

"Yep, the US has certainly proven it doesn’t give a shit what anybody thinks, ever. It’s going to be an entire decade of poor global relations with Bush the great divider and escalator using his skills at brinksmanship to cause another war or two after God speaks to him in his sleep.

Heh, anyway, more reasonably, I was looking forward to criticizing someone other than Bush. It is so easy to criticize this adminstration there is almost no sport in it.

However, though I would have preferred to see Bush retire to his ranch, how much more damage can he do in four years? The democrats should just give the republicans lots of rope and learn from their playbook."

Sometimes you make sense and then you start to spout this kind of vileness and I remember why I tune most of it out.

Let’s look at a few of your statements:

“Cause another war?” Useless argument at this point. Let me explain again…Islamic terrorism came looking for us. They knocked on our door many times and we ignored them. Then they knocked real hard, and we had an administration which launched a far reaching plan of response(not just dropping a few bombs in Afghanistan). George Bush didnt cause anything, he reacted.

Talk to God in his sleep? Well, I guess you are not religious. Thats fine…Im not very religious either, but have found myself asking a higher power for help or protection a few times in my life. Nothing wrong with that as most of us dont have all of the answers like you. For the record, despite his mistakes, George Bush has surrounded himself with some very powerful intellects, who he is wise enough to employ when he doesnt have all of the answers.

Finally, as far as the US not giving a shit about what the rest of the world thinks, that is only partly true. We dont care what socialists, communists, islamic facistists, apologists, tyrants and some (certainly not all)jealous europeans think. I, and many others like me, care what the rest of the world’s decent and free people think. So does George Bush.

It always irked me that you didnt take Mick Jagger’s advice(imagine him making sense?) and have enough class to keep your mouth shut about another country’s election.

lothario1132 · November 4, 2004, 1:41am

Good post, JD. Right on the mark. vroom’s a real hater sometimes.

Professor_X · November 4, 2004, 6:21am

[quote]Cory089 wrote:

4.) “Separation of Church and State” and Getting back to its Purpose. This notion that there can be no religious considerations in the public/government realm is A.) a joke, B.) incorrect, C.) inconsistent with the purpose of the 1st Amendment. When is everyone going to understand that rejecting religion (and adopting an atheist view) is just as offensive to many Christians as holding Church during school would be to non-Christians. Absence of religion is as much of a choice as being religious is. I think we’ll have judges who will do a better job recognizing this, which is a good thing.
[/quote]

I am against churches making a political voice in this election. There was much coverage of this happening with this election. Entire services were dedicated towards swinging the vote. I am not advocating complete disregard for religion. I am christian. My dad was a preacher. Simply because people want a clear seperation of church and state does not mean that they are athiests and that they don’t believe in God (or another superpower based on their religion). I just wanted to make that clear because you didn’t.

BostonBarrister · November 4, 2004, 7:09am

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

You must not be referring to the South – that whole area was reflexively Democratic from Reconstruction up until Reagan – it’s been slowly converting since, but given the participation rates of younger voters, I don’t think the “taught Republicanism” line applies. For some places, such as Louisiana, they just elected their very first Republican Senator.

You can not, in any way whatsoever, compare the voting democrats in the south who have had to deal with greater racism and lack of jobs (not to mention even legal persecution) to the current vote for Republicans by SOME people simply because they heard that Bush goes to church. One is based in social conflict dealt with on a daily basis. The other denotes how much the media (as well as even the current push by many churches to influence the vote) plays a role in what people believe. Hell, I am originally from Texas and I can tell you that blatant racial tension has only begun to relax over the last 10 years or so. THAT is why the southern Democratic vote could be counted on for so long. Don’t de-value what many have had to deal with for generations just to ignore what is happening right now simply because the group in question voted your way.[/quote]

Professor X –

The Democrats could count on the South because the Southerners hated the Republican Party – they hated the Republican Party because they associated the Republican Party with Reconstruction and, later, with Eisenhower, a Republican, who enforced Brown v. Board of Education and put an end to Jim Crow laws.

thunderbolt23 · November 4, 2004, 7:30am

regrahc wrote:

“Just as in 2000, take a look at the states won by Dems, and you’ll see they’re the states where all the intelligent people in America reside (NY, MI, CA, etc.) Meanwhile you have all these yahoos in Wyoming, Kansas, Georgia, etc., living in trailers, getting it on with their cousins, and voting for Bush for the simple fact that their parents taught them that Dems are bad, Republicans good. Very few of these people could form an intelligent argument about why they voted for Bush, they can only revert to what they’ve been force-fed by the media.”

Added to my post above, this is exactly what I am talking about. The intellectual vanity of the Left - frankly unsubstantiated from the blandness of the post, no less - will be the Democratic Party’s downfall.

