A funny thing happened on the way to work today,
 

It was really eery, you know how sometimes you just have that feeling that things are not right in the world? I had chills down my spine and couldn't get the goosebumps to go away - my hair stood on end. For the life of me I couldn't figure out what was spooking me, but I new it darkness - just pure evil. I followed my same route during the morning commute just knowing that something unusual was waiting for me, anticipating my every move, I was terrified I tell you. And then halfway, through my commute it happened. I went into the same tunnel that I do every morning but when I exited that tunnel my world turned upside down. I realized that I could still see the sun. THE SKY HAD NOT FALLEN AS I EXPECTED!!! How could this happen, or not happen as the case may be? GWB was reelected - stars should be falling from the sky, earthquakes ripping my country apart, livestock falling dead from disease and people giving in to the cold hand of famine brought to them courtesy GWB.

I was so shocked and taken aback at the image of normalcy I was witnessing in Phoenix I started flipping through the radio stations. Surely the rest of the country must be overcome with death and destruction. But alas, I found no sign of these events that were foretold. Was I misled? In my preelection research I'm sure that I was told that a Bush reelection would inevitably trigger the apocolypse.

I sat in my office today just knowing that if I searched the internet I would be overwhelmed by the news of GWB and his brownshirts shutting down planned parenthood clinics, rounding up people with dark skin into corals for processing on their way to the ovens, doors being kicked in so our children might be forced into the military, and advertisements asking me to purchase a recently shredded piece of the original Constitution.

But it must be even worse than I thought - I did not find one news story denouncing these events. The only possible explanation is the Bush Co has taken over all the media sources. Bush and his evil minions surely crushed all the fine Americans who bravely stood in opposition to his world domination tour under the heals of their hobnailed boots. But no evidence exists in the evening news, the paper, the radio, the internet. The Bush Oppression Plan has been successful.

As I sat here at my desk with a tear in my eye, one shining hope appeared before me - THE CELLAR! Surely Bushco can't suppress those brave souls from getting news of the apocolypse out, could he?

My fingers flew over the keys. LOAD DAMMIT! DAMN POP UPS! NO I DON'T NEED A NEW HOT FRIEND! I NEED THE TRUTH! AND THERE IT IS - THE CELLAR!!!

as i read the posts from the last 17 hours my heart slows and my goosebumps fade away. the truth has been given to me. I wasn't deceived - how wonderful! The end truly is here - those brave souls are going to lead an exodus to far away lands of freedom and liberty!

Now I feel whole again. I'm secure in the knowledge that this Bush reelection will open the door to the end of this experiment called America. It must be so, I saw it in The Cellar.

The meth lab is going well, eh?

sorry to be melodramatic folks but i was a bit surprised when i logged in here today. the reason i enjoy the cellar is because of the people who i find here. while we often disagree on issues, the strong majority of cellarites are rational people. but i think it may be time for wolf, bri, and whoever else can help to break out the meds - bring it down a level folks.

i'm not suggesting that anyone should be happy that their candidate failed to be elected. i understand that it pisses you off. i even understand the reasons why you think this is a catastophe. mourn your candidacy in an honorable fashion and then start preparing for the next go 'round with the lessons learned this year.

But remember above all - this happens every four years. the US political scene is just like a big pendulum. It swings way out the right for awhile and the it comes back and swings way out to the left and then it swings way out to the right and then... do you see a pattern?

America goes to far to the fringes at times - but just like a pendulum it always comes back. and it will this time too. just look forward to the day when the D's can gloat over the R's who are crying their beer over another missed opportunity - remember 1996?

the facts still remain that in 2004 the democratic party did not put forward a ticket that people felt comfortable supporting. Kerry and Edwards are most likely good men who would have done the best they knew how to do if elected. but the ticket was spoiled. 51% of Americans didn't were turned off to the idea of those two in office. there are a lot of reasons. probably the biggest being Kerry's post vietnam actions. some of it boils down to the fact that while we heard over and over that only the rich would have their taxes raised - middle class america knows that it doesn't really work that way.

My hope is that the leadership of the democratic party spends the next four years taking their party back from their own extremists. a strong moderate democratic party is one that a majority of americans would back. a D party that truly focuses on good jobs, good education, and a strong but reasonable approach to the world beyond our borders would draw people back and lure a lot of moderate R's in. If Kerry really was the person he pretended to be after the Clinton leadership team came on board he would have been elected. i honestly believe that. unfortunately he had a record that didn't fit with the new image. (a problem that any sitting senator will face in a presidential race)

In also hope that a new party will take root to pull the moderate republicans back toward the middle. if the Libertarian party wasn't so over the top in their idealism they could do it. unfortunately there are too many Radars within their midst to gain broadbased support quickly. but, hopefully the party will mature and adopt a more realistic approach to the world as they gain more seats in the government.

anyway - those are my thoughts. accept them or ridicule them - it's your choice.

other than the damn bugs that i can't seem to get off my arms? yeah.

Well don't get too comfy, friend, because on post-election day one we have...TADAAAA!

Surprise number one!

And if you think that it was a coincidence that this anouncement happened after the election was safely over, then Wolf would be glad to find accomodations for you.

As for suprise number ...something..., remember how Bush 41 had to reluctantly go back on his "no new taxes" promise. How long before Bush 43 has to go back on the "no draft" promise?

The incredibly short time period between end of election and the first surprise gives me an eerie impression of a stack of similar bad news sitting on a desk in the oval office waiting to be parceled out each week.

Of course, with Republicans safely controlling both houses of Congress, it's going to be hard to blame "the liberals in Congress". But I'm sure Mr. Rove will give it the old college try.

rich that is old news. they've been wrangling that one for awhile. last talk was they were sure they could make it through august and september but it was expected before the end of the year.

no - i don't think it is a good thing. i'm just not prepared to watch for the falling sky.

Long ago there was a beautiful Indian princess, Shining Star, who had reached the age of marriage. Three young braves vied for her hand -- Running Bear, Tall as Tree, and Falling Rock. But Shining Star was wise. All three were strong and handsome, but she wanted more to know what was in their heart of hearts.

So she put to them a task. Each one must travel. They must bring back the most brave and free creature they could find.

After many weeks, Running Bear returned with a large stag that he had managed to kill with just his knife and his cunning. Shining Star respected his gift, but waited to see what the others would bring.

After much more time, Tall as Tree returned. On his shoulder was a magnificent eagle. Tall as Tree had befriended the eagle and it traveled with him now as a companion. Shining Star could see that Tall as Tree had been wise, for the eagle had been brought back, but was still free.

They waited many more seasons but, sadly, Falling Rock never returned. In the end, Shining Star married Tall as Tree. But she always wondered what fine and wonderful thing that Falling Rock would have brought back. After years, the travels of Falling Rock became legend. Some still wait for him to return. And that is why to this very day, if you look you can see the signs... that say "Watch for Falling Rock".

All right, all right. It's no sillier than lookout's story.

good job dar! we do still have our humor.

Your error is expecting the apocalypse to happen so quickly. They have four years (since the House and Senate are now too lopsided for the Dems to reasonably retake in 2006), all the time in the world to let their own special brand of theocracy creep in incrementally. Judicial appointments and a retry of the Constitution Restoration Act are the first steps, and then the "America is a CHRISTIAN NATION" froot loops will have legal grounds to stand upon.

Take a good look at Alabama. It'll look awfully familiar soon.

The theocrats have the tools to do whatever they want now. They just have to space it out gradually so that Joe Average doesn't wake up.

The apocalypse is set for 2012. It will not be the job of this administration. it's for the 2008 team.

I can see why you're expecting Santorum...

Yup. And if they were really *smart* theocrats, they'd legalize ganja to go along with the tobacco and alcohol so that Joe Average would be too fucked up to care that someone was about to tattoo his SS # on his forearm.