You can’t be the populist party when you hate the regular guy you’re supposed to be championing.

greatgro · November 4, 2004, 8:07am

[quote]T-Stag wrote:
Hmm, let’s see…after a discussion with an American friend of mine we concluded the following:

a) Separation of church and state will be further undermined;
b) Iran will not be handled right and will become another war;
c) Now that Arafat’s nearly dying and the Arab world is about to be without a unifying factor, extremist factions will be freer to be extreme (bad for America and the world), and America going to war with Iran will certainly fuel some really bad relations with other extreme Arab entities…not that much more is needed. A level head may have and may yet be able to avert that; not Dub;
d) The checks and measures of America can protect it from a lot, but the appointment of Supreme Court Justices tend to have an affect that is felt for decades;
e) Gas could top 3.5 bucks a gallon.
f) The European Community is unifying more and more as Dub shows them his
cold shoulder more and more…any final severing of the great western
alliance is highly unlikely, but not impossible with a lunatic like this in
the White House…and if it were to occur, it would be a serious imbalancing of the globe.
g) This undermining of civil rights by the patriot act…it won’t be reversed;
h) America will lose any remaining credibility with the international
community through the act of re-electing a madman;
i) The gulf between the financial classes in this country will become so
wide, social unrest will take once again to the streets;
j) The lack of health and education to the poor will have a debilitating
effect that will last for generations to come (oops; already happened), and
k) Oil interests will be 4 more years more entrenched, making alternative
fuels more unobtainable. [/quote]

I couldn’t agree more with a,e,i,j, and k. I’d also add:

l) We’ll be no closer to discovering cures or EFFECTIVE treaments for cancer or other horrid diseases than we are now. Also if he gets an amendment through against stem cell, our country will be woefully behind the Europeans in pharmacology and we’ll be stuck with a country full of expensive, ineffective medication. Oh and many more loved ones will die.

BostonBarrister · November 4, 2004, 8:09am

[quote]vroom wrote:
But tough shit - we proved Tuesday we are not a nation to give a shit what Europe thinks.

Yep, the US has certainly proven it doesn’t give a shit what anybody thinks, ever. It’s going to be an entire decade of poor global relations with Bush the great divider and escalator using his skills at brinksmanship to cause another war or two after God speaks to him in his sleep.

Heh, anyway, more reasonably, I was looking forward to criticizing someone other than Bush. It is so easy to criticize this adminstration there is almost no sport in it.

However, though I would have preferred to see Bush retire to his ranch, how much more damage can he do in four years? The democrats should just give the republicans lots of rope and learn from their playbook.[/quote]

Tony Blair, of course was quite pleased – but wait, I forgot, only those countries and leaders critical of the U.S. count as the “rest of the world.”

Seems that some other world leaders aren’t too disappointed with the results - maybe they shouldn’t count either:

Russian President Vladimir Putin:
“I rejoice that the American people did not allow themselves to be scared and made a right decision.”

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski:
“Terrorism has to be rejected in today’s world and in this respect George Bush is a very decisive leader who is right, simply right.”

French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier:
“We’re going to work with the American administration. We have lots to do on current crises: Iraq, the Middle East, Iran, the challenges of the African continent, to rebuild, to renovate trans-Atlantic relations.”

Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson:
“I don’t think we will see any significant changes in his policies. He is going to continue with the policies he believes in. Relations between the United States and Europe will be patched together step-by-step. Bush has not threatened with trade obstacles, Kerry did, so in that sense it might perhaps be a bit easier.”

Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi:
“Whoever wins will be our friend. The United States liberated us from a dictator from a very long period of war and agony. We will always be grateful to America for what it has done and continues to do.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom:
“In the case of President Bush and the candidate Kerry, there is no significant difference when it comes to their deep and warm support for Israel.”

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer:
“We’ve had a very good relationship with them for the last four years and I’m sure we’ll be able to keep building on that over the next four.”

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi:
"No matter which candidate claims victory, the importance of the friendly relations between Japan and the United States and the Japan-US security alliance will not change in principle.

Of course, some others were not so happy – I think it’s instructive to note who’s not so happy…

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri:
“We urge the new American administration (whether under Bush or Kerry) to reconsider its positions regarding the Palestinian cause and other Islamic and Arab causes. Until they reconsider their policies we will continue to regard the US administration as hostile to our Arab and Muslim causes and as a partner in the aggression against our people.”

Spanish political analyst Juan Carlos Rodriguez:
“Zapatero (Spanish Prime Minister) was counting on a victory for Kerry… The government will have to start making conciliatory gestures… It has been a bit naive.”

rainjack · November 4, 2004, 8:48am

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am against churches making a political voice in this election. There was much coverage of this happening with this election. Entire services were dedicated towards swinging the vote. I am not advocating complete disregard for religion. I am christian. My dad was a preacher. Simply because people want a clear seperation of church and state does not mean that they are athiests and that they don’t believe in God (or another superpower based on their religion). I just wanted to make that clear because you didn’t.
[/quote]

Why are you singling out the churches?

Why not MTV? Or Barbara Streisand? Or NOW? Or Puff Daddy (P-Diddy, or whatever he’s calling himself now)? Or the NRA? Or the Moore-heads? Each of these have very distinct agendas that they want to impose on you.

Why is it so wrong for the christian right to become activist in the defense of their beliefs?

Would you be as fearful of the gay community if the president was gay? Don’t they have a word for that?

You talk of the evils of the christian right (the erosion of the separation of church and state) as if it has already happened. It won’t happen. It can’t happen. The constitution forbids it.

WguitarG · November 4, 2004, 8:57am

Ok, to comment on the paragon on intellect up there who stated that the "dumber people were concentrated in the southern states. If you think people down here in good ol Georgia(stress southern accent) actually vote just because the media and their parents have taught them that Republicans are “good” and Dems and “bad” you are sorely mistaken. The South is a totally different culture from the Pacific and New England States, the aforementioned lacking the testicular fortitude to elect a decent representative. How smart can you be if you elected Hilary Clinton to your Senate? You paint a picture as if almost everyone in your beloved liberal states voted for Kerry. If you’ll look at a county by county map, the only counties in New York that wen for Kerry are New York City. Same for California, the majority of the state, geographically, went for Bush, the highly populated Coast went for Kerry. So basically, you are saying that the majority of smart people in the U.S. live around Harvard University…LOL. What a crock. Let me tell you something, I’ve seen students from the New England states come down here to Georgia thinking they were smarter than us southern country bumpkins, only to find themselves humiliated when they receive their test scores. You are correct in that the North has a higher concentration of educated people, and this is partly due to the wealth that is concentrated around the financial capital of the world, but a B.S. degree or a Masters degree does not make you any more intelligent or knowledgable of the issues at hand. Every one of my Economics profesors is a conservative Republican, and every one of my Sociology professors was a left wing Democrat, all from the South, so you cannot say that the more educated and intelligent are primarily Democratic because of that fact, the more educated happen to be more Democratic because they are concentrated in the New England states, a totally different, liberal culture.

Fonebone · November 4, 2004, 9:08am

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am against churches making a political voice in this election. There was much coverage of this happening with this election. Entire services were dedicated towards swinging the vote.[/quote]

Would this include Kerry’s extensive tours of Black churches (even to the point of delivering sermons) and his statements that he would be “led by his faith” while in office? This was front page news. Imagine the uproar if Bush had gone to a Baptist church to garner support. The double standard here couldn’t be more obvious.

What is the difference between an organized body such as a church, and an organized body such as a labor union, working to support a particular candidate?

jackzepplin · November 4, 2004, 9:15am

[quote]Professor X wrote:
jackzepplin wrote:

I won’t argue all of your points, but I don’t agree with them completely. It’s kind of Michael Moore’ish to lay it out like that.

Do you have some kind of Micheal Moore fetish? I swear, I hear that name come from Republicans more than any Democrat. I have never even seen his movie and am really not interested. That makes me wonder why that is your defense when someone writes something you don’t politically agree with. If troops are needed in larger numbers, where will they come from? We have a president who loves business. I don’t think the supplement angle is off at all. Are you saying that Korea is not a threat? What are you arguing besides the draft?[/quote]

No. Funny though (got a chuckle out of me). I abbreviate a certain way of thought with Michael Moore’s style of twisting facts into half-truths. He leaves out enough detail to argue his case. As for troops, we have an incredible system that will allow us to utilize the resources we have and the new forces that are volunteering. NK is a problem, and we will deal with them appropriately. John sKerry wouldn’t have been able to get anything done. NK, Iran, and others were hopeful that sKerry would win this election so that they could gear up their ambitions. Now that Bush has another four, well… let’s just wait and see how things transpire. I’m confident that we are headed toward positive international relationships.

Professor_X · November 4, 2004, 9:20am

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Professor X –

The Democrats could count on the South because the Southerners hated the Republican Party – they hated the Republican Party because they associated the Republican Party with Reconstruction and, later, with Eisenhower, a Republican, who enforced Brown v. Board of Education and put an end to Jim Crow laws.[/quote]

More recently Democrats could count on that vote due to affirmative action and a disregard by most republican representatives for the conditions that many blacks were living in. It isn’t because the majority were taught to hate a certain party for no reason. Even though Reagan was Republican, he still had support by many in the black community because of his views even though many may not have voted for him for the first term.

Professor_X · November 4, 2004, 9:33am

[quote]bandgeek wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I am against churches making a political voice in this election. There was much coverage of this happening with this election. Entire services were dedicated towards swinging the vote.