Lookout, I just don't think you and the other pro-Bush folks can even begin to understand the animosity the rest of us feel toward the president. The Cellar has actually been quite moderate in its response when compared with other spots on the net. I took a peek just now at the masses over on AOL, and it's like checking in on the howling gates of hell. There is so MUCH rage that it's scarey. I almost could give credence to the thought that has been bandied about that four more years of what we've already experienced will bring us close to civil war. If Bush thinks he got a mandate from this election, he's a damned fool.

and if you think that the cellar is truly representative of society at large, you are a damned fool.

this board is primarily inhabited by fairly liberal folks - and that isn't a bad thing. but it is amusing to me that when you all get together in your post election moarning stage (which you deserve) the only thing you come up with is that 54,000,000 + people were either fooled, stupid, or evil. while some of them are - you just can't accept that a lot of americans looked at the same information you have access to and came up with different conclusions. that doesn't make one group intelligent and the other stupid - it makes them different.

the pendulum will swing back without the end of the world. it would be difficult for a republican to be elected in '08. the best thing that could possibly happen for the democratic party is to learn the lesson of '04 and take it to heart. bring the party back to the center so that americans have a choice between the far right and the far left. if that happens i, and many others, will again vote for a democrat for president. i don't want a candidate who only talks tough about the world scene for a few weeks before the election. i said it before - if Kerry's last 20 years gelled with his last 2 months i would have actively campaigned for him.

Lookout, I never said the Cellar was a representative cross section. I was talking about AOL. I don't know how representative that group is either, but certainly its far larger and much more diverse. I very rarely mess around on AOL, I just use it to interface on to the net. Tonight, however, one of their headlines got my eye, and I checked out their nationwide discussion. It was VERY nasty.

If Kerry had won, I somehow doubt that you, wolf and the other R's on this site would be "mourning your candidacy in an honorable fashion." You wouldn't clam up and "move on" a day or two after the election. You'd be just as unhappy as we are, and most likely venting your frustrations and fear of the next four years here on the Cellar, too.

It's really easy when "your guy" wins to sit back and call the rest of us whiners. Sorry, we're really unhappy about the outcome of the election, and some of us have definite fears about what the next four years hold. We're worried, and venting our worries on this site is cathartic. And I'm guessing it will continue for a while. Be honest--you would do the same thing.

No, I had already decided to look at the bright side if Kerry had won. This "sky is falling" stuff that I'm hearing from the Kerry supporters is a little over the top if you ask me.

Bush's flaws have been on full display for four years. Kerry was a complete unknown (being virtually invisible in his 20-year career in the Senate). To assume that once Kerry had the keys to the White House that we wouldn't then find out that he also has quite a few flaws (whatever they might be) is too much to ask.

I just don't think you can automatically assume that America under Kerry would have been that much better than America under Bush when Kerry is a complete unknown quantity. For all I know, he'd make a great president. But, I don't like being confused when trying to figure out what a guy stands for and with Kerry, I was twisted into a knot trying to figure out what he would do in a given situation. Bush is a known quantity and, for all his flaws, I and many others went with a less-than-perfect known quantity over a completely unknown quantity.

You can say I made a bad choice and I can stick up for myself but in the end - 4 years from now - I still think well be ok no matter which candidate would have prevailed. Allow yourself to look at the bright side - like not having to look at Tuh-REY-zuh for 4 years :)

This is what you have bought with your vote:

"A complete unkonwn"? Huh? 20 years in the senate isn't enough political experience for you? In 2000, GWB was complete unknown to pretty much anyone outside Texas. The rest of us only knew him as George Sr.'s son, and he had zero foreign policy experience. I assume you voted for him then, when he was an unknown quanitity. That argument doens't hold water at all.


Hitler is a known quantity--would you have voted for him over Kerry? (It's just an analogy--I'm not comparing Hitler to GWB)

Who cares about that? Laura Bush has an idiotic, half-wit smile permanently plastered on her face, which I find annoying. However, my vote was based on the candidate, not who he's married to.

And this is what you left out of your summary:

Go ahead and focus on the negative all you want to - my point in my prior post still stands: there are positives to a 2nd Bush term. If you want to ignore them that's up to you. I do find it interesting, tho, that a renegade Republican (who, btw, I despise) makes a remark about putting God in the public square and that trumps all the issues that I had to go to the article you cited and highlight myself. That's exactly what I'm talking about - focus on a trivial negative (there are more significan negatives with a Bush admin than that) and ignore all the beneficial policies they want to enact.

Look at the glass anyway you want to but don't say its half empty and then blame me for it. You voted, I voted, the election is over now let's make the most of it. You still have congressmen/women and Senators and the idea of Consitutional merit still stands. The Supreme Courts of BOTH Bible-belt Alabama and the United States BOTH ruled against Judge Moore on the ten commandments thing so I don't know what you are so worried about.

Your argument is a gross mischaracterization of what I said.

And your reaction to my joke (however bad it sucked) about John Kerry's wife makes it pretty clear that you need to relax and calm down.

Sheesh!

I guess I don't understand your point then. Please explain my "gross mischaracteriztion."

Hey, I am calm. I just had no idea you were making a joke. :yelsick:

In 2000, I knew more about Gore than Bush but chose Bush.
In 2004, I knew more about Bush than Kerry but still chose Bush.

In 2004, as a conservative, Bush is the presumptive choice however, I'm not above changing my mind. I did not know enough about Kerry to override my position. Anyone who gets in the Senate can stay there so a 20-year tenure is meaningless to me. His voting record was dubious (to me) and his bill sponsorship was virtually non-existant. And since his campaign was based on "I'm not Bush", I considered him a huge unknown.

In 2000, just the opposite. What I did know about Gore would have led me to vote for my next-door neighbor first. Hell, he couldn't even carry Tennessee. No one who can't carry his home state deserves to be president.

So, in 2004, Kerry didn't have enough positives to change my mind and in 2000, Bush didn't have enough negatives to change my mind (to vote for Gore). It has to do with one's bias.

Think of it like a boxing match. I hoped that Holeyfield as the challenger would beat Tyson because I didn't like Tyson. When Holeyfield was the champ, I still hoped he would win over a challenger I wasn't familiar with.

I guess the smiley was not enough to overpower the suckness of the joke :)

I'm not really in a fighting mood anymore over the election. The last word is yours.

A what? A renegate Republican? I'm happy you despise him, but your view certainly isn't demonstrated by any Republican leadership. He's the Republican House leader. Despite multiple ethics violations and possible criminal action, all explicitly with the purpose of increasing Republican domination, his party has closed ranks around him. Almost all GOP House members accepted money from his PAC. Any compromises worked out in the more bipartisan Senate, get removed by DeLay in conference. This guy is no renegade - accept it: this guy is the new mainstream Republican congressman. His explicit goal, which has been supported and aided by the party machinery, is to get more people like himself elected, and remove the ability of moderate Republicans and Democrats to be elected.

As for what I "left out" - I wasn't attempting to summarize the article, I was pointing out a particular quote. And if you strip the feel-good terminology, the examples you found look more pro-corporate than pro-citizen to me. I see the glass as empty right now, and I hope people notice when they try to drink. I don't have any Senators or Representatives, but that's a separate issue. And I do have some faith in the courts at this point, but look at the rhetoric coming out of the Republican party right now. It is all geared at reducing respect for the courts. "Activist judges", "liberal courts", sentencing guidelines, preventing class-action lawsuits, capping damages, demonizing trial lawyers, legislation to limit the authority of the courts. Plus, Bush has had record success in appointing judges, has done recess appointments for some of the few that were successfully blocked, and is likely to appoint multiple US Supreme Court justices. Talk is already behinning about removing the filibuster option for even the most partisan nominations Outside the White House, a new Alabama Supreme Court justice is Tom Parker, Roy Moore's legal advisor. This nation is moving in a very dangerous direction.