Would this include Kerry’s extensive tours of Black churches (even to the point of delivering sermons) and his statements that he would be “led by his faith” while in office? This was front page news. Imagine the uproar if Bush had gone to a Baptist church to garner support. The double standard here couldn’t be more obvious.

What is the difference between an organized body such as a church, and an organized body such as a labor union, working to support a particular candidate? [/quote]

I actually wouldn’t have found it at all offensive if Bush had visited a Baptist Church. I am actually amazed dismayed that he completely ignored that population. No, I do not consider the running mates wrong for visiting a church or any other public forum. In that instance, I find it no different than speaking at a high school or on stage at a concert. I do find it wrong, when out of presence of any running mate, the church’s pastor begins to preach that God is associated more with one party than another. For me, that is a large difference. I know the power that preachers have for many who follow their every word. I feel that in that specific instance, it is a corruption of God’s word. I don’t feel that God has a party preference. As far as Kerry’s words that he is led by faith, Bush has made many more statements about having the ear of God which invalidates trying to make an issue of it. I am happy that anyone running for president has a faith that involves the belief in a higher power. I personally find that to be important in anyone who is attempting to run this country. That in itself is not the issue. I hope I have explained my stance on that well enough for you to not make anymore assumptions on where I stand.

jackzepplin · November 4, 2004, 9:53am

[quote]rangertab75 wrote:
regrahc wrote:

Just as in 2000, take a look at the states won by Dems, and you’ll see they’re the states where all the intelligent people in America reside (NY, MI, CA, etc.) Meanwhile you have all these yahoos in Wyoming, Kansas, Georgia, etc., living in trailers, getting it on with their cousins, and voting for Bush for the simple fact that their parents taught them that Dems are bad, Republicans good. Very few of these people could form an intelligent argument about why they voted for Bush, they can only revert to what they’ve been force-fed by the media.

Regrahc -

Are you fucking serious?? I don’t know what everyone else on this forum thinks, but that was probably one of the dumbest, most ignorant statements I have ever heard here. Listen here, those people have just as much of a right to vote as you do, and their vote counts just as much as anybody else’s; whether they’re a successful person or a homeless one.

rangertab75
[/quote]

Evidentially, I’m too stupid to respond to such superior intellect.

Honestly, when someone posts something this stupid, I just ignore it. It’s not worth it.

One little note though. I work for one of the big four financial services firms in the world. While we have major concentrations in places like NY and SF, most major, intellectual, projects are completed by the finest in the middle America (Kansas City, Dallas, Houston, etc.).

BostonBarrister · November 4, 2004, 10:04am

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Professor X –

The Democrats could count on the South because the Southerners hated the Republican Party – they hated the Republican Party because they associated the Republican Party with Reconstruction and, later, with Eisenhower, a Republican, who enforced Brown v. Board of Education and put an end to Jim Crow laws.

More recently Democrats could count on that vote due to affirmative action and a disregard by most republican representatives for the conditions that many blacks were living in. It isn’t because the majority were taught to hate a certain party for no reason. Even though Reagan was Republican, he still had support by many in the black community because of his views even though many may not have voted for him for the first term.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, I was talking about the reason why Republicans couldn’t win the majority of the vote in the South until recently, not the majority of the black vote in the South – which is definitely a substantial minority within the South, and particularly in the urban South, but still constitutes a completely different analysis.

JeffR · November 4, 2004, 10:10am

T-Stag,

Thanks for your nasty thread.

We are not interested in your opinion.

Please encourage your fellow Finns to do something positive on the world stage before making any more comments.

Have a great day!!!

JeffR

btm62 · November 4, 2004, 10:18am

How is a pastor preaching to his congregation, espousing one candidate or issue any different from PAC’s that businesses use? Or lobbyists? My boss can suggest who to vote for based on what’s best for his business, but my pastor can’t? That’s a little assininie I think.

Professor_X · November 4, 2004, 10:38am

[quote]btm62 wrote:
How is a pastor preaching to his congregation, espousing one candidate or issue any different from PAC’s that businesses use? Or lobbyists? My boss can suggest who to vote for based on what’s best for his business, but my pastor can’t? That’s a little assininie I think. [/quote]

You can think whatever you want to. For now, it is a free country. I understand that many people are easily swayed if religion is brought into the context. If the same preacher who has been teaching the path to righteousness then goes on to praise a certain party system, I feel that this has introduced “state” right back into “church”. I do not put this on the same level as Snoop Dogg telling the kids watching 106 and Park to go vote. A lobbyist is not a preacher. People who are members of a church don’t go to church to be convinced that God exists, they go for rejuvenating what they believe in and for deeper understanding. I would put it more on the same level as your psychologist telling you who to vote for or your school counselor.

gawan · November 4, 2004, 10:41am