You had to highlight it yourself because the rest of us understand just how bogus these "positives" are.

Starting with tax cuts. One of the first things Bush is doing will be to go to Congress and ask for another $40 billion for the war. Where do you think that money will come from? The first two guesses don't count. On top of that Bush's tax cuts amounted to tax INCREASES out there in the real world. The greatest breaks were given to the upper 1% (I'm so glad THEY get to hang on to their money). This aid to the wealthy was paid for by giving less Federal money to the states. The states responding by cutting back on services and at the same time raising state taxes, so we now all get less while paying more. Here are numerous citations from a wide variety of sources on this issue. You don't have to just take my word for it:

"What Tax Cut? States Are Using Higher Taxes and Fees to Take Back What Uncle Sam is Giving Away," U.S. News & World Report, 2/2/04
“Federal Policies Contribute to the Severity of the State Fiscal Crisis,”Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/3/03
"Decline in Federal Grants Will Put Additional Squeeze on State and Local Budgets," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/3/04
"Up to 1.6 Million Low-Income People - Including About Half a Million Children - Are Losing Health Coverage Due to State Budget Cuts," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/22/03
"Trends in College Pricing 2003," College Board, 10/21/03
"We're Paying Dearly for Bush's Tax Cuts," Citizens for Tax Justice, 9/23/03
"State Budget Deficits Projected for Fiscal Year 2005," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/30/04
Figures on the incidence of the Bush tax cuts were provided by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
Figures showing that national debt owed to foreigners have increased from $1 trllion in January 2001 to $1.5 trillion currently are from the U.S. Treasury International Capital System website.
Figures showing that the total assets of the Social Security Trust Funds borrowed by the federal government have increased from $1 trillion in January 2001 to $1.5 trillion currently are from Social Security Online.
Figures showing the $1.3 trillion increase in the national debt under Bush are from the U.S. Bureau of the Public Debt.

Malpractice is not the chief factor driving increased health care costs, so capping malpractice and class action awards will bring little relief in that area.

Increasing US domestic production of non-renewable energy supplies is a questionable cure for our current oil woes. The reason those sources haven't been tapped is cost. We can increase production, but the cost of doing so will show up at the fuel pump and on your utilities bill. It will be a short term fix, anyhow. Oil and natural gas are finite. Sooner or later we are going to be forced into seeking alternative energy supplies. There's no time like the present. The 40 billion dollars we will pour into the Iraq conflict could have funded a plethora of alternative enrgy research projects and been a giant step towards energy self-sufficiency for this country.

Bottom line, all that article is saying is that Bush's policies will continue to charge the average tax payer more money with less in return; a growing deficit; increasing instability in the social security system which is being raided to the tune of over a trillion dollars; and a bandaid to stick on this country's health care problems. Sorry if I see the glass as half empty.

You're contradicting yourself. You knew about his voting record and bill sponsorship, so he was therefore not a "huge unknown." You didn't vote for him because you didn't agree with his politics. Simple as that, and it's OK to say that.

Really? Say George Bush had once been governor of California. If he didn't carry California, would you still say he didn't "deserve" to be President? How exactly does carrying a particular state affect ones worthiness to sit in the Oval Office?

Sorry I'm not trying to beat this into the ground, I'm just confused by your posts.

You are familar with the idea that if one doesn't vote then he surrenders his right to complain?

Same applies to tax policy.

Same also applies to health care costs.

Regarding energy, what was Kerry's plan again?

Excuse me, but I paid income taxes for well over 25 years of my life. I still pay sales tax (local and state), Federal tax at the gas pump, and property taxes which are passed on to me as part of my rent.

I went without adequate health care for over 5 years and missed out on vital treatment because I was paying out of pocket and couldn't afford it. All my prescriptions are still not covered and I pay $135.00 a month from my slender income (derived from the money I put into the system MYSELF over my working career) to cover those costs.

Kerry favored the development of alternative energy resources and incentives for more fuel efficient technologies.

No, I'm just not making myself clear. I don't rely on voting records and I don't rely on Senate tenure. And Kerry's sparse activity in creating legislation (what I regard as the most indicative) was too sparse to reach a conclusion - 8 bills in 20 years half of which were ceremonial. That to me is a big unknown when I compare it to his ever-shifting position statements. I'm not afraid to say I don't like his politics - I just didn't feel like I had a handle on what his politics were.

As far as the home state thing goes, if the people that elected someone to represent them in the Senate later decided to elect someone else to represent them as president, then I think that is tantamount to a vote of no confidence from the folks that know him the best. Even the conservative Reagan carried California (twice).

Not to split hairs but the money you paid into the system in the past went to help people that year. Others are now helping you. Don't try to make it sound like all the money you paid in the past is in the basement at the capital and you are just taking a little of it back. No, the money you paid in the past went to benefits paid in the past - that money is long gone.

Its pay as you go.

And you can tell me to mind my own business if you want to but what exactly prevents you from earning a wage? You certainly seem capable to me of holding any number of jobs (philosophical differences not withstanding :).

I have explained this ad nauseum in at least a couple of old threads which I now can't find. My situation is complex and I deal with an array of neurological and anxiety related disorders. Thank you for the compliment. I'll let it go at that.

Mari went over the job issue about a month or so ago.

And Mari, you get back any money you put into SS in less than 2 years...so depending on how long you've been on SSDI, you might have already gotten it all back.

You just contradicted yourself again!

So do you rely on voting records or not? Nevermind, I give up. It's OK to admit you like George W. Bush, really. You don't have to keep making excuses.

Too funny!

For the record, I'm not a bad Republican but I do differ from the fellow in the cartoon as follows:

I'm really not a religious wacko and I do oppose prayer in schools (I think prayer is a personal thing not a public thing except in church)
I support conditional abortion legislation. I think late-term abortions are flat out murder.
I don't mind the idea of gay marriage but I can't figure out what a gay family is and, until I do, I oppose it. I support civil unions till then.
I fucking despise the French. As someone famous once said: "France is a nation of whores."
Ultimately, I voted for Bush because he's more American than European.

There are lots of socialist countries around the world but there is only one America. And I'm not about to let a liberal socialist fuck it up.

I'm not a "good" republican because I see no need to appease the liberal left. A moderate position should does not necessarily imply a lack of conviction in one's position.

Ouch, the "Ugly American" finally makes an appearance.

Have you ever been to France, Beestie? I have, and it is a beautiful country with great food, and in my opinion, very nice people (and no, I don't speak a lick of French).

Whoever that "someone famous" is that you quote is a complete and total moron. It speaks more of ignorance than patriotism on your part.

By dubious, I mean inconclusive but leaning in the wrong direction. For example, I was hesitant to think that John Kerry really did vote down every major weapon system bill because he really wanted to cripple our defensive capability. I was also reluctant to believe that he voted 98 times to increase taxes because he wanted 98 separate tax increases.

Sometimes, politicians vote against something because its not enough of what it is (i.e., a repub voting against a tax decrease bill because it was too small of a decrease and he's hoping to defeat the bill so a larger decrease can be put into the next one). Sometimes, bills are created JUST to elicit a vote to use against that person in the future. Same example applies.

So, while Kerry's voting record on the surface was/is dubious, I resisted weighting it as much as some might because how one votes does not always necessarily reflect one's position. What made it hard in Kerry's case is a 20-year record of a similar pattern.

It wasn't as simple for me as you might think. Ultimately, I am happy with the decision I made but I was genuinely undecided at various points.

I was born there and raised there until I was almost 8. I'm an American who hates the French from personal and first hand experience.

But, you are right, France is beautiful. Too bad the French live in it.

Very sad you hate millions of people you've never met based on their nationality.... Perhaps an eight-year-old isn't really a good judge of who should be "hated"? Just a thought.

I spent two weeks in Frande in 1992 digging people out of the mudslides that year and all I got was a cold shoulder and a derisive sniff.

Fuck France(tm)

So you're saying they treated you comparably well, for them. ;)

The downside of Bush being reuped is I was looking forward to the blood in the streets that Slang alluded too awhile back. :apistola:

Slang was looking forward to the distraction as well. He needs the live fire practice.

Just because you had a good experience with a relatively few people in France doesn't mean other people did. I have been to France numerous times, and every single time I was rebuffed, treated rudely, and once I was literally derided in the street.

So don't talk to me about how great the French are.

oh c'mon - they go great with a cream sauce. make sure you rinse them first, though.

So because YOU had a bad experience with people in France, that means that every single person in France is an asshole? Sorry, that's just a silly generalization.

From my three trips to France, I've noticed the majority of Americans who go there on vacation ACT like Americans (i.e., we expect THEM to speak our language, take our currency, and embrace our culture). Last time I was in France a few Americans in line in front of me at a store were upset that they didn't take American dollars (no, the cashier wasn't nice to them, either). American ethnocentricity has pissed off a lot of other countries, and to be perfectly honest, I don't blame the French for being less-than-polite to us. Sorry you had a bad time there, but I didn't.

Actually, I was there with a friend of mine (who speaks fluent French) and she was doing all the talking. I've been all over Europe and I know how NOT to act (and I can spot the Asshole-Americans from a mile away). We were using Euros. In other words, we were not doing anything that would have justified the mistreatment that we received.

So save your excuses for them. And I didn't say every single person in France is an asshole. But all the ones I've ever met ARE. I'm entitled to my opinion that in general, the French are assholes.

I'm glad you enjoy their company, but I don't. And apperantly, neither does Beestie. ;)

Well good for you and Beestie. I think it's interesting that it's OK for people to make statements like "the French are assholes"--if you had met a small number of African Americans who you didn't like, would you also say that all African Americans are assholes? No, because that would be RACIST, wouldn't it? What you're doing, in my opinion, is exactly the same thing. So good, don't ever go back there.

I was treated pretty rudely in Hungary. Do I want to go back there? Not really. Do I think all Hungarians are assholes? Not at all.

And BTW, I can't imagine you were "derided in street" for simply minding your own business...

If every single person you ever met in ...lets say Switzerland... slapped you in the face....literally....open handed slapped you upside the head... then I think you have a reason to say, "You know, I really don't like the Swiss." And if you said it, I wouldn't say a thing to condradict you. Because it's not my place. You are completely entitled to your opinion.

And if you consider me a racist because I don't like French people, well, who the hell are you to me? Nobody.

And whether you can imagine if I was derided in the street or not is irrelevant. It happened. And I will request you don't infer I'm a liar, or that it didn't happen. Just because you can't imagine a thing doesn't mean it doesn't exist or didn't happen. It just means you have a limited imagination.

That's not what I said. You should read posts more carefully before you slam someone like that. I absolutely believe you were derided in the street. With a hot temper and bad attitude like yours, I'm just betting it was completely deserved. So for the rest of us who like to travel and ENJOY other cultures, please stay home and keep your bad American manners to yourself.

You're right, I'm nobody to you, and you're nobody to me. If you don't want other "nobodies" commentiing on your posts, and you are too thin-skinned to hear any criticism of what you post, maybe you shouldn't post here.

I read your post, I understood what it inferred, I was trying to give you a nice, simple way to let the conversation rest without getting more confrontational than it already was.

Instead, you have insulted me and directed me to "stay home", and have obviously made a judgement on my personality without ever meeting me.

Your previous statements also indicate you have made a judgement on Beestie, who has expressed his general dislike of the people who inhabit France. Those statements are the reason I felt compelled to interject in the first place.

In addition, from other threads on this board, it appears you have confrontation issues.

Also, since you don't know me, I'll advise you that I'm hardly thin skinned, and since I've been a regular poster here much longer than you have, I'll decline your less than gracious offer to stop posting. There are people here who I care about, who I respect, and a few I even admire. You just aren't one of them.

So why don't you follow your own advice keep your bad American manners to yourself?

No, you completely misread what I posted, and inferred that I was calling you a liar, which I never did. Nice try.


No, Beestie (to quote directly) said she "despises" the French. That's not exactly "general dislike." Sorry, I have a problem when people like you and Beestie choose to stereotype millions of people you've never met. It more than stings of racism, and I will call you on it. If you don't want to hear what I think, don't read my posts.

And your little slam on Brianna in the parenting forum (and on others in many other threads) shows YOU have confrontation issues, too. Good, so we're even then.

You forgot--I'm a nobody, you're a nobody, remember? I could care less whether or not you like me, and I'm sure you feel the same way.

No, I understood exactly what you meant. By saying, "I can't imagine you were "derided in street" for simply minding your own business..." you inferred that your little french buddies would NEVER do anything like scream at the top of their lungs to a total stranger in the street without provocation. I had implied in my post that they had done exactly that. So, in effect, you were calling me a liar, and I nicely requested you didn't. So to quote you, Nice try.

Beestie is a he. And you have no business calling anyone on racism, even if they are a proud member of the KKK. It's not your place to take anyone to task on their beliefs or opinions. Beestie has his, I have mine, you have yours.

I happen to read everyone's posts, not because I "want to hear" what they have to say, but because I try to see things from other people's point of view, even if I don't agree. It's unfortunate that you don't see things that way. Why is it that you want me to stop posting (as one of your replies demanded) and stop reading posts? Is what I'm saying that unsettling to you? Why are you getting so upset?

Actually, I disliked Brianna's post for 3 reasons: (1) I'm British. (2) As I replied to her, more than just Americans read this board and it was very disrespectful for her to post that. If she didn't have something to contribute, which she apperantly didn't, because she didn't post anything else, she shouldn't have posted at all. (3) She was upset about something else, and let that frustration and worry manifest itself on an inappropriate way on a thread that had nothing to do with it.

And as far as us being "even"? Hardly.

There you go, being sure again. My my, but you DO make assumptions and judgements on other people.

I don't like the french.
My Daddy didn't like the french.
His Daddy didn't like the french.

I like the Cellar.
Shame Daddy and his Daddy missed it.
Oh well.
What were we talking about? :)

:corn: At least this couldn't get worse.

Look garnet, just because you had a peachy vacation does not mean there are not some serious differences between the French and not just Americans but the rest of the world. The French, by and large, are arrogant assholes who think they are more cultured than the rest of the planet. I spend a lot of time in Canada and can tell you that the French Canadians even think the French are assholes.

I was there when the paint was still drying from the American liberation of Paris and DeGaulle kicked all the Americans out of France. Americans (soldiers and civillians) were being beaten in the streets of Paris. We were run out of that country with a French boot up our ass. I went back in 1983 as an exchange student and determined that as long as you kiss their behind, you are ok but the minute they figure out that you love America (my home), they turn on you very quickly - especially the pre-WWII French. You'd think we were the freakin Nazi's and not the Germans.

But, the French, it seems, hate everyone - the Germans, the British, the Americans, the Moroccans, the Algerians, the Quebeqoi, the Italians, etc.

I'm glad you had a nice time there. France is a beautifull country and there is some pro- or at least some tolerant American attitudes there but, I can assure you, it is the exception. The French hate America even if they make an exception now and then. And the feeling is more than mutual.

What people hate most in others is often what they hate most in themselves...

In that case, I hate the French for being so fucking awesome and beautiful.

So...we shouldn't take anyone to task on their beliefs or their opinions? Onyx, are you serious?

I've heard a lot of good about the French and a lot of bad about the French. I imagine that they're not much different than us--arrogant and asinine. The ones I've met were rather nice. Generalizing and stereotyping only perpetuates problems among various groups.

Wanna bet? ;)

That reminds me: is there a website where I can find the rest of Dr. Phil's pithy little quotes. :rolleyes: