Stick a Fork in Kerry, he's DONE!!! [Archive] - Page 3

TheRoseLady

11-05-2004, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Parkbandit
51% to 48% is screaming a mandate. Sorry.. even Clinton didn't achieve over 50%. Bush had more people vote for him as President than any other President in history. Both the House and Senate were able to increase the Republican presence.

Ok, obviously Bush came out with the higher vote tally this time.

55 million people voted against Bush this time, that is more than the number who voted for him in 2000.

So, more voted for him than any other president in history - the same is true for the number who voted against him. In the end it means nothing.

The ratio of 51% to 48% is hardly a landslide or more accurately a "mandate" in the sense of an overwhelming victory. There's no question that the higher tally wins and there's no second place. But, for the sake of those who are moderate and not particularly religious - you should hope that Bush doesn't start taking this as some sign that God has spoken through the evangelicals.

Again - the guy came out on top, but he is the President over all of the people - let's see if he can do a better job this time.

It wasn't a landslide victory, and that's just a fact - but winning the election didn't require anything above a higher tally.

TheRoseLady

11-05-2004, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I suppose we should blame Bush for Nader's piss poor showing now?

No, he's got enough to be blamed for already.
:saint:

I'm going to create a macro just for you Wezas.

:heart: Wezas!

Back

11-05-2004, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
But, for the sake of those who are moderate and not particularly religious - you should hope that Bush doesn't start taking this as some sign that God has spoken through the evangelicals.

This is really, really, realllllly, scary.

TheRoseLady

11-05-2004, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Parkbandit

McCain will easily win that type of election because he is considered a very moderate Republican and will be able to get moderate Democratic support plus maintain his Republican base. I don't think Hillary has a chance against McCain.

I think that a lot will depend on what happens in the next four years. If Bush pushes the agendas of the radical right-wing - and especially the evangelicals - it could be very bad for the Republicans. On the other hand, if he does well, it could be much much easier.

I am most interested to see what happens within the Republican party during the next four years.

Parkbandit

11-05-2004, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Farquar
Um if Kerry won Ohio it would have been Bush's 266 to Kerry's 272.

So yeah, thanks a lot Ohio.

Edit: Ohio does look a bit suspicious, especially since the CEO of the company that makes voting machines in Ohio stated earlier in the year that he would "deliver Ohio to President Bush."

[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Farquar]

Dear Farquar;

Conspiracy theories like this make you look like a retard. If you are just joking... wow.. funny. If you were serious.. get back on your short little bus.

Thanks.

Parkbandit

11-05-2004, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Farquar
On that note, I doubt there is any precedent (legal or otherwise) to guide what would happen if we found out in a month or so that Kerry did win Ohio. Man what a mess that would be.

Christ... maybe you would like to go to Ohio and count the damn votes to be sure Bush only won by 135,000. You sound completely out of touch with reality. "Well, maybe they misplaced 140,000 votes!" "Maybe one of the machines malfunctioned!"

Here's a nice piece of reality for you:

GEORGE FUCKING BUSH WON THE GOD DAMN ELECTION!!!!!!!

I hope that in some small way that was a slap you obviously needed to bring you back to our reality. No need to thank me.

Parkbandit

11-05-2004, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Parkbandit

McCain will easily win that type of election because he is considered a very moderate Republican and will be able to get moderate Democratic support plus maintain his Republican base. I don't think Hillary has a chance against McCain.

I think that a lot will depend on what happens in the next four years. If Bush pushes the agendas of the radical right-wing - and especially the evangelicals - it could be very bad for the Republicans. On the other hand, if he does well, it could be much much easier.

I am most interested to see what happens within the Republican party during the next four years.

Just get used to a Republican run government for at least the next 12 years.

Thanks.

Edited to add: It's funny how Democrats are looking at the Republican party and what they will be doing and not looking at their own party that is in complete and utter shambles. This election should have been a damn wake up call to the Democratic party that perhaps the rest of America doesn't agree with your extreme liberal leaning policies over the past 4 years and that you had better find a candidate that can actually find a way to garner the support of the people.

Better yet.. continue as you have over the past 4 years.. it only helps Republicans.

[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Parkbandit]

Chelle

11-05-2004, 06:32 PM

:heart: Parkbandit

TheRoseLady

11-05-2004, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Parkbandit
[Conspiracy theories like this make you look like a retard. If you are just joking... wow.. funny. If you were serious.. get back on your short little bus.

Thanks.

I am not really paying much attention to the reports, even here in Ohio about voting irregularities. But if there continues to be information forthcoming, I will at least open my mind up and check it out.

To just dismiss everything as a conspiracy of the paranoid is rather narrow-minded. Sometimes I wonder if this is one of the main differences between several people on this board.

Someone makes a comment or raises a possibility and then those who don't want to think about it or immediately think that the notion is absurd and reserved for the paranoid - cast the doubt then the person is left to defend the indefensible.

If nothing else, you should not immediately blow things off as liberal propaganda, nor should you jump on the big radical right-wing conspiracy boat. You should open your mind to the information and then draw conclusions.

This saying still rings true:

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

TheRoseLady

11-05-2004, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Just get used to a Republican run government for at least the next 12 years.

Thanks.

Edited to add: It's funny how Democrats are looking at the Republican party and what they will be doing and not looking at their own party that is in complete and utter shambles. This election should have been a damn wake up call to the Democratic party that perhaps the rest of America doesn't agree with your extreme liberal leaning policies over the past 4 years and that you had better find a candidate that can actually find a way to garner the support of the people.

Better yet.. continue as you have over the past 4 years.. it only helps Republicans.

Mike, I'm an independent. And you have demonstrated that you are just about incapable of even reading a post that should have been viewed not as an attack on the Republicans, but as an honest commentary.

If it makes you feel more important to shove your positions down people's throats, then feel free.

*I find it ironic that in one post you are telling folks to get used to the president, but when a person tries to make commentary on the actual party to which the president belongs you are told to go pay attention to your own party. A party that I don't even belong.

[Edited on 11-5-2004 by TheRoseLady]

Ravenstorm

11-05-2004, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Just get used to a Republican run government for at least the next 12 years.

Perfect quote to use an excuse to post this pic I found amusing.

Raven

Ilvane

11-05-2004, 07:19 PM

http://attenuation.net/files/iq.htm

I liked this..it may be not perfect science, but it really cracked me up.

No bashing me, I'm merely pointing out the information.

-A

Farquar

11-05-2004, 07:36 PM

Parhaps Parkbandit, you should get the rod out of your ass before posting. You'd certainly sound more intelligent. Maybe you would have noticed that I said the circumstances in Ohio leads to suspicion, not that anything bad actually happened. And my remark about election result in a month rested on the word "if". It was purely hypothetical.

I don't want to drag this out too much, but you're ignorant. I don't expect otherwise. If I gave the patriot act to a child, he can't understand it and therefore doesn't feel any threat to his civil rights. You, Parkie, are the child. You won't understand because you can't. You're happy that you have a 9-5 and an annual vacation to disneyworld with your 1.7 kids. You are the average american. Your friends are the average americans.

My friends and I are not, however. We've spent upwards $250,000 each on our educations. In my circle of friends, there are 2 doctors, 2 lawyers (including me), 1 economist/risk analyst, 1 businessperson, 1 educational administrator, and 1 cop. We dissected the patrior act in a Starbucks when it was passed. The doctors provide opinions on healthcare problems and abortion. The cop and administrator provide their input on funding and security issues. Thus, I know that my opinion is much more nuanced and evolved than yours ever will be.

As for the fate of the Democratic party, I'm sure it'll be fine. My friends and I are all Democrats. Collectively, we donated six figures to the party since the campaign began. Of the 8 of us, 6 make over $200k per year, and we will have more take home pay under Bush, which we will likely donate. In fact, the doctor will save over $200k because of not being subjected to the Kerry tax plan. He has expressed willingness to donate the entire amount to the party. Point being? We're young, we're wealthy, we're smart, and we're the future of the Democratic party.

Latrinsorm

11-05-2004, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
To just dismiss everything as a conspiracy of the paranoid is rather narrow-minded. Sometimes I wonder if this is one of the main differences between several people on this board.You should hear him on religion. :saint:
Originally posted by Farquar
I know that my opinion is much more nuanced I never thought "nuanced" would be a double entendre.
We're young, we're wealthy, we're smart, and we're the future of the Democratic party.Yeah, the whole elitism thing really isn't working. Just ask Jon.

Back

11-05-2004, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Farquar
On that note, I doubt there is any precedent (legal or otherwise) to guide what would happen if we found out in a month or so that Kerry did win Ohio. Man what a mess that would be.

Christ... maybe you would like to go to Ohio and count the damn votes to be sure Bush only won by 135,000. You sound completely out of touch with reality. "Well, maybe they misplaced 140,000 votes!" "Maybe one of the machines malfunctioned!"

Here's a nice piece of reality for you:

GEORGE FUCKING BUSH WON THE GOD DAMN ELECTION!!!!!!!

I hope that in some small way that was a slap you obviously needed to bring you back to our reality. No need to thank me.

If there was a machine malfunction, or human error, in either case, it would be a bad thing. It would need to be aired, researched, and plans made to correct it.

Now the biased opinion. You’ve got a fuck of a lot of nerve to scream foul at the beginning of this election, before anything even happened, while claiming nothing was wrong last election and everyone should shut the fuck up. Right, thats the pre-emptive policy these days.

Hulkein

11-05-2004, 07:57 PM

Only reason I doubt much will come of it is because of the margin of victory.

I'm all for them checking the computers, I'd rather them know for sure.

Back

11-05-2004, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Hulkein
Only reason I doubt much will come of it is because of the margin of victory.

I'm all for them checking the computers, I'd rather them know for sure.

Agreed. Though, if Ohio did happen to eventually go blue, the irony would be the unbalanced popular/electoral college thing again. I couldn’t blame anyone for screaming over that, now could I?

CrystalTears

11-05-2004, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Farquar
My friends and I are not, however. We've spent upwards $250,000 each on our educations. In my circle of friends, there are 2 doctors, 2 lawyers (including me), 1 economist/risk analyst, 1 businessperson, 1 educational administrator, and 1 cop. We dissected the patrior act in a Starbucks when it was passed. The doctors provide opinions on healthcare problems and abortion. The cop and administrator provide their input on funding and security issues. Thus, I know that my opinion is much more nuanced and evolved than yours ever will be.

I hope you're not suggesting that your opinion on matters concerning this country is more important than his just because you've spent more in life... right? If I misunderstood please correct me. I'd really rather not think you were a pompous jerk who felt that he was better than the average American.

Latrinsorm

11-05-2004, 08:05 PM

If they're going to go nuts in Ohio, they'd best check Wisconsin (Kerry won by 12 thousand). And while they're at it, Florida and Montana (you just know Montana's up to something).

Scott

11-05-2004, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Farquar
My friends and I are not, however. We've spent upwards $250,000 each on our educations. In my circle of friends, there are 2 doctors, 2 lawyers (including me), 1 economist/risk analyst, 1 businessperson, 1 educational administrator, and 1 cop. We dissected the patrior act in a Starbucks when it was passed. The doctors provide opinions on healthcare problems and abortion. The cop and administrator provide their input on funding and security issues. Thus, I know that my opinion is much more nuanced and evolved than yours ever will be.

I hope you're not suggesting that your opinion on matters concerning this country is more important than his just because you've spent more in life... right? If I misunderstood please correct me. I'd really rather not think you were a pompous jerk who felt that he was better than the average American.

Thank god I wasn't the only person that read it that way. I was going to come out and say that, but I generally read what people write incorrectly so I didn't bother.

Back

11-05-2004, 08:09 PM

I’ll all for getting a clear and concise ballot count done. In EVERY state.

CrystalTears

11-05-2004, 08:09 PM

I just got flashbacks of Paul Hamm from the Olympics all over again.

Once a win is declared, you can't just go back and take it back because you found flaws. You will ALWAYS find flaws somewhere. May as well go through every inning of the World Series with a fine tooth comb. Recount through every state that was close in numbers. If people want to find the truth through curiosity, that's fine, but don't do it expecting to see a different end result.

And yes, had this been reversed, I wouldn't want recounts either. I would accept who won and deal with it and not try to find the loophole that got him the win.

Back

11-05-2004, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I just got flashbacks of Paul Hamm from the Olympics all over again.

Once a win is declared, you can't just go back and take it back because you found flaws. You will ALWAYS find flaws somewhere. May as well go through every inning of the World Series with a fine tooth comb. Recount through every state that was close in numbers. If people want to find the truth through curiosity, that's fine, but don't do it expecting to see a different end result.

And yes, had this been reversed, I wouldn't want recounts either. I would accept who won and deal with it and not try to find the loophole that got him the win.

I’m talking about getting each and every vote verified. We all know some slip through the cracks, some are duboius, and others are late. It would seem to make sense to do it this way as long as it could be done without any court bullshit involved. Like that would ever happen...

Just looking for some ways to improve the system, for everyone.

CrystalTears

11-05-2004, 08:21 PM

Oh I knew what you were referring to, Backlash, which is why I said that it would be good to know just for future reference, curiosity, find holes in the system.. that's all fine. I'm referring to those that I can hear the wheels in their head turning wondering if it would make a difference to the turnout. :)

Ilvane

11-05-2004, 08:35 PM

So you would rather have Bush stay president, even if it turned out the votes weren't there?

That's interesting.

Did I misunderstand you?

-A

CrystalTears

11-05-2004, 08:42 PM

I'm saying that once a winner is cast, that's who it should stay with.

Taking it back later because of something will just cause more problems, but that's my opinion. I also said that if the tables were turned and Kerry got elected and found that after weeks of recounting that it was in Bush's favor, I wouldn't want it overturned either.

If there's a margin of error that large, I would expect it to be found before a winner is announced, not after.

Tsa`ah

11-05-2004, 09:17 PM

This isn't an Olympic medal, nor is it a sporting event. Sporting events don't have lasting social and economic impacts on an entire nation or the world. If indeed Kerry won the state in question, he should be the next President no matter how it was called.

If we took that outlook, there should not be a legal appeals system.

Our method of choosing leaders should not be compromised because a win was called to early.

Farquar

11-05-2004, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I hope you're not suggesting that your opinion on matters concerning this country is more important than his just because you've spent more in life... right? If I misunderstood please correct me. I'd really rather not think you were a pompous jerk who felt that he was better than the average American.

More important? Absolutely not. After all, 1 vote is 1 vote no matter who it came from. I'm just trying to respond to the Bushites on this board that are 100% sure that he was the better alternative. I'm want them to know that 1) they are probably average americans and that 2) since the average american isnt a college grad, they are not likely able to understand most of the ramifications of their vote. There is a low probability of an individual thoroughly understanding the implications of the patriot act without a law degree, or the medicare bill without an MD. Thats just a fact.

We're not better because we've spent more money, but I will admit that our votes are based on a firmer foundation, because we've invested more of our time and money into making sure that it is.

For example: The government can hold "enemy combatants" indefinitely without trial. This scares me to the core of my soul, because the government has created a class of people that won't receive rights that a rapist or murderer would receive. Does it bother me that terrorists are treated badly? Not really. It bothers me that the government can essentially sweep all rights away from a specific group of people. Does this remind you of anything you've heard in history class? This and this alone would be more than enough to make me vote for Kerry, even if I sided on every other issue with Bush.

CrystalTears

11-05-2004, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Sporting events don't have lasting social and economic impacts on an entire nation or the world.

Damn, go tell this to my coworkers, please! :lol:

But I understand what you're saying. Personally I don't think that they should be announcing the president elected until a few days later so that any glitches and votes can be totaled without so much of the rush involved. There's too much pressure to tally all that as it is. I'm not in agreement with how the elections are run, per say, but if it's the way it's run, it should be accepted, and then learn from the fuckups that result from it. If that makes me naive, so be it. :shrug:

CrystalTears

11-05-2004, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Farquar
More important? Absolutely not. After all, 1 vote is 1 vote no matter who it came from. I'm just trying to respond to the Bushites on this board that are 100% sure that he was the better alternative. I'm want them to know that 1) they are probably average americans and that 2) since the average american isnt a college grad, they are not likely able to understand most of the ramifications of their vote. There is a low probability of an individual thoroughly understanding the implications of the patriot act without a law degree, or the medicare bill without an MD. Thats just a fact.

We're not better because we've spent more money, but I will admit that our votes are based on a firmer foundation, because we've invested more of our time and money into making sure that it is.

Oh. Okay. You ARE a pompous jerk. Thanks for the clarification.

Tsa`ah

11-05-2004, 09:34 PM

Not at all and I agree. The problem is that the media has essentially "called" the race for some time. No, I'm not suggesting some sort of conspiracy, I'm just pointing out that media projections feed the demands of the public. In turn the electoral process has responded with "rushing" the results so we as a society can go one with other things.

Essentially the office of the President is not won until Jan 02 when the Speaker of the House reads each state's votes and declares a winner. Outside of that I'm not sure about recount dead lines or appeals dead lines at all.

Now logic tells me that we can have it both ways. We can see the exit polls, we can see the projections, and we can see the actual results and have time to find out about miscounts, faulty machinery, bad computer tabulations etc. And after all of that, we still have time to investigate, file the appeals or what not, so long as the dust has settled before New Years Eve with enough time for the state electorates to meet, vote, and submit.

This heat is off with this election because Kerry conceded the race. States aren't all that concerned with actual results anymore because the Kerry camp won't be putting any heat on them and the Bush camp is happy with that.

As I pointed out elsewhere, I think, despite the rhetoric used by Kerry, he was essentially coving his ass for the next senate race.

Kerry, unlike Gore in 2000, has a job. It was a close race and had he gone through recounts and appeals, he would have damaged his chances at keeping his seat in the Senate had he lost the Presidential race. Gore in 2000 had nothing to lose.

The only hope Kerry has at this point, because he won't make a direct challenge now, is for the Ohio Democratic Party to make the challenges if there are any to be made.

The Korean

11-05-2004, 09:34 PM

I think he's just saying that his vote is just a more informed vote than the average american.

Artha

11-05-2004, 09:43 PM

Kerry = Owned.
Democrats = Owned by association.

Parkbandit

11-05-2004, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Just get used to a Republican run government for at least the next 12 years.

Perfect quote to use an excuse to post this pic I found amusing.

Raven

That would make really great sense if I even believed in Jesus or God.

Since I don't... draw your own conclusions.

Parkbandit

11-05-2004, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Farquar
Parhaps Parkbandit, you should get the rod out of your ass before posting. You'd certainly sound more intelligent. Maybe you would have noticed that I said the circumstances in Ohio leads to suspicion, not that anything bad actually happened. And my remark about election result in a month rested on the word "if". It was purely hypothetical.

I don't want to drag this out too much, but you're ignorant. I don't expect otherwise. If I gave the patriot act to a child, he can't understand it and therefore doesn't feel any threat to his civil rights. You, Parkie, are the child. You won't understand because you can't. You're happy that you have a 9-5 and an annual vacation to disneyworld with your 1.7 kids. You are the average american. Your friends are the average americans.

My friends and I are not, however. We've spent upwards $250,000 each on our educations. In my circle of friends, there are 2 doctors, 2 lawyers (including me), 1 economist/risk analyst, 1 businessperson, 1 educational administrator, and 1 cop. We dissected the patrior act in a Starbucks when it was passed. The doctors provide opinions on healthcare problems and abortion. The cop and administrator provide their input on funding and security issues. Thus, I know that my opinion is much more nuanced and evolved than yours ever will be.

As for the fate of the Democratic party, I'm sure it'll be fine. My friends and I are all Democrats. Collectively, we donated six figures to the party since the campaign began. Of the 8 of us, 6 make over $200k per year, and we will have more take home pay under Bush, which we will likely donate. In fact, the doctor will save over $200k because of not being subjected to the Kerry tax plan. He has expressed willingness to donate the entire amount to the party. Point being? We're young, we're wealthy, we're smart, and we're the future of the Democratic party.

I'm willing to bet I make more a year than you do.. so please don't bring financials into this discussion.

You are young.. that is for sure. I have yet to see where you are smart though.. so one out of three isn't bad.

Parkbandit

11-05-2004, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Backlash
Now the biased opinion. You’ve got a fuck of a lot of nerve to scream foul at the beginning of this election, before anything even happened, while claiming nothing was wrong last election and everyone should shut the fuck up. Right, thats the pre-emptive policy these days.

Dear Backlash..

The election happened LAST TUESDAY and was decided LAST WEDNESDAY.

Clearly it's not the beginning of the election. Sorry to burst your hope bubble.

Parkbandit

11-05-2004, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Farquar
More important? Absolutely not. After all, 1 vote is 1 vote no matter who it came from. I'm just trying to respond to the Bushites on this board that are 100% sure that he was the better alternative. I'm want them to know that 1) they are probably average americans and that 2) since the average american isnt a college grad, they are not likely able to understand most of the ramifications of their vote. There is a low probability of an individual thoroughly understanding the implications of the patriot act without a law degree, or the medicare bill without an MD. Thats just a fact.

We're not better because we've spent more money, but I will admit that our votes are based on a firmer foundation, because we've invested more of our time and money into making sure that it is.

Oh. Okay. You ARE a pompous jerk. Thanks for the clarification.

You came to that conclusion pretty slowly CT.

Back

11-05-2004, 11:16 PM

http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=10680

Ok, ok, but it was before it was over. When you were skurrd of losing. :lol:

Parkbandit

11-05-2004, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by Backlash
http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=10680

Ok, ok, but it was before it was over. When you were skurrd of losing. :lol:

I simply looked at the information provided to me and believed that a greater voter turnout was a bad thing for Bush. Clearly that was a mistaken assumption. I don't see how that has a single thing to do with the bullshit conspiracy theory regarding Ohio's voting machines.

Back

11-05-2004, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=10680

Ok, ok, but it was before it was over. When you were skurrd of losing. :lol:

I simply looked at the information provided to me and believed that a greater voter turnout was a bad thing for Bush. Clearly that was a mistaken assumption. I don't see how that has a single thing to do with the bullshit conspiracy theory regarding Ohio's voting machines.

Right, it was the fraudulent vote conspiracy you were talking about.

Hulkein

11-05-2004, 11:26 PM

I really hope they investigate this thouroughly... I really won't be able to stomach another four years of Bush being branded an omnipotent swindler who stole the election by rigging voting machines... So much so in every state that he won by close to 4 or 5 million votes.

Parkbandit

11-05-2004, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=10680

Ok, ok, but it was before it was over. When you were skurrd of losing. :lol:

I simply looked at the information provided to me and believed that a greater voter turnout was a bad thing for Bush. Clearly that was a mistaken assumption. I don't see how that has a single thing to do with the bullshit conspiracy theory regarding Ohio's voting machines.

Right, it was the fraudulent vote conspiracy you were talking about.

Don't confuse the conspiracy theory you are talking about and my post regarding general election reform. My post regarding election reform was without bias and was for Republicans and Democrats alike.

CrystalTears

11-05-2004, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Oh. Okay. You ARE a pompous jerk. Thanks for the clarification.

You came to that conclusion pretty slowly CT.

Nope, sure didn't. I just wanted him to confirm what I already knew. :D

Latrinsorm

11-05-2004, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Farquar
This and this alone would be more than enough to make me vote for KerryWhich is odd, because he's one of the folks who voted it (the Patriot Act) into law. I would think you'd hold the guy who actually legislated the garbage more responsible than the guy who had no power to, but hey, I'm a dumb hick who voted for Bush (my stupid blue state notwithstanding).

And how about this for a conspiracy? I tallied up the totals per township from CNN, and Bush came up 3 votes ahead of the total they posted for the state. Guess who was 169 short of the state total? Kerry (probably that jerk Cobb too, whoever he is). Where's SHM when you need him?

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

Farquar

11-06-2004, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Farquar
This and this alone would be more than enough to make me vote for KerryWhich is odd, because he's one of the folks who voted it (the Patriot Act) into law. I would think you'd hold the guy who actually legislated the garbage more responsible than the guy who had no power to, but hey, I'm a dumb hick who voted for Bush (my stupid blue state notwithstanding).

And how about this for a conspiracy? I tallied up the totals per township from CNN, and Bush came up 3 votes ahead of the total they posted for the state. Guess who was 169 short of the state total? Kerry (probably that jerk Cobb too, whoever he is). Where's SHM when you need him?

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

Actually, if you knew anything about legislation, you'd know that:
1) members of congress have no time to read every bill they sign
2) the patriot act is hundreds of pages long
3) the people who wrote the bill were making changes to it as late as 3:00 am the day that the vote was to take place.

As such, members Congress go mostly on the name of the bill and a short abstract to decide on the vote. Lots of strategy goes into assigning names for bills. Who in their right mind would vote against a bill called "the Patriot Act"?

As legislative lawyers say, legislation is like sausage. If you like it, never watch it being made.

Its only a conspiracy to the peons.

Hulkein

11-06-2004, 02:11 AM

<<Its only a conspiracy to the peons.>>

You sound like Kerry repeating 'W. IS FOR WRONG!'

You trying to make this catch on or do you think you're that clever?

Farquar

11-06-2004, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Hulkein
<<Its only a conspiracy to the peons.>>

You sound like Kerry repeating 'W. IS FOR WRONG!'

You trying to make this catch on or do you think you're that clever?

Yeah, I sound like Kerry in that I have a decent education.

The idiots have their own stupid little tag line(ITS A CONSPIRACY), I'll have mine.

HarmNone

11-06-2004, 03:02 AM

Peons? PEONS? :break:

CT is right. You come off as a pompous ass, Farquar. Who you hang out with and how much money you all make is really not all that relevant to this, or any, conversation...unless your little group is having a pissing contest amongst themselves.

While you might place yourself above those to whom you refer as "average Americans", you might find that others (even those whose educations are on par with yours) would not agree with your estimation of your own worth...that is, if you could remove your head from your arse long enough to have a meaningful conversation about anything other than yourself and your vaunted views.

HarmNone, who has met some very interesting and informed people who do not have a pile of letters behind their names, and a few more who have said letters, but do not flaunt them

Caiylania

11-06-2004, 05:30 AM

Farquar

11-06-2004, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by HarmNone
Peons? PEONS? :break:

CT is right. You come off as a pompous ass, Farquar. Who you hang out with and how much money you all make is really not all that relevant to this, or any, conversation...unless your little group is having a pissing contest amongst themselves.

While you might place yourself above those to whom you refer as "average Americans", you might find that others (even those whose educations are on par with yours) would not agree with your estimation of your own worth...that is, if you could remove your head from your arse long enough to have a meaningful conversation about anything other than yourself and your vaunted views.

HarmNone, who has met some very interesting and informed people who do not have a pile of letters behind their names, and a few more who have said letters, but do not flaunt them

Actually who I hang out with and how much we make was quite relevant to the topic, which is (or was) the election. First, that 6 of the 8 of us make over 200k means that we would have been adversely and directly affected by a Kerry win. Despite this fact, we still heavily supported and donated to the campaign. Essentially this means that it was, in our eyes, worth a LOT of our own money to see K become president. We knew it would come back to us tenfold in other ways.

Secondly, WHO I hung out with is relevant to my point that I'm much more informed than the average American. When stem cell research became an issue, I simply asked my doctor friend: "hey Mike, tell me about stem cells and why its a big deal". In fifteen minutes, I go from knowing jack about stem cells to knowing enough to be able to give a small lecture about them. I did the same with "no child left behind", the economy, law enforcement, and abortion. My friends asked the same of me when it came to Abu Ghraib, the patriot act, and the term "no bid contract." So yeah, I'm more informed than the vast majority of people. So are my buddies.

Please get off your high horse. In no post did I ever say that I was better than anyone else...in fact I explicitly said one vote is one vote no matter who it comes from. All I meant was, I see a lot more of the issues than the average american by virtue of my circumstances (education and aqcuaintances) and this leads to a vote that is more informed than that of the average american.

Any pompousness you perceive is purely a reaction to the WAKE UP KERRY LOST WAAAHAAAH I R RUPUBLICAN W00t W00t 4 more years BAHAHAHAHHA bullshit that people are passing as intelligent discourse. I like to fight assholes by being an asshole. I know Kerry lost...I'd just like to vent without some idiot l337 speaking me into a frenzy.

[Edited on 11-6-2004 by Farquar]

Ilvane

11-06-2004, 07:00 AM

I found it interesting on the IQ's of states that voted for Bush as opposed to those who voted for Kerry.

I went to school at Harvard for a year, I'm a member of Mensa, had a good GPA. Does that make me more informed, no..not if I don't choose to be.

I do undestand what Farquar is saying though. When you work with doctors you learn about medicine, when you work with social workers, you learn about the value of social programs. I think that was all it was about.

I don't believe in talking down to people because they don't agree with what I say, though some people on this board think I do. I can see where Farquar is coming from, too though, because if you ask a Bush supporter why they support Bush, you don't get much of an answer for the most part.

That's the most frustrating thing. If they could give clear reasons why they supported him, and said I really believe in what he stands for and that's why I voted for him, it would be more interesting and more thoughtful.

I could give you dozens of reasons why I voted for Kerry, and most people I have asked about thier vote for Bush couldn't be bothered to express the reasons why.

-A

Edited by me, because I wanted to clarify what I meant.

[Edited on 11-6-2004 by Ilvane]

HarmNone

11-06-2004, 07:05 AM

If you admit that you like to fight assholes by being an asshole, I guess that explains why your post came off like one made by a pompous ass, then. ;)

Nakiro

11-06-2004, 07:56 AM

Warriorbird

11-06-2004, 09:42 AM

As for Pakistan... if they aren't letting us take out the international criminal that orchestrated an attack on our country, they're not an ally. I'm far more hawkish than most Democrats... I just prefer to think that our strength ought to be directed in the right places.

And the Democratic party being in a shambles? Of course it is. There're reasons I said Bush was going to win long before the election itself. I think he flubbed in letting it get even as close as it did. Without the gay marriage votes, I do not think he would've won. Facing a candidate as mismanaged as Kerry... that's sad.

11-06-2004, 10:28 AM

You know nothing of what is going on in the region Warriorbird, nor the politics involved. Your dislike for the man fules your decisions, anything he does is wrong, anything he does not do is the right course of action. Take a step back and think about what you are saying before you say it. Would you want Pakistan to have 10,000 pakistani troops running around New York because some criminal is there? Use your head please.

Latrinsorm

11-06-2004, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Farquar
Actually, if you knew anything about legislation, you'd know that:
1) members of congress have no time to read every bill they sign
2) the patriot act is hundreds of pages long
3) the people who wrote the bill were making changes to it as late as 3:00 am the day that the vote was to take place.
I'm sorry, but the "everyone else is lazy too, so it's not Kerry's fault" doesn't fly with me. You're a lawyer, would the argument of "Oh, I didn't know it was illegal to chainsaw fifteen children to death, that damn tax code is so lonnnnggg" fly in court?

11-06-2004, 12:15 PM

you forgot to add that they have aids that read all the bills

Hulkein

11-06-2004, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Ilvane
I found it interesting on the IQ's of states that voted for Bush as opposed to those who voted for Kerry.

I am a member of Mensa, went to Harvard for an entire year(then left for another school, if you can believe that!)and graduated from school with a 3.72 Gpa. Does it make me more informed, no. But it does put me in a place where I get more information on things, due to the people I'm surrounded with. When you work with doctors you learn about medicine, when you work with social workers, you learn about the value of social programs. I think that was all it was about.

I don't believe in talking down to people because they don't agree with what I say, though some people on this board think I do. I can see where Farquar is coming from, too though, because if you ask a Bush supporter why they support Bush, you don't get much of an answer for the most part.

That's the most frustrating thing. If they could give clear reasons why they supported him, and said I really believe in what he stands for and that's why I voted for him, it would be more interesting and more thoughtful.

I could give you dozens of reasons why I voted for Kerry, and most people I have asked about thier vote for Bush couldn't be bothered to express the reasons why.

-A

[Edited on 11-6-2004 by Ilvane]

I love the assertion that smart people vote for Kerry.

Please for one second take a look at the only reason this election was close. It's because of the millions of minorities and poor whites living in cities with a sub-High School education who cast their ballot for Kerry.

PS. I'd like to see this IQ map, because I read that it was a hoax and no information of that kind is available.

[Edited on 11-6-2004 by Hulkein]

Ilvane

11-06-2004, 12:34 PM

Let me clarify something. I posted the link saying that I didn't believe it to mean anything, but that it was interesting.

IF it is true, then it would be something.

Now I can say that the Bush supporters that I have spoken with, from my experience did not have a good argument or reasons why they were voting for him.

That is all I was saying. I didn't mean in my former post that I was more intelligent, or had a higher IQ and that made me vote for Kerry. I was pointing out that what Farquar said(while I don't believe education makes you superior) was that he has opportunity to speak to people in his circles that know the reality of the situation from the work they do, or otherwise.

I bet if you sat down quite a few Bush voters and said that Bush and Kerry stood the same place on gay marriage, they wouldn't know that.

It happened many times in my conversations with people.

-A

Ilvane

11-06-2004, 12:38 PM

And Nakiro, try reading the rest of my post, instead of making it look like I was trying to impress anyone.

:wtf:

Parkbandit

11-06-2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Ilvane
Let me clarify something. I posted the link saying that I didn't believe it to mean anything, but that it was interesting.

IF it is true, then it would be something.

Now I can say that the Bush supporters that I have spoken with, from my experience did not have a good argument or reasons why they were voting for him.

That is all I was saying. I didn't mean in my former post that I was more intelligent, or had a higher IQ and that made me vote for Kerry. I was pointing out that what Farquar said(while I don't believe education makes you superior) was that he has opportunity to speak to people in his circles that know the reality of the situation from the work they do, or otherwise.

I bet if you sat down quite a few Bush voters and said that Bush and Kerry stood the same place on gay marriage, they wouldn't know that.

It happened many times in my conversations with people.

-A

LMFGDAO. God Ilvane.. you really love to twist the truth around, don't you. For someone who is so self proclaimed smart.. your argument is borderline retarded.

We have been discussing from almost the onset of how the Kerry supporters best argument for voting for Kerry is that "He's not Bush!". How the FUCK is that such a good reason to vote for him???

I have, and many others have as well, described the reasons why we would be voting for Bush. Because YOU didn't agree with the reasons.. you simply throw it out as not a good enough reason?

Holy shit.. I think I'm having an aneurysm.

Ilvane

11-06-2004, 01:01 PM

I never said I was smart, either.

I really don't know why I bother posting sometimes. Maybe you said people voted for Kerry because he wasn't Bush, but as I said *IN MY EXPERIENCE* people who I talked to didn't have many reasons for voting for Bush..Let me repeat *IN MY EXPERIENCE*.

Maybe you and a couple others who are staunch Bush supporters may have had a couple reasons. ;)

Relax.

-A

[Edited on 11-6-2004 by Ilvane]

Suppa Hobbit Mage

11-06-2004, 01:08 PM

MENSA said I wasn't arrogant enough to join them :(

Ilvane

11-06-2004, 01:09 PM

:moon2:

TheRoseLady

11-06-2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Hulkein

I love the assertion that smart people vote for Kerry.

Please for one second take a look at the only reason this election was close. It's because of the millions of minorities and poor whites living in cities with a sub-High School education who cast their ballot for Kerry.

PS. I'd like to see this IQ map, because I read that it was a hoax and no information of that kind is available.
[/quote]

As for stating that the only reason that the election was close was because of poor whites etc. That is like saying that the only reason that Bush won is because the evangelicals are just too stupid to think on their own and so they mindlessly followed their pastors to the polls and put in a vote for Jesus.

I don't think that most Bush supporters are stupid, I just think that they are either willing to forgive or not take issue with things that I see as wrong and that Bush spoke to the issues that they personally felt as important.

I don't think that most Kerry supporters are stupid, I just think that they are either willing to forgive or not take issue with things that others see as wrong and that Kerry spoke to the issues that they personally felt as important.

For those who voted on sound bites, angry petulent faces, that someone is liberal flip-flopper or the fact that he was anyone but the current president - I think that is more about the lack of desire to really get engaged - not that people are unintelligent. Some people just reallly didn't care to look at anything other than the fact that their parents voted for a certain party. Or that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't...or that he can't speak good English or that he called that girl a lesbian.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still very concerned about the state that I live in and the topic of jobs among other things - but I don't think that all Bush supporters are morons and that all Kerry supporters are super intelligent.

TheRoseLady

11-06-2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
MENSA said I wasn't arrogant enough to join them :(

Yeah but the evangelicals will have ya ;)

Ravenstorm

11-06-2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Parkbandit
We have been discussing from almost the onset of how the Kerry supporters best argument for voting for Kerry is that "He's not Bush!". How the FUCK is that such a good reason to vote for him???

For someone who presents himself as being fairly intelligent, you sure are oblivious when it suits you. So let's define exactly what "He's not Bush" means.

Kerry would do a better job at controlling the health care problem. Why? Because he's not Bush and Bush can't be trusted to do it well. And most of the country agreed.

Kerry would do a better job at the Iraq problem. Why? Because he's not Bush; the guy who already fucked it up royally. And most of the country agreed.

Kerry would do better at fixing the economy. Why? He's not Bush; the guy who's screwing it up. And most of the country agreed.

He's not Bush means he would do a better job at most if not all the things that Bush is doing/has done. Why? Because Bush sucks at them.

Unfortunately, even if the majority of the country agreed with those three issues, even more people believe that Bush is better at killing people than Kerry. Specifically terrorists. Oh, and making the country safe from those evil gay people.

But that's what "He's not Bush" means. He might not be wonderful at doing the above things but he'd do them better than Bush. Which is not at all different from all the people who voted for Dubya because, while they might think he's doing a lousy job at things, he's still doing them better than Kerry.

And there were plenty of people, even right here, who voted for the Shrub not because he's doign such a wonderful job running the ocuntry but rather because even as bad as he is, he's doing a better job than Kerry would. In other words, because he's not Kerry.

Raven

[Edited on 11-6-2004 by Ravenstorm]

Suppa Hobbit Mage

11-06-2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
MENSA said I wasn't arrogant enough to join them :(

Yeah but the evangelicals will have ya ;)

Is that like the Baptists? I go to church with them on Sunday's because the have the best buffets.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

11-06-2004, 01:23 PM

Hey, I just got it. Ravenstorm is an evil gay person.

Parkbandit

11-06-2004, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Parkbandit
We have been discussing from almost the onset of how the Kerry supporters best argument for voting for Kerry is that "He's not Bush!". How the FUCK is that such a good reason to vote for him???

For someone who presents himself as being fairly intelligent, you sure are oblivious when it suits you. So let's define exactly what "He's not Bush" means.

Kerry would do a better job at controlling the health care problem. Why? Because he's not Bush and Bush can't be trusted to do it well. And most of the country agreed.

Kerry would do a better job at the Iraq problem. Why? Because he's not Bush; the guy who already fucked it up royally. And most of the country agreed.

Kerry would do better at fixing the economy. Why? He's not Bush; the guy who's screwing it up. And most of the country agreed.

He's not Bush means he would do a better job at most if not all the things that Bush is doing/has done. Why? Because Bush sucks at them.

Unfortunately, even if the majority of the country agreed with those three issues, even more people believe that Bush is better at killing people than Kerry. Specifically terrorists. Oh, and making the country safe from those evil gay people.

But that's what "He's not Bush" means. He might not be wonderful at doing the above things but he'd do them better than Bush. Which is not at all different from all the people who voted for Dubya because, while they might think he's doing a lousy job at things, he's still doing them better than Kerry.

And there were plenty of people, even right here, who voted for the Shrub not because he's doign such a wonderful job running the ocuntry but rather because even as bad as he is, he's doing a better job than Kerry would. In other words, because he's not Kerry.

Raven

[Edited on 11-6-2004 by Ravenstorm]

Listening to you Raven.. it's as if Kerry won the election.

Oh wait.. he lost by 3.5 million votes. I suppose "Most of the country agreed" is clearly "Ravenstorm agrees"

Hulkein

11-06-2004, 01:28 PM

My only point RoseLady is that for every ignorant farmer who votes for Bush because he doesn't really know the facts, there is an ignorant city-dweller who votes for democrats because of the same reason.

TheRoseLady

11-06-2004, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
MENSA said I wasn't arrogant enough to join them :(

Yeah but the evangelicals will have ya ;)

Is that like the Baptists? I go to church with them on Sunday's because the have the best buffets.

:lol: It beats the doughnuts that the Catholics give out in the social hall after mass.

Ravenstorm

11-06-2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Oh wait.. he lost by 3.5 million votes. I suppose "Most of the country agreed" is clearly "Ravenstorm agrees"

Hardly. If you look at the breakdown on the issues and who won what percentage, 50%+ voted Kerry as being stronger on those three issues I mentioned. Dubya got the majority on moral values and terrorism.

Raven

Ilvane

11-06-2004, 01:59 PM

They say that those who voted were 50.6% of Americans.

Out of the 50.6 that chose to have thier voice heard, more than a majority were Republican.

:shrug: That's how it happens.

-A

Hulkein

11-06-2004, 02:26 PM

I thought it was even between Republicans and Democrats for the first time ever?

If that is true it looks like some independents swung it.

Latrinsorm

11-06-2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
If you look at the breakdown on the issues and who won what percentage, 50%+ voted Kerry as being stronger on those three issues I mentioned. Dubya got the majority on moral values and terrorism.Curious: are these tidbits from the same exit polls that had Kerry way out in front?

Parkbandit

11-06-2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Oh wait.. he lost by 3.5 million votes. I suppose "Most of the country agreed" is clearly "Ravenstorm agrees"

Hardly. If you look at the breakdown on the issues and who won what percentage, 50%+ voted Kerry as being stronger on those three issues I mentioned. Dubya got the majority on moral values and terrorism.

Raven

Are these the same exit polls that said Kerry was going to walk away with this election? I thought you didn't believe in polling Raven? Or is this just another case of you believe in them when they help your debate.. and say they are full of shit when they counter what you are saying.

I know not one person with any poll asked my opinion on who is better for the country in an economic sense... that's a no brainer. Bush hands down.

Parkbandit

11-06-2004, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
If you look at the breakdown on the issues and who won what percentage, 50%+ voted Kerry as being stronger on those three issues I mentioned. Dubya got the majority on moral values and terrorism.Curious: are these tidbits from the same exit polls that had Kerry way out in front?

Bah.. someone beat me to the punch :P

Parkbandit

11-06-2004, 03:36 PM

By the way.. which day is it that the Democrats will actually say is the end of the election and that Bush did win it? I thought it was decided Wednesday... but I suppose I can wait to squelch any of the rumors of some voting machines being built by George W in the garage of the White House.. just so he can steal another election.

For someone supposedly stupid.. Not only did he beat Kerry in a military IQ test, he sure did outsmart the Democrats out of 2 elections now.

Farquar

11-06-2004, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Farquar
Actually, if you knew anything about legislation, you'd know that:
1) members of congress have no time to read every bill they sign
2) the patriot act is hundreds of pages long
3) the people who wrote the bill were making changes to it as late as 3:00 am the day that the vote was to take place.
I'm sorry, but the "everyone else is lazy too, so it's not Kerry's fault" doesn't fly with me. You're a lawyer, would the argument of "Oh, I didn't know it was illegal to chainsaw fifteen children to death, that damn tax code is so lonnnnggg" fly in court?

That's a bad analogy, and I don't believe you'd actually try to use it. Killing people is obviously wrong no matter how old, young, and stupid one is. The most offensive parts of the patriot act are buried in one line passages and footnotes in a thousand page document. Some of these passages were added at 3:00 am the day of the vote for gawd's sake! Even Sherlock Holmes would be hard pressed to call that obvious.

When I say there's no time to read the bills, I don't mean "no time" like, wow, it'll be inconvenient to read the bills. I mean no time that it's a physical impossibility. As a Senator, its all about triage when it comes to your responsibilities. You have meetings, all day every day, with lobbyists, sub-committees, other politicians, CEO's, etc. Face time is what makes you a popular and by extension, a "good" Senator. There is NO time for anything else. Any Senator that tried to read, hell, even skim the bills, would probably be voted out of office for being too aloof.

Maybe Kerry read the bill, maybe he didn't. But since every other Senator probably didn't read the bill, they are still under the impression that its "patriotic". It would be stupid to vote against a bill called the "patriot act", no matter how egregious he thought it was, lest all his colleagues and his constituents think he's gone mad.

Don't like it? I feel the same way. It's how the system works though. We have to live with it.

Ilvane

11-06-2004, 04:04 PM

The first one he cheated.:grin:

I'm sorry, I prefer someone who can be thoughtful enough to change opinions rather than one who sticks to what he believes even when he hears that what he's doing is wrong or dangerous

heh.

-A

Farquar

11-06-2004, 04:09 PM

Man Ilvane, the more you post, the more I like ya. I qualified for Mensa but didn't join. If you're in it, though, it can't be all bad huh?

Lux et veritas!

Ilvane

11-06-2004, 04:09 PM

You know when you think about it, can you imagine if the Patriot act had been questioned at the time it was proposed?

We were fresh off of a terrorist attack on our country, and if anyone had questioned it, they would have been beaten into submission.

Now, though..as they go back and read everything in the bill(which I agree they should have done before signing off on it), they are realizing there are some things in there that may have impact on civil rights.

There is nothing un-patriotic about questioning something--contrary to what many conservatives believe.

-A

Ravenstorm

11-06-2004, 04:27 PM

They're the same polls that had the same results before the election. They're also the same polls that said more people thought Bush was a better choice to combat terrorism. Are you arguing that he isn't the better choice? The same poll that said Bush is more likeable than Kerry. You disagree? Or are you just arguing as wrong the results that don't show Bush to be the best choice all around?

Thought so.

Raven

Latrinsorm

11-06-2004, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Ilvane
if anyone had questioned it, they would have been beaten into submission. Not by people like me, or anyone with common sense (whether or not those groups are exclusive is irrelevant).
Originally posted by Ravenstorm
They're the same polls that had the same results before the election. They're also the same polls that said more people thought Bush was a better choice to combat terrorism. Are you arguing that he isn't the better choice? The same poll that said Bush is more likeable than Kerry. You disagree? I'm arguing that exit polls are unreliable, and everything they say should be taken with three or four grains of noniodized salt (stupid thyroid).

Ravenstorm

11-06-2004, 05:33 PM

Except the numbers haven't changed substantially since before the debates. Bush's strength was regarded as being security and morality. Kerry's was domestic issues. No one poll is particularly significant but when they all more or less agree and span a month or more...

Raven

Brattt8525

11-06-2004, 05:49 PM

You know, the American people spoke, its done and over with for now. Why do you all continue to beat down each others views? Bush has run twice for this country, and the majority has placed him in office both times.

No he isn't perfect, no one is. Some of you have posted being anti war, well fighting for our country, has given us the freedom to be able to say what we want.

I hear alot of "well your stupid you voted for Bush blah blah blah. All I know is, my childrens father graduated in the top of his class at the Naval academy, is an engineer. Pres Reagen was the one who nominated <or whatever you call it> for him to be accepted into the Academy, was sent to Iraq to be responsible for the lives of his troops AND spent a year away from his then 2 and 4 year old children.

He voted for Bush again, he believes in him as a Leader for this country. Sure he does not think he is perfect, but neither was Kerry. Now tell me again how stupid this man is?

Kerry is/was not the Savior for this Country. In truth he scared the hell out of me, but I sure as hell am not coming to this forum to tell you that your stupid for wanting him in Office.

11-06-2004, 05:53 PM

Bush lost the popular vote the first time.

That being said, the election is over. Bush one and I for one am happy. I think Kerry would have really hurt this country and he really isn't the type I want leading us through these troubled times.

- Arkans

Artha

11-06-2004, 05:54 PM

The time for proselytizing and zealotry is passed. It didn't work for the election that wasn't even a week ago, it's not going to work for the one that's coming up in just about 4 years.

11-06-2004, 05:55 PM

I just wish that the libs could admit that Bush really won this time. There was no fraud, there was no shady action, there was no nothing that swayed this election. Just give it up, it makes the left sound like a band of whiners. Some times, I just really see how correct Dave's avatar is.

- Arkans

Latrinsorm

11-06-2004, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Artha
The time for proselytizing and zealotry is passed.:(

I can still do it for non-election stuff, right?

Delirium

11-06-2004, 06:30 PM

Bill Clinton, hero of democrats everywhere, says not to "whine" about the election results :)

Link (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31816.htm)

Sounds like good advice to me.

TheRoseLady

11-06-2004, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Brattt8525
You know, the American people spoke, its done and over with for now. Why do you all continue to beat down each others views? Bush has run twice for this country, and the majority has placed him in office both times.

The rest of your post....

I have a few things to say about your post. One, the majority put him in office once. I thought just about everyone on earth knew that Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000. He did win the popular vote in 2004.

You are not the only person who has family in the military, works for the military etc. I am a little tired of people trotting out their family members or themselves and holding them up high as a beacon of why Bush was the best choice and doing it all with an air of - if you don't agree then you must be un-patriotic. If you call Bush dumb then you aren't supporting the troops because look at me, my husband, my brother, sister etc. served and they support the president.

I will be the first to thank your husband for his service. And as anyone who knows me knows - I will speak out for anyone who served because they deserve that and more.

However, I have a brother who is a civilian at Wright Patterson and in the reserves - he left the active military a few years ago and at any time could be called up, he voted for Kerry.

I have a brother-in-law who is in the Air Force as a physician at Walter Reed. He has seen first hand what we are NOT allowed to see. He voted for Kerry.

There is someone within the Gemstone community that I care about that is waiting to be deployed, I don't know how he voted, nor do I care. I do however, care that he makes it back alive in a timely fashion.

I'm sorry but I resent the implication that somehow those who think that Bush is not a good president or those who feel passionately about the war should not be entitled to speak their mind.

I am sure that your children will look back upon their father's service with great pride one day, as they should.

CrystalTears

11-06-2004, 06:50 PM

I've always considered Clinton a great speaker to the people. This is no exception.

~she who voted for Clinton both times :)

Back

11-06-2004, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Parkbandit
By the way.. which day is it that the Democrats will actually say is the end of the election and that Bush did win it? I thought it was decided Wednesday... but I suppose I can wait to squelch any of the rumors of some voting machines being built by George W in the garage of the White House.. just so he can steal another election.

For someone supposedly stupid.. Not only did he beat Kerry in a military IQ test, he sure did outsmart the Democrats out of 2 elections now.

Please, PB. True to form you start your accusations. No one on this board has said W went and fixed the machines himself in a garage. LOL

You are better at conspiracies than those you claim have them.

PS. If you are looking for a master mind, its Karl Rove. And no, I’m not suggesting he went and fixed the machines in his garage either.

PPS. (pre-emptive) Oh yeah, well, if you think I’m full of it, you’d be ignorant to think you weren’t! HA!@

Back

11-06-2004, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Brattt8525
You know, the American people spoke, its done and over with for now. Why do you all continue to beat down each others views? Bush has run twice for this country, and the majority has placed him in office both times.

AS TRL said, he didn’t win the popular the first time. I thought that was pretty well known. But hey...

As for beating down? People, and it may be what you think are those evil liberals, and they may just be reagular independant thinking people, and they may just be whoever (not saying that voting for Bush makes you NOT one of these), have disagreed with this administrations policies for a while now. He was voted back. Why would people stop bitching?

Its business as usual.

Back

11-06-2004, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I've always considered Clinton a great speaker to the people. This is no exception.

~she who voted for Clinton both times :)

I suspect you found him sexy. In fact, I am going to be bold and think you found W more sexy than Kerry.

Ravenstorm

11-06-2004, 07:28 PM

Exit polls show 99.5% of voters found Bush sexier than Kerry. Or they would have if they weren't all done by the evil liberal media ;p

Raven

Gan

11-06-2004, 07:38 PM

I thought this summed it up quite nicely.

CrystalTears

11-06-2004, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I've always considered Clinton a great speaker to the people. This is no exception.

~she who voted for Clinton both times :)

I suspect you found him sexy. In fact, I am going to be bold and think you found W more sexy than Kerry.

:lol: Heh, no. I don't find any of them sexy.

I've never used looks as a reason to vote for someone. I always felt that to be a rather superficial reason to vote for someone. I either agreed with the issues they stood for or I didn't.

[Edited on 11/7/2004 by CrystalTears]

Parkbandit

11-06-2004, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Backlash
Please, PB. True to form you start your accusations. No one on this board has said W went and fixed the machines himself in a garage. LOL

You are better at conspiracies than those you claim have them.

PS. If you are looking for a master mind, its Karl Rove. And no, I’m not suggesting he went and fixed the machines in his garage either.

PPS. (pre-emptive) Oh yeah, well, if you think I’m full of it, you’d be ignorant to think you weren’t! HA!@

Originally posted by Farquar
Um if Kerry won Ohio it would have been Bush's 266 to Kerry's 272.

So yeah, thanks a lot Ohio.

Edit: Ohio does look a bit suspicious, especially since the CEO of the company that makes voting machines in Ohio stated earlier in the year that he would "deliver Ohio to President Bush."

[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Farquar]

This theory is just as stupid and holds just as much truth.

Brattt8525

11-06-2004, 08:35 PM

You are not the only person who has family in the military, works for the military etc. I am a little tired of people trotting out their family members or themselves and holding them up high as a beacon of why Bush was the best choice and doing it all with an air of - if you don't agree then you must be un-patriotic. If you call Bush dumb then you aren't supporting the troops because look at me, my husband, my brother, sister etc. served and they support the president.

TRL

I was not trotting him out to say whoo hoo lookie here. My point, which you missed, was I am tired of hearing how the uneducated, and stupid people voted for Bush.

I was giving an example of someone who is a CO in the Navy, took troops to Iraq and came back, still believing in his President, voted once again for him.

I can argue politics all day, lord knows I hear enough of it from him, and things only one who has been there truely knows. Watching the biased news does not count.

I do not come here name calling, nor do I think anyone has the right to down your choice for president. I sure as hell wouldn't have talked trash about Kerry voters.

Anyway, have a nice day.

[Edited on 11-7-2004 by Brattt8525]

Chelle

11-06-2004, 09:00 PM

Thanks Ganalon I am going to buy that t-shirt. :lol:

[Edited on 11-7-2004 by Chelle]

Farquar

11-06-2004, 09:37 PM

I was watching X-Fire earlier yestarday and it reminded me of a fact that many people take for granted.

New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, L.A., Miami, Washington D.C., and Boston, America's greatest cities, cities that are under constant and imminent threat from terrorists, the cities that were MOST affected by 9/11, voted overwhelmingly in favor of Mr. Kerry.

This stirs up some old memories. I never could have imagined, on that fateful day of 9/11, as I huddled behind a mailbox breathing the Twin Towers' mortar dust, that some soccer mom from Wichita or some middle manager from Tennessee would ever be more qualified to pick a better leader against terrorism than me.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

11-06-2004, 09:44 PM

That's what is great about America. All our votes count. Like it or not.

11-06-2004, 09:57 PM

And havn't all those cities always been historically liberal? Americans have a short memory as well, I guarntee if the Presidential election was just a week after 9/11 those cities would have told Kerry to fuck off.

- Arkans

Warriorbird

11-06-2004, 10:16 PM

I dislike the President, Dave... doesn't play into my decision, however. Not going after Al'Qaeda harder is like America not initially ousting Saddam...except you toss aside the results of an attack on American soil.

Real patriotic, that.

It'd be like attacking Spain after Pearl Harbor rather than Japan.

[Edited on 11-7-2004 by Warriorbird]

Warriorbird

11-06-2004, 10:19 PM

And here's a sort've liberal admitting Bush won. He nearly screwed the pooch versus an absolutely pathetic candidate, but those gay marriage amendment votes and plenty of help from his friends in the religious right helped carry the day. Falwell and others's efforts are something that I'm sure folks like Tamral or Parkbandit wouldn't like to think about... but they certainly have an effect. The mobilization by the religious right was simply incredbile.

GSTamral

11-06-2004, 10:22 PM

<<<
I never could have imagined, on that fateful day of 9/11, as I huddled behind a mailbox breathing the Twin Towers' mortar dust, that some soccer mom from Wichita or some middle manager from Tennessee would ever be more qualified to pick a better leader against terrorism than me.
>>>

They are equally qualified. Having lived in a city that was victim to terrorism makes you no more qualified in determining how to fight it than anyone else.

Farquar

11-06-2004, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by GSTamral
<<<
I never could have imagined, on that fateful day of 9/11, as I huddled behind a mailbox breathing the Twin Towers' mortar dust, that some soccer mom from Wichita or some middle manager from Tennessee would ever be more qualified to pick a better leader against terrorism than me.
>>>

They are equally qualified. Having lived in a city that was victim to terrorism makes you no more qualified in determining how to fight it than anyone else.

We are more qualified, if only in the sense that the terror threat is on our minds every single day, and we live with it. My thought process in choosing a leader might differ somewhat from some bumpkin in east bumblefuck Mississippi who knows that they'll never even see an A-Rab, let alone be blown up by one.

Parkbandit

11-06-2004, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
And here's a sort've liberal admitting Bush won. He nearly screwed the pooch versus an absolutely pathetic candidate, but those gay marriage amendment votes and plenty of help from his friends in the religious right helped carry the day. Falwell and others's efforts are something that I'm sure folks like Tamral or Parkbandit wouldn't like to think about... but they certainly have an effect. The mobilization by the religious right was simply incredbile.

Absolutely. Republicans pander to the religious vote just like the Democrats pander to the black vote.

One in the same.

Parkbandit

11-06-2004, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Farquar
My thought process in choosing a leader might differ somewhat from some bumpkin in east bumblefuck Mississippi who knows that they'll never even see an A-Rab, let alone be blown up by one.

That's what the people of NYC thought.. right up until 9-11. Just because we don't live in NYC doesn't mean we were not affected by the events of the day or think about terrorism.

TheRoseLady

11-07-2004, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
And here's a sort've liberal admitting Bush won. He nearly screwed the pooch versus an absolutely pathetic candidate, but those gay marriage amendment votes and plenty of help from his friends in the religious right helped carry the day. Falwell and others's efforts are something that I'm sure folks like Tamral or Parkbandit wouldn't like to think about... but they certainly have an effect. The mobilization by the religious right was simply incredbile.

I wonder how they will be paid when they show up asking for their just due. I wonder how that will affect the moderate Republicans. I wonder how many Republicans will try and distance themselves from the radical right-wing nuts. Bush can't run again - but I'm sure lots of other Repubs want to keep hanging out on Capitol Hill.

:popcorn:

Killer Kitten

11-07-2004, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by Arkans
And havn't all those cities always been historically liberal? Americans have a short memory as well, I guarntee if the Presidential election was just a week after 9/11 those cities would have told Kerry to fuck off.

- Arkans

Not this New Yorker. I would have cheerfully ousted Bush as my co-workers and I sat watching the Towers burn on the tiny TV we scarfed out of somebodys car. When he was finally located post-disaster and gave that oh-so-carefully written speech I'd have paid somebody real money to pee in his corn flakes.

Kimm

11-07-2004, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I dislike the President, Dave... doesn't play into my decision, however. Not going after Al'Qaeda harder is like America not initially ousting Saddam...except you toss aside the results of an attack on American soil.

Real patriotic, that.

It'd be like attacking Spain after Pearl Harbor rather than Japan.

[Edited on 11-7-2004 by Warriorbird]

Um im sorry how many troops did you feel was needed to find one man? 10,000? 20,000? 50,000? you have no clue warriorbird. WE CAN NOT AND WILL NOT ATTACK Pakistan because bin Laden may be there. They are not an enemy, when they say NO U.S. we do not want your troups in our country because of the outcry it would create from our people we need to listen. Im also sorry to the fact that we did something in a matter of a month that the USSR could not do at all. But of course we did not send enough troups right?

Make up your f'in mind either you're going to send troops somewhere to fight or your not. Do you really want to have a war with pakistan now as well? That is what you are suggestion we should have done. Wake up and open your eyes look at the issue at hand and dont be blinded by your hate for one man.

11-07-2004, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by GSTamral
<<<
I never could have imagined, on that fateful day of 9/11, as I huddled behind a mailbox breathing the Twin Towers' mortar dust, that some soccer mom from Wichita or some middle manager from Tennessee would ever be more qualified to pick a better leader against terrorism than me.
>>>

They are equally qualified. Having lived in a city that was victim to terrorism makes you no more qualified in determining how to fight it than anyone else.

We are more qualified, if only in the sense that the terror threat is on our minds every single day, and we live with it. My thought process in choosing a leader might differ somewhat from some bumpkin in east bumblefuck Mississippi who knows that they'll never even see an A-Rab, let alone be blown up by one.

Ahh the east coast elitist mentality. You wonder why the people who live in the rest of America dislike "city folks"

Sean

11-07-2004, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Killer Kitten

Originally posted by Arkans
And havn't all those cities always been historically liberal? Americans have a short memory as well, I guarntee if the Presidential election was just a week after 9/11 those cities would have told Kerry to fuck off.

- Arkans

Not this New Yorker. I would have cheerfully ousted Bush as my co-workers and I sat watching the Towers burn on the tiny TV we scarfed out of somebodys car. When he was finally located post-disaster and gave that oh-so-carefully written speech I'd have paid somebody real money to pee in his corn flakes.

Kimm

Ditto.

Well not quite a new yorker but sitting in newark across the river watching it all happen I'd have voted against him then too.

Editted to add...

Originally posted by Dave
Ahh the east coast elitist mentality. You wonder why the people who live in the rest of America dislike "city folks"

I don't know that most of us wonder or care.

[Edited on 11-7-2004 by Tijay]

11-07-2004, 01:30 AM

:points to the map where Tijay lives:
Perhaps you missed the jist of the comment. He assumes he is better than others because he lives in New York, which is in fact for lack of a better way to put it, a load of horse shit.

Sean

11-07-2004, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Dave
:points to the map where Tijay lives:
Perhaps you missed the jist of the comment. He assumes he is better than others because he lives in New York, which is in fact for lack of a better way to put it, a load of horse shit.

Of course it is. But I'll still stand my by comment that I don't know that "city folk" care if people dislike them or not.

11-07-2004, 01:40 AM

Exceptions will always be found, you can't use those to make a case.

- Arkans

Sean

11-07-2004, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Arkans
Exceptions will always be found, you can't use those to make a case.

- Arkans

Make a case against what? A wild scenario that never did happen?

11-07-2004, 01:43 AM

Tijay were you drinking tonight?

Sean

11-07-2004, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Dave
Tijay were you drinking tonight?

Why? Because I actually agreed with you that it's horse shit him thinking hes better because he's from new york? It's almost as dumb to say that as Arkan's making claims about how people would vote in a situation that never did and hopefully never will happen.

11-07-2004, 01:49 AM

Not nearly as wild or far fetched as some of the ones I heard from the other camp.

- Arkans

Farquar

11-07-2004, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Dave
:points to the map where Tijay lives:
Perhaps you missed the jist of the comment. He assumes he is better than others because he lives in New York, which is in fact for lack of a better way to put it, a load of horse shit.

Did I ever say better or imply it anywhere? You people really need to get over your inferiority complex. I hate all this having to explain myself because someone's just a bit too sensitive about the path his/her life has taken.

All I meant was since I live in a big (target) city, and I face a constant threat and the knowledge than an attack will PROBABLY happen in the future, I'll tend to look at things from a different perspective than someone that isn't under a similar situation. Since I know what's best for me, it would logically follow that I am in a better position to choose a leader that would best address my situation (living in a terrorist target city).

11-07-2004, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by Dave
:points to the map where Tijay lives:
Perhaps you missed the jist of the comment. He assumes he is better than others because he lives in New York, which is in fact for lack of a better way to put it, a load of horse shit.

Did I ever say better or imply it anywhere? You people really need to get over your inferiority complex. I hate all this having to explain myself because someone's just a bit too sensitive about the path his/her life has taken.

All I meant was since I live in a big (target) city, and I face a constant threat and the knowledge than an attack will PROBABLY happen in the future, I'll tend to look at things from a different perspective than someone that isn't under a similar situation. Since I know what's best for me, it would logically follow that I am in a better position to choose a leader that would best address my situation (living in a terrorist target city).

Really? well considering I am from Chicago and lived there until July 22nd I think I can relate in much the same way.

The whole stick up your ass, im better than you tone you take wont get you far.

Edaarin

11-07-2004, 02:03 AM

There's a bunch of people on this message board that I wouldn't depend on to get my order at Starbuck's right, and that should tell you what I think of their opinion.

But like SHM said, that's the great part about America. Everyone has the right to an opinion and a vote, even if they should be wiping their mouths with toilet paper everytime they open their mouth to get all the bullshit out.

Tsa`ah

11-07-2004, 02:56 AM

:shibby:

I would say that wasn't a very nice thing to say Ed, but ... I agree.

Killer Kitten

11-07-2004, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by Arkans
Exceptions will always be found, you can't use those to make a case.

- Arkans

What makes you think I'm an exception? Nobody I work with is pro Bush, and they're an opinionated bunch. If they were, they'd trot out their opinions and relish defending them in the ensuing discussion.

As the towers burned and we watched them, the conversation kept shifting back to 'that idiot in the White House' and how sure everybody was that he'd mishandle the situation. The suspicion was also aired that he'd caused or allowed this to happen.

So that's 40-some exceptions right there.

Kimm

HarmNone

11-07-2004, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by Dave
:points to the map where Tijay lives:
Perhaps you missed the jist of the comment. He assumes he is better than others because he lives in New York, which is in fact for lack of a better way to put it, a load of horse shit.

Did I ever say better or imply it anywhere? You people really need to get over your inferiority complex. I hate all this having to explain myself because someone's just a bit too sensitive about the path his/her life has taken.

All I meant was since I live in a big (target) city, and I face a constant threat and the knowledge than an attack will PROBABLY happen in the future, I'll tend to look at things from a different perspective than someone that isn't under a similar situation. Since I know what's best for me, it would logically follow that I am in a better position to choose a leader that would best address my situation (living in a terrorist target city).

Perhaps, instead of everyone else needing to rid themselves of purported inferiority complexes, you need to rid yourself of the tendency to post as though you were the greatest thing since sliced bread, because you aren't. You don't know it all, what you believe is not omniscient, and the rest of us have opinions that are just as valid as yours, even if we don't agree.

Ilvane

11-07-2004, 07:10 AM

Funny, I seem to understand exactly what Farquar is saying.

I'll compare it to a war zone..if you live in Fallujah you are aware of the upcoming threat to your home, and in that way are more aware of the potential dangers..if you live in a small town in Iraq away from all of that, in the middle of nowhere, you don't know what it's like to be under attack, even if you empathize with those who are attacked.

People that lived in Boston, New York, and near the Pentagon all knew what it was like to be attacked directly. If you lived in Iowa, you don't have that same threat, because frankly, the terrorists don't feel that Iowa is a good target, and big cities are(more death, carnage and fear).

That the cities involved in 9/11 went straight Kerry does not surprise me. While we are liberal here in Boston, opinions have changed since 9/11 with politics too. Right after 9/11 I was glad that Bush was president, because he seemed under control.

I was behind him with Afghanistan and going after the Taliban. I didn't understand Iraq, though..and still don't to this day.

-A

HarmNone

11-07-2004, 07:13 AM

I don't think the problem lies so much with what Farquar says, Ilvane, as with the way he says it. ;)

I think I need to add another thought, as well. Although all of us may not live in large "target" cities, most of us know those who do, and many have close family members who do. Not everyone is concerned only with his/her own arse, so to speak. It's a small world and we must be aware of, can concerned for, all of it.

[Edited on 11-7-2004 by HarmNone]

Parkbandit

11-07-2004, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Edaarin
There's a bunch of people on this message board that I wouldn't depend on to get my order at Starbuck's right, and that should tell you what I think of their opinion.

But like SHM said, that's the great part about America. Everyone has the right to an opinion and a vote, even if they should be wiping their mouths with toilet paper everytime they open their mouth to get all the bullshit out.

CHRIST! I fucked up ONE GOD DAMN ORDER and now I'm an idiot!? How the FUCK was I supposed to know Grande was just a medium? GRANDE MEANS BIG GOD DAMN IT! BLAME STARBUCKS AND NOT ME.

And who the FUCK orders a damn drink with "DRY FOAM"? WTF?? It's not dry you simpleton.. it's WET BY GOD DAMN NATURE.

Caiylania

11-07-2004, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Edaarin
There's a bunch of people on this message board that I wouldn't depend on to get my order at Starbuck's right, and that should tell you what I think of their opinion.

But like SHM said, that's the great part about America. Everyone has the right to an opinion and a vote, even if they should be wiping their mouths with toilet paper everytime they open their mouth to get all the bullshit out.

CHRIST! I fucked up ONE GOD DAMN ORDER and now I'm an idiot!? How the FUCK was I supposed to know Grande was just a medium? GRANDE MEANS BIG GOD DAMN IT! BLAME STARBUCKS AND NOT ME.

And who the FUCK orders a damn drink with "DRY FOAM"? WTF?? It's not dry you simpleton.. it's WET BY GOD DAMN NATURE.

Glad you took the fall for that one! I mean err.... Damnit you fucked up my order to! Now you are paying for the coffee. :P

Warriorbird

11-07-2004, 10:04 AM

Uh. I'd feel the same way if Clinton was our President, Dave. I could very well see him having invaded Iraq as well. I'm sorry that everything is only hating Bush to you. To be honest, I can't really say I've "hated" any of our recent Presidents or Presidential candidates. I'll save that for the Republicans.

I think we did send enough troops to Afghanistan. I don't actually have a problem with us sending troops places... just the WRONG places. It is sort've said that you can't get past that concept, being a solider now and all.

"we do not want your troups in our country because of the outcry it would create from our people we need to listen."

Didn't stop us from invading Iraq, did it?

Get past this whole thought that I'm against sending troops places. Hell, most of my immediate family hates my "casual" acceptance of the use of force. In turn a fair portion of my extended family (several of them serving as well) has never shown a problem with it.

And unlike Kerry, (who if you actually read my posts before the election, I said would probably lose and I disagreed with often) I think we definitely did send enough troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. I just agreed with one action and not the other.

Then again... you're in the grip of the hype. Realistically, it's probably not that good to have you thinking very much.

11-07-2004, 10:58 AM

There is a difference that you are forgetting. We have no reason to overthrow the government of Pakistan. We DID have tons of very valid reasons to rid the world of a tyrannical dictator like Saddam

Im not talking about sending troops Warriorbird, im talking about your claming we should have captured Bin Laden already. You are saying we sent enough troops there, so in return that means that government and the military is doing enough to try and capture Bin Laden. In Afghanistan. Most of the people over there are SF, and MI people there trying to track down Bin Laden. Its not a easy task at all. I have CW4's and CW5's as well as former ones as my instructors. People who just returned from the sandbox who's job it was to capture Bin Laden or find information as to where he is. Saddam was captured because a walk in source came up to a specialist out in the field, a specialist who had just become MOSQed (military occupational specialty qualified) and his first assignment was in Iraq. Why did we catch Saddam? Luck, somebody was in the right place at the right time when a source decided to share information as to where he was located. That is the only way we can find somebody in places like that. It is a extremely difficult task especially with the terrain. What you are claiming as a falure of President Bush, is really what you are claiming as a falure of our military, the CIA, the FBI, CID, and all of the other three letter agencies involved. The big one that grinds at me is the Falure of the Military, our men and women are doing the best that they can to find him, and in time he will be found, its only a matter of when where and how.

TheRoseLady

11-07-2004, 11:24 AM

Dave I found a brand new avatar for you.

You're welcome! :D

Hulkein

11-07-2004, 11:49 AM

Heh, I thought this article was pretty good.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/11/07/do0704.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/11/07/ixop.html

The great European thinkers have decided that instead of doing another four years of lame Bush-is-a-moron cracks they're going to do four years of lame Americans-are-morons cracks. Inaugurating the new second-term outreach was Brian Reade in the Daily Mirror, who attributed the President's victory to: "The self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport-ownin' rednecks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong'."

Well, that's certainly why I supported Bush, but I'm not sure it entirely accounts for the other 59,459,765. Forty five per cent of Hispanics voted for the President, as did 25 per cent of Jews, and 23 per cent of gays. And this coalition of common-or-garden rednecks, Hispanic rednecks, sinister Zionist rednecks, and lesbian rednecks who enjoy hitting on their gay-loathin' sisters expanded its share of the vote across the entire country - not just in the Bush states but in the Kerry states, too.

In all but six states, the Republican vote went up: the urinating rednecks have increased their number not just in Texas and Mississippi but in Massachusetts and California, both of which have Republican governors. You can drive from coast to coast across the middle of the country and never pass through a single county that voted for John Kerry: it's one continuous cascade of self-righteous urine from sea to shining sea. States that were swing states in 2000 - West Virginia, Arkansas - are now solidly Republican, and once solidly Democrat states - Iowa, Wisconsin - are now swingers. The redneck states push hard up against the Canadian border, where if your neck's red it's frostbite. Bush's incontinent rednecks are everywhere: they're so numerous they're running out of sisters to bunk up with.

Latrinsorm

11-07-2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Farquar
Did I ever say better or imply it anywhere?
Since I know what's best for me:whistle:

I'm curious, TRL, when you had that Republican-Hitler thing as your avatar for a brief period, were you just testing to see if it would work? It seemed to blink in and out awful fast. Also, who are those guys in the background?

Farquar

11-07-2004, 02:31 PM

My belief that I know what's good for me and not some other guy who doesn't know me or my situation automatically makes me an elitist?

That's a new one. I wouldn't even think about telling a single mother, a paralyzed person, or an unemployed war vet that I know more about what's best for them than they do.

GSTamral

11-07-2004, 02:34 PM

Farquar, I don't suppose you want to raise the point that veterans and current military vote republican?

Hips

11-07-2004, 02:38 PM

Not all people who are currently in the military vote republican. I know at least five A1C/SrA's who didn't.

GSTamral

11-07-2004, 02:42 PM

Michiko, I never said all of them did. I'm just saying, because he asserts that the military etc know so much and know more about what is right, I wanted to chime in and let him know that the majority of military and ex-military voted for Bush.

TheRoseLady

11-07-2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I'm curious, TRL, when you had that Republican-Hitler thing as your avatar for a brief period, were you just testing to see if it would work? It seemed to blink in and out awful fast. Also, who are those guys in the background?

I was actually testing it to see if it was ready to go for Dave's use. You are extremely observant if you noticed that during the 5 minutes it might have been my avatar. ;)

I thought about offering up this avatar, but I didn't really think he would use it.

[Edited on 11-7-2004 by TheRoseLady]

Warriorbird

11-07-2004, 03:32 PM

That's part of the "easily directed" bit, Tamral.

And no, I don't consider it a, "failiure of the military" Dave. I consider it a failiure of directing an appropriate amount of assets to the task, and pulling a snow job on America (and the military) by directing those assets towards Iraq. It succeeded.

Latrinsorm

11-07-2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Farquar
My belief that I know what's good for me and not some other guy who doesn't know me or my situation automatically makes me an elitist?If you think you know more than someone else (about anything), how can they be anything but worse than you?

11-07-2004, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
That's part of the "easily directed" bit, Tamral.

And no, I don't consider it a, "failiure of the military" Dave. I consider it a failiure of directing an appropriate amount of assets to the task, and pulling a snow job on America (and the military) by directing those assets towards Iraq. It succeeded.

But you just said we had enough troops in the country. the numbers there have only changed very little since the invasion.

11-07-2004, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Farquar
My belief that I know what's good for me and not some other guy who doesn't know me or my situation automatically makes me an elitist?

That's a new one. I wouldn't even think about telling a single mother, a paralyzed person, or an unemployed war vet that I know more about what's best for them than they do.

Funny...

Originally posted by Farquar
This stirs up some old memories. I never could have imagined, on that fateful day of 9/11, as I huddled behind a mailbox breathing the Twin Towers' mortar dust, that some soccer mom from Wichita or some middle manager from Tennessee would ever be more qualified to pick a better leader against terrorism than me.
in the above quote you seem to imply that you are in fact better suited to pick who is president than a single mother, a soccer mom or an unemployed vet... as long as they dont live In New York, Chicag, or LA.
:)

Tsa`ah

11-07-2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by GSTamral
Farquar, I don't suppose you want to raise the point that veterans and current military vote republican?

That would be a broad sweeping statement, thus false.

Neither of my brothers (who are enlisted and in Iraq), nor my Father (who served 12 years with 3 in combat), nor my uncles (whom collectively have 50 years of service under their belts), voted for bush.

In fact I would guess that they voted the spectrum of the ballot, not along party lines.

I think bringing up those points are rather ignorant as you can only hope to come up with a percentage, and said percentage is going to be off when you consider registration methods and the fact that a vote is private. So we come to a vocal group that is taken as indicative, yet is not.

Tsa`ah

11-07-2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Warriorbird
That's part of the "easily directed" bit, Tamral.

And no, I don't consider it a, "failiure of the military" Dave. I consider it a failiure of directing an appropriate amount of assets to the task, and pulling a snow job on America (and the military) by directing those assets towards Iraq. It succeeded.

But you just said we had enough troops in the country. the numbers there have only changed very little since the invasion.

Yet you fail to correlate adequate numbers with an adequate plane and adequate implementation.

I can plan to build a house and hire 50 contracted carpenters to build it, yet unless I have the design and plan; I just have 50 carpenters standing around picking their asses.

11-07-2004, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by GSTamral
Farquar, I don't suppose you want to raise the point that veterans and current military vote republican?

That would be a broad sweeping statement, thus false.

Neither of my brothers (who are enlisted and in Iraq), nor my Father (who served 12 years with 3 in combat), nor my uncles (whom collectively have 50 years of service under their belts), voted for bush.

In fact I would guess that they voted the spectrum of the ballot, not along party lines.

I think bringing up those points are rather ignorant as you can only hope to come up with a percentage, and said percentage is going to be off when you consider registration methods and the fact that a vote is private. So we come to a vocal group that is taken as indicative, yet is not.

Being that you are not located on a military base. Being that you do not deal with people in the military on a daily basis, being that traditionally the military vote has been EXTREMELY geared towards Republican, in fact I will give you an example.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm

In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.

Now this was not a completely scientific survey because its responses were more towards those enlisted in the military and are NCO's, as well as career orientated, it is somewhat obvious where their loyalties lie.

Farquar

11-07-2004, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Farquar
My belief that I know what's good for me and not some other guy who doesn't know me or my situation automatically makes me an elitist?

That's a new one. I wouldn't even think about telling a single mother, a paralyzed person, or an unemployed war vet that I know more about what's best for them than they do.

Funny...

Originally posted by Farquar
This stirs up some old memories. I never could have imagined, on that fateful day of 9/11, as I huddled behind a mailbox breathing the Twin Towers' mortar dust, that some soccer mom from Wichita or some middle manager from Tennessee would ever be more qualified to pick a better leader against terrorism than me.
in the above quote you seem to imply that you are in fact better suited to pick who is president than a single mother, a soccer mom or an unemployed vet... as long as they dont live In New York, Chicag, or LA.
:)

When it comes to terrorism, yeah.

Farquar

11-07-2004, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by GSTamral
Farquar, I don't suppose you want to raise the point that veterans and current military vote republican?

Sure, I'll address it. There's simply not enough data. Show me the party breakdown of the entire army. Show me the geographical and racial breakdowns. Show me the party breakdown of officers AND enlisted. There's simply not enough to draw anything conclusive from the fact that most of the military votes Republican.

Warriorbird

11-07-2004, 05:28 PM

I think we had enough troops to get the job done in Afghanistan. I feel the same about Iraq (in spite of thinking we shouldn't be there). That does not translate into appropriate force directed against Bin Laden wherever he rests.

[Edited on 11-7-2004 by Warriorbird]

11-07-2004, 05:31 PM

why dont you look at the article I posted Fauker

11-07-2004, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I think we had enough troops to get the job done in Afghanistan. I feel the same about Iraq (in spite of thinking we shouldn't be there). That does not translate into appropriate force directed against Bin Laden wherever he rests.

[Edited on 11-7-2004 by Warriorbird]

See that is the problem Warriorbird, without knowing that location, how can we find him and capture him?

Warriorbird

11-07-2004, 05:53 PM

We can send people to the places where he is suspected to be. I highly doubt Iraq was or will ever be on that list. Wolfowitz wants to conquer the entire Middle East anyways, so why not start with chasing someone that actually needs killing?

11-07-2004, 05:55 PM

So again why are you saying you want to invade Pakistan?
You Are saying you want to invade a country that supports us?

[Edited on 11-7-2004 by Dave]

Warriorbird

11-07-2004, 05:57 PM

If you can't seperate the notion of invading Iraq and concentrating on actually catching Bin Laden... well... you're just perfect for what you're doing.

When our own intelligence services out Pakistan as his most probable location and the news talks about Al'Qaeda encampments in Pakistan that they claim they are, "working against" but still haven't produced any results towards...well...

11-07-2004, 06:04 PM

So you want a full scale, and possible nuclear war with pakistan because one man is there? you want us to break all international laws because we are looking for one man? (and please don't go touting that we illegally went into Iraq, no charges were brought up against the United States because of the rock solid case we had in relation to the 16 UN resolutions prior to our invasion)

IRAQ is a totally different situation, at no time has this administration, the american government or any of its entities ever sated that Saddam was at fault for 9/11. At no time have we ever claimed that Bin Laden was hiding in Iraq prior to or after our invasion.
:deadhorse:

Farquar

11-07-2004, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Dave
why dont you look at the article I posted Fauker

I assume you're talking to me.

I quote the article:
"The publisher cautioned that the results are not a scientific poll."

The results of that poll seem to contradict an unscientific poll on gayandinthearmy.com, where 99.99% of the readers responded that they voted for Kerry. Gotta love unscientific polls.

Nice misspelling of my name, by the way. Really gives me confidence that our armed forces can handle the Iraq conflict well. I'm guessin you won't be getting any invites for a beer in the Officer's Club any time soon huh?

Latrinsorm

11-07-2004, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Farquar
Nice misspelling of my name, by the way.Yeah, he does that to just about everyone at one time or another, most notably a certain New Jerseyan who hasn't been posting recently (more's the pity).

CrystalTears

11-07-2004, 07:30 PM

I'm sure if the officers kept insinuating that they're better than everyone else, I don't think he'll care about that beer. ;)

Warriorbird

11-07-2004, 07:36 PM

One man killed how many Americans? We break international laws all the damn time. Hell, our presidents (including Clinton) flout the UN quite often. The UN wants to bring up Americans on war crimes charges.

"IRAQ is a totally different situation, at no time has this administration, the american government or any of its entities ever sated that Saddam was at fault for 9/11."

Heh. What was all the BS about terrorists then?

"At no time have we ever claimed that Bin Laden was hiding in Iraq prior to or after our invasion. "

No, but there were some pretty spurious claims about Al'Qaeda being there. Dealing with those who brought an actual attack against American soil should've been the number one priority. It quite obviously was and is not.

It's funny how you talk about beating a dead horse yet spout inaccuracies. But, then again, "Soldier ask not." and all that. It's good that you're easily directed.

Latrinsorm

11-07-2004, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"IRAQ is a totally different situation, at no time has this administration, the american government or any of its entities ever sated that Saddam was at fault for 9/11."

Heh. What was all the BS about terrorists then?It's almost as if there are terrorists that weren't responsible for 9/11. But that's crazy, like saying there are some Democrats who aren't responsible for dropping an atom bomb on Hiroshima.

Warriorbird

11-07-2004, 07:39 PM

If you tell me the association wasn't being made... I'll laugh. A lot.

CrystalTears

11-07-2004, 07:41 PM

That theory alludes them, Latrinsorm. Unless it's directly linked with 9/11, for them it's a wasted effort.

Warriorbird

11-07-2004, 08:14 PM

Just like it was for y'all... until it became political percentage points.

Farquar

11-07-2004, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Farquar
Nice misspelling of my name, by the way.Yeah, he does that to just about everyone at one time or another, most notably a certain New Jerseyan who hasn't been posting recently (more's the pity).

Is this someone I know or an inside joke?

Ilvane

11-07-2004, 08:20 PM

I don't know how many reports or investigations need to be done to be good enough for you to convince you that Iraq WAS NOT directly related to Al Queda, or linked whatsoever.

It was AL QUEDA who attacked us on 9/11. Not Iraq, and they had nothing to do with the attack.

And you wonder why we get irritated.

-A

Ravenstorm

11-07-2004, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Farquar
Is this someone I know or an inside joke?

Skrim... Err, Skirmisher.

Raven

CrystalTears

11-07-2004, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Ilvane
I don't know how many reports or investigations need to be done to be good enough for you to convince you that Iraq WAS NOT directly related to Al Queda, or linked whatsoever.

It was AL QUEDA who attacked us on 9/11. Not Iraq, and they had nothing to do with the attack.

And you wonder why we get irritated.

-A

Thanks for making my point. ;)

Artha

11-07-2004, 08:23 PM

And you wonder why we get irritated.

Because your proselytizing and zealotry (I really love those two words :heart: ) have not only not worked, but have, quite possibly, driven more people to the right?

[Edited on 11-8-2004 by Artha]

Latrinsorm

11-07-2004, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
If you tell me the association wasn't being made... I'll laugh. A lot. Neither I nor the Bush administration has any control over what you think (so stop being such a sissy and let Cheney put that chip in your brain). :saint:
Originally posted by Ilvane
I don't know how many reports or investigations need to be done to be good enough for you to convince you that Iraq WAS NOT directly related to Al Queda, or linked whatsoever. To whom are you speaking?

11-07-2004, 08:44 PM

Yes the association was made. Between Al Zarqawi and Iraq... Ironicly enough is he not the one who is causing trouble over there? doing terrorist actions? Wow you sure overlooked that one.

[Edited on 11-8-2004 by Dave]

Drew2

11-07-2004, 08:44 PM

WHY ISN'T THIS THREAD DEAD YET?

Back

11-07-2004, 08:45 PM

Because Kerry didn’t win. Business as usual. :P

Latrinsorm

11-07-2004, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Tayre
WHY ISN'T THIS THREAD DEAD YET? We have to keep ourselves distracted from that hideous avatar you have.

I mean, uh, old habits die hard? :D

Drew2

11-07-2004, 08:49 PM

Stealing your own words:

You are an accident, Latrinsorm.

Gan

11-07-2004, 08:51 PM

Back

11-07-2004, 08:53 PM

The more I watch that... the more I like the guy.

Heh, just cause he looks like a kid getting away with something. The sideways glance to see if anyone is looking. The awkward flip and smug look of victory. And in the original, the abashed expression...

[Edited on 11-8-2004 by Backlash]

Warriorbird

11-07-2004, 10:43 PM

Hmm. We invade country. Country has people who aren't thrilled by us. Who do they call? Someone with a proven track record of doing horrible things to our citizens and not getting caught... or chased. Sounds like a reasonable proposition...

11-07-2004, 10:47 PM

Or perhaps he in fact did have ties like was suggested. Odd that he showed up no?
Then agian everything bush has said about it in your eyes is wrong no matter the evidence so whats the point?
:deadhorse:

Warriorbird

11-07-2004, 10:54 PM

Maybe open a few eyes. I doubt that'll happen though. The ironic thing is you can see the real roots of most of the whole Iraq situation in policy essays written by folks like Wolfowitz. Not that most rank and file Republicans (or heck, even soldiers) would read that sort've thing. Or do research on dominion theology... or know folks involved with religious/political manipulation.

When you grew up with and knew the folks who pulled some of the shady things the Republican Party has done off, it all becomes a lot more believeable.

Back

11-07-2004, 11:07 PM

I’m going to make a claim, and I have no other source that flat out observation and common sense.

On Nov. 2nd, when the rumors of the Kerry win circulated at around 2pm EST, the market dipped.

The DOW is over 10k now and climbing.

Oil is down, but at least 20% higher than it was over the past 4 years. Gas at the pump is still up.

Profits run this country.

I see nothing wrong with that, if those profits were put to better use taking care of and lifting the people who really put the energy into this nation.

Hulkein

11-07-2004, 11:38 PM

You're correct about the stock dipping when it did... It was up in the morning of election day until those exit-polls broke.

The price at the pump will drop, I'm assuming the reason the price is still high is because we're buying gas that was refined at the higher barrel cost. Just a guess there though, not sure.

Parkbandit

11-08-2004, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Backlash
The more I watch that... the more I like the guy.

Heh, just cause he looks like a kid getting away with something. The sideways glance to see if anyone is looking. The awkward flip and smug look of victory. And in the original, the abashed expression...

[Edited on 11-8-2004 by Backlash]

It's working. Slowly but surely we are transforming Backlash, the bleeding heart liberal.. into a bible toting conservative!

'IT'S ALIVE!'

Parkbandit

11-08-2004, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
When you grew up with and knew the folks who pulled some of the shady things the Republican Party has done off, it all becomes a lot more believeable.

LMFAO.

Come now Warriorbird.. are you really saying that Republicans have done some shady things and the Democrats are above the fray?

Really?

Don't put up a half painted picture.. it makes you look like a half wit.

Warriorbird

11-08-2004, 09:09 AM

Of course I'm not saying that. I'm just saying I've got a more direct impression of what the Republican party does. And believe me, they do it much better than the Democrats. It's why they won this election, despite nearly blowing it (which is sad.)

[Edited on 11-8-2004 by Warriorbird]

Parkbandit

11-08-2004, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Of course I'm not saying that. I'm just saying I've got a more direct impression of what the Republican party does. And believe me, they do it much better than the Democrats. It's why they won this election, despite nearly blowing it (which is sad.)

[Edited on 11-8-2004 by Warriorbird]

We simply see things completely different. I think Bush was under SO much negative press over the past month.. that his victory was even more dramatic. Put in a likable candidate with some plan and he would have run away with the election.

And it's naive to believe that Democrats do not play in the same dirty pool as the Republicans. They both do it equally well.

Warriorbird

11-08-2004, 10:56 AM

Ha. That's rich. Why have the Democrats lost so much ground? They're not very good at it. Lee Atwater's legacy remains on past the death of the man.

Parkbandit

11-08-2004, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Ha. That's rich. Why have the Democrats lost so much ground? They're not very good at it. Lee Atwater's legacy remains on past the death of the man.

This is clearly the biggest problem with the Democratic party right now and is why they are losing seats each election. They simply cannot comprehend that maybe the message they are spewing is one that does not work well for the typical American. It's much easier to simply say "The Republicans won because they smeared our good name!"

I do enjoy the credit you give the Republican party though.

:smug:

Warriorbird

11-08-2004, 11:05 AM

:shrugs: More of the spin right there. You're just afraid to address what really won it for the Republicans.

Parkbandit

11-08-2004, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
:shrugs: More of the spin right there. You're just afraid to address what really won it for the Republicans.

3.5 million people voting for Bush rather than Kerry? I'm not afraid to admit the truth.

DeV

11-08-2004, 11:11 AM

Americans are tough and we expect our politicians to be tough. Kerry was being shown as a pansy, someone who didn't know how to eat a hoggie or catch a football.. not the type of image Americans want their president to represent. When the Kerry campaign stepped their offensive against the Bush administration up a notch or two, the race came to a dead heat. We, the voters, rewarded that negativity by turning out in droves to vote. It was definitely one, of many factors. Kerry shot himself in the foot in that respect by being a day late and a dollar short.

Warriorbird

11-08-2004, 12:20 PM

Precisely. I never liked Kerry as a candidate.

Latrinsorm

11-08-2004, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Ha. That's rich. Why have the Democrats lost so much ground? They're not very good at it.Unfortunately, the "Warriorbird said so" postulate is not widely accepted in logical proofs. Jon Stewart asked the non-Hilary senator from NY the same question: "What if we really are East Coast elitists?"

Warriorbird

11-08-2004, 01:03 PM

Just as much as you or Parkbandit saying something doesn't immediately make it so. Eesh.

Parkbandit

11-08-2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Just as much as you or Parkbandit saying something doesn't immediately make it so. Eesh.

I've never made that the basis for my argument.. although it makes a great deal of sense. Maimara clearly agrees with it.

Warriorbird

11-08-2004, 01:26 PM

Yeah. More than one person believing something makes it at least somewhat plausible. Doesn't make it right, mind... but definitely the "That's not right! I'm a conservative who claims not to be" card from Latrin seems somehow less believeable than someone who's got real experiential data.

Latrinsorm

11-08-2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Doesn't make it right, mind... but definitely the "That's not right! I'm a conservative who claims not to be" card from Latrin... :(

But seriously, I wasn't trying to say you were wrong because I/PB said so. I was trying to say that the only person I've ever heard say that the reason Kerry/Democrats lost was that Republicans were cheaper. If an alternate hypothesis is presented (the moderates don't care for the Democrat stance) with equal proof (none), I don't see any reason to believe one over the other. Jon Stewart (Mr. Unbiased, so long as hating Bush doesn't count as bias) proposed the same thing PB did, so I decided perhaps there was a grain of truth to the matter.

Parkbandit

11-08-2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
But seriously, I wasn't trying to say you were wrong because I/PB said so. I was trying to say that the only person I've ever heard say that the reason Kerry/Democrats lost was that Republicans were cheaper. If an alternate hypothesis is presented (the moderates don't care for the Democrat stance) with equal proof (none), I don't see any reason to believe one over the other. Jon Stewart (Mr. Unbiased, so long as hating Bush doesn't count as bias) proposed the same thing PB did, so I decided perhaps there was a grain of truth to the matter.

I've heard both ways actually. I simply do not agree with Warriorbird's stand that the reason Kerry lost was because the Republican's are better at dirty campaign tactics. That reminds me of sports when a team loses.. claiming the referees were clearly against them.

I find the reasoning sad.. yet fullfilling. Keep believing that the only reason you lost the election was because the Republicans are smearing the good name of Democrats around.. it only helps us Republicans.

Warriorbird

11-08-2004, 03:07 PM

Eh. I think it's more complex than that. Kerry was a bumbling mass of a candidate. Switching campaign managers... saying that he agreed with Bush on issues... taking the "safe" position on things... and allowing image problems to dog him when he should've been going after Bush's image in turn...

I think the Democrats weren't very good at smearing Bush's name...just as much as I think the Republicans are very good at that sort've campaiging and the use of spin and image. The whole celebrity campaign bit was far less effective than a bunch of religious officials talking to adults.

Far less simple than Parkbandit's statement about my views.

[Edited on 11-8-2004 by Warriorbird]

DeV

11-08-2004, 03:11 PM

I agree. I'm one of those who thought Kerry should have gone into this campaign immediately on the attack, from day one. He took the passive approach among other things and it bit him in the ass in the end. Of course, it is more complex than that, but it was one of the deciding factors especially for the swing voters.

TheRoseLady

11-08-2004, 03:30 PM

I know that I will likely cause a few people's monitors to quake with this but I agree with the assessment that the Dems didn't have a clear message for the public like the Repubs did. I don't really agree with the fear message - fear terrorists, fear gays and fear the liberals - but it worked.

I also agree with the NE liberal sentiment. The Dems must put forth candidates that people can like.

We really need to get some serious election reform in, and some rules governing how we vote. Voting shouldn't be farmed out to a third party - we need to have faith in our elections and I can tell you that (conspiracy theories aside) that there ARE voting irregularities and this does nothing but fuel the fires that the Repubs "stole" the election. Can you imagine ever a time when you seriously doubted the sanctity of your vote? I mean this is the good ole US of A and here we are really questioning the validity of the outcome. I'm not suggesting that Bush didn't win, or that the Repubs stole anything - there are however issues with the equipment, procedures and such that it needs to be addressed. Sorry for rambling.

Parkbandit

11-08-2004, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
I know that I will likely cause a few people's monitors to quake with this but I agree with the assessment that the Dems didn't have a clear message for the public like the Repubs did. I don't really agree with the fear message - fear terrorists, fear gays and fear the liberals - but it worked.

I also agree with the NE liberal sentiment. The Dems must put forth candidates that people can like.

We really need to get some serious election reform in, and some rules governing how we vote. Voting shouldn't be farmed out to a third party - we need to have faith in our elections and I can tell you that (conspiracy theories aside) that there ARE voting irregularities and this does nothing but fuel the fires that the Repubs "stole" the election. Can you imagine ever a time when you seriously doubted the sanctity of your vote? I mean this is the good ole US of A and here we are really questioning the validity of the outcome. I'm not suggesting that Bush didn't win, or that the Repubs stole anything - there are however issues with the equipment, procedures and such that it needs to be addressed. Sorry for rambling.

Holy crap.. we are in a political thread and I essentially agree with everything you just posted. Maybe not so much the fear message.. because the Democrats used that almost as much. "How can Bush be trusted with bio terrorism medication when he can't even ensure we have enough Flu vaccine" "How can we afford to have Bush around for 4 more years" "Bush wants to start the draft" "Bush is doing away with Social Security" "Bush is in bed with the Saudis" "Bush gave Haliburton no bid contracts because they are friends" etc...

Parkbandit

11-08-2004, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
I agree. I'm one of those who thought Kerry should have gone into this campaign immediately on the attack, from day one. He took the passive approach among other things and it bit him in the ass in the end. Of course, it is more complex than that, but it was one of the deciding factors especially for the swing voters.

I agree.. even the Democratic Convention made him look like a weak ass liberal. It was a mistake to NOT go after the Bush administration there.

TheRoseLady

11-08-2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Holy crap.. we are in a political thread and I essentially agree with everything you just posted. Maybe not so much the fear message.. because the Democrats used that almost as much. "How can Bush be trusted with bio terrorism medication when he can't even ensure we have enough Flu vaccine" "How can we afford to have Bush around for 4 more years" "Bush wants to start the draft" "Bush is doing away with Social Security" "Bush is in bed with the Saudis" "Bush gave Haliburton no bid contracts because they are friends" etc...

Well, I do agree that those were messages delivered by the Dems - and likely viewed much as fear messages- hadn't really considered it that way.

Honestly, I thought that the likelihood of the draft was equal regardless of who became President. I don't know anything about staffing a war, but it does seem like we don't have enough volunteers - again an uninformed assumption on my part.

I do however think that the Bush family ties to Saudi Arabia exist - but what that exactly means - I don't really know.

I also think that there are problems with the no bid contracts to Halliburton - but we'll have to let that be sorted out by those who are currently investigating it.

Maybe we'll get two in a row. :lol:

11-08-2004, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Eh. I think it's more complex than that. Kerry was a bumbling mass of a candidate. Switching campaign managers... saying that he agreed with Bush on issues... taking the "safe" position on things... and allowing image problems to dog him when he should've been going after Bush's image in turn...
[Edited on 11-8-2004 by Warriorbird]
wait, your saying kerry should have lied then if he agreed with bush on a issue?

[Edited on 11-9-2004 by Dave]

Warriorbird

11-08-2004, 09:00 PM

Let's put it this way. Saying, "I agree with the person who's opposing me." is not a way to distinguish yourself or come across as having a plan.

Parkbandit

11-09-2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Let's put it this way. Saying, "I agree with the person who's opposing me." is not a way to distinguish yourself or come across as having a plan.

Indeed.

The main reason Kerry lost was that he was incapable of getting his "plan" spelled out for the American people.

11-09-2004, 08:56 AM

Or the lack of one in that case. The extent of his Iraqi policy was to coax the UN into getting involved.

Tsa`ah

11-09-2004, 03:00 PM

Geezus!

Kerry lost because he didn't win the hip-hop debate.

http://www.miniclip.com/hiphopdebate.htm

The money walk did him in.

Back

12-22-2005, 07:55 PM

Oh man, good times.

CrystalTears

12-22-2005, 08:12 PM

Yeah thanks for bumping this. We just don't have enough active political threads already. :rolleyes:

DeV

12-22-2005, 08:21 PM

Brings back misty water-colored memories.

Sean of the Thread

12-22-2005, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by DeV
Brings back misty water-colored memories.

I'm sorry I didn't understand a word YOU FUCKING SAID.

Because I was looking at your avatar.

TheEschaton

12-22-2005, 08:50 PM

Posted by Dave on Nov 4th, last year.

Al Qaeda does not exist anymore. They have no more leadership in place. All that is left are the cells that have been able to hold it together and work on their own.

I think we should always bump more old threads, just so we can see some of the crazy statements which time has proven so vastly incorrect it's scary.

And I'm skipping the rest of this thread about Tamral. What, he lorded his salary even though it's not as high as you would think it is, him having lorded it? Is there anything else in here, so I don't have to read 30 pages of bullshit?

-TheE-
P.S. Ilvane, I think I was turned on by the liberal-anger-thing. It looks good on you. ;)

Latrinsorm

12-22-2005, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Is there anything else in here, so I don't have to read 30 pages of bullshit? He couldn't be bothered to actually vote.

TheEschaton

12-22-2005, 08:55 PM

Ah yes, I did read that bit too.

I voted, and I was halfway around the fucking world. What a douche bag. Doesn't he live IN WASHINGTON D.C.?

Of course, all the embassy people were encouraging all us Peace Corps Volunteers to vote. I've been surprised to find that most people in the embassies, and USAID, and all these aid places, are Dems - the director of USAID in Namibia, Gary Newton, told me that the majority of the foreign service (which isn't appointed by a given President, that is) are Dems. Interesting tidbit.

-TheE-

Hulkein

12-23-2005, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Posted by Dave on Nov 4th, last year.

Al Qaeda does not exist anymore. They have no more leadership in place. All that is left are the cells that have been able to hold it together and work on their own.

I think we should always bump more old threads, just so we can see some of the crazy statements which time has proven so vastly incorrect it's scary.

And I'm skipping the rest of this thread about Tamral. What, he lorded his salary even though it's not as high as you would think it is, him having lorded it? Is there anything else in here, so I don't have to read 30 pages of bullshit?

-TheE-
P.S. Ilvane, I think I was turned on by the liberal-anger-thing. It looks good on you. ;)

Yeah, I was laughing at some of the people saying in a year there'd be a draft.

:lol:

DeV

12-23-2005, 01:44 PM

Instead, military recruitment has plummeted, and tours for those already overseas have been extended. Double-edged sword either way you look at it.

Hulkein

12-23-2005, 01:51 PM

Comparing longer tours of duty to a national draft is laughable.

:lol:

PS: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/389d1cca-73da-11da-ab91-0000779e2340.html

DeV

12-23-2005, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Hulkein
Comparing longer tours of duty to a national draft is laughable.

:lol:

PS: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/389d1cca-73da-11da-ab91-0000779e2340.html Oh, I'm sorry that in stating the obvious you felt I was drawing comparisons. That was surely not my intent.

That article is dated as of December 23, 2005, and while it is a good read I don't see the relevance to what I stated. This thread is over a year old. In knowing that I ask:

Has military recruitment been down for the past year? Have some soldiers reported their tours of duty were extended past the times they were suppsed to be returning home? Basically, I'm pointing out things that have happened which relate somewhat. I have no stance for or against the draft, but these are circumstances that have come about in the past year.

Hulkein

12-23-2005, 02:27 PM

No, you weren't making comparisons, I should've said mentioning them in the same sentence is a joke.

I simply said that the prediction about a draft in a year was funny.

You added something about lower recruitment and longer tours of duty... Great. Thanks for the informative post.

CrystalTears

12-23-2005, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by DeV
Instead, military recruitment has plummeted, and tours for those already overseas have been extended. Double-edged sword either way you look at it.

Those two events seem to be commonplace when a war is on. No one would voluntarily recruit themselve unless they wanted to go straight to war, and so people already there need to stay longer.

There's a difference between all of that and drafting, IMHO.

Sean

12-23-2005, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by DeV
Instead, military recruitment has plummeted, and tours for those already overseas have been extended. Double-edged sword either way you look at it.

Those two events seem to be commonplace when a war is on. No one would voluntarily recruit themselve unless they wanted to go straight to war, and so people already there need to stay longer.

There's a difference between all of that and drafting, IMHO.

If only Dave was still around to go door to door and accuse everyone of being a pussy for making that choice!

Back

12-23-2005, 03:00 PM

Hahaha. The politik has swelled here this week. I think its prompted by big real world news stories more than just general bashing. Sure, when we have slow news days the PC pundits will toss out some bait for a little wrangle and yeah it gets irritating to see two to three people trying to come up with creative insults.

A few politic threads lately bored me. But I love politics and read on-line every day. It my sports aside from Superbowls and the Cowboys. Last night was my Friday as I have today off and TheE asked about Tamral. I knew I could find the hacker story but had to put a bit of effort into the voting one. I tried a bunch of searches and forget what the search words were but came across that Kerry thread. And bingo.

What a great thread too. I read a few pages then of course I scanned the rest for my posts and responses. Happy to report I wasn’t too belligerent, offensive and stand by everything I contributed even if its in a smart-ass tone.

Looking back there was something I didn’t ever fully explain, so I will take this opportunity now. Sorry for the year long delay. It somehow slipped my memory at the time.

--------------------------------------

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Xyelin

Originally posted by Hulkein
<<The only things I have to add to this part is take a look at each state’s counties and how they voted. You will see much more blue in urban areas and red in rural areas. Correlation?>>

If you're trying to insinuate dumber or less educated people vote red then you're not going to find anything to substantiate that other than pre-conceived notions that everyone living in the south or mid-west is a dumb hick.

Tamral has posted statistics on who votes for who.

I'm sure he can post them again.

It is just plain ignorance to suggest such a theory. Shit like that pisses me off to no end. Actually the urban areas contain more minorities and they are more historically and statistically inclined to vote blue.

When I grew up in upstate New York, there was not one minority in my town or withing 50 miles.

Heh, Hulk suggests I insinuate, then Xyelin jumps all over it as fact. Its no wonder how you voted.

Originally posted by Xyelin

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Xyelin

Originally posted by Hulkein
<<The only things I have to add to this part is take a look at each state’s counties and how they voted. You will see much more blue in urban areas and red in rural areas. Correlation?>>

If you're trying to insinuate dumber or less educated people vote red then you're not going to find anything to substantiate that other than pre-conceived notions that everyone living in the south or mid-west is a dumb hick.

Tamral has posted statistics on who votes for who.

I'm sure he can post them again.

It is just plain ignorance to suggest such a theory. Shit like that pisses me off to no end. Actually the urban areas contain more minorities and they are more historically and statistically inclined to vote blue.

When I grew up in upstate New York, there was not one minority in my town or withing 50 miles.

Heh, Hulk suggests I insinuate, then Xyelin jumps all over it as fact. Its no wonder how you voted.

I read your post and made my own determination.

If you would like to clarify your seemingly ignorant statement, I'll retract mine.

I did not have a theory then as to why less populated areas would vote red and more populated areas would vote blue. There are many differences between more and less populated regions so you could tack it on to many different things.

Since then I’ve wondered why people in the last election who voted for Bush with the exit polls stating for the way he is handling the war on terror when THEY DONT EVEN LIVE IN HIGH RISK AREAS! Why did high risk areas vote Kerry?

Hulkein

12-23-2005, 03:09 PM

Terrorism can indirectly affect the whole country. Just because a nuke going off in New York and D.C. doesn't kill the guy living in Nebraska, the country collapsing sure would.

That, and to tell you the truth, I think most of the hardcore liberals (who tend to live in cities) would choose a candidate who is socially liberal but not as tough on terrorism over someone who is against their social views but more effective against terrorism. Again, just my personal opinion.

DeV

12-23-2005, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Hulkein
No, you weren't making comparisons, I should've said mentioning them in the same sentence is a joke.Yep. Do that next time.

I simply said that the prediction about a draft in a year was funny.You sure did. You got no argument from me either.

You added something about lower recruitment and longer tours of duty... Great. That's exactly what I did. Now, you're on the right track. :)
Thanks for the informative post. No problem.

DeV

12-23-2005, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by CrystalTears
No one would voluntarily recruit themselve unless they wanted to go straight to war, and so people already there need to stay longer.
I know more than one person that did exactly this, knowing full well the potential ramifications of their decision. There are others no doubt. However, your point still stands and is definitely apart of the equation. It is not all inclusive however.

What we were seeing were troops over-deployed for far longer periods of time than previous wars. I also find it interesting that the military rarely changes their recruiting requirements even during times of war, despite the fact that many Americans feel that people don’t join because they don’t want to go straight to war.

Tsa`ah

12-24-2005, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Those two events seem to be commonplace when a war is on. No one would voluntarily recruit themselve unless they wanted to go straight to war, and so people already there need to stay longer.

There's a difference between all of that and drafting, IMHO.

Not really. History has shown that if the people believe in the cause, they will volunteer.

If the governing body can't justify it's cause for war with the people, alternative means are implemented. Such as a draft or goodies if you join. Drafts are usually the end result.

Ultimately it comes down to the people getting behind the cause. The contrasts between WWII and Viet Nam would be an excellent example.

Another thing that always struck me as hypocritical are the supporters of war and military action that can't be bothered with enlistment.

If you feel the cause is so justified and necessary ... enlist and stop annoying the fuck out of me with your justifications.

CrystalTears

12-24-2005, 11:38 AM

Jesus, so unless you've enlisted or tried to enlist in the military, supporting the war and the military efforts are hypocritical or something? Been hanging out with Dave lately? WTF.

Gan

12-24-2005, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
If you feel the cause is so justified and necessary ... enlist and stop annoying the fuck out of me with your justifications.

Sounds like a TOJ post if you ask me.

Tsa`ah

12-24-2005, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Jesus, so unless you've enlisted or tried to enlist in the military, supporting the war and the military efforts are hypocritical or something? Been hanging out with Dave lately? WTF.

I'm not, nor have I ever been enlisted ... and you should know that I do not support the military actions ordered by Bush.

What I did say is no more than join up if you feel that strongly about it.

We already know Iraq was not about terrorism or WMDs, nor was it really about Sadam, yet support (and strong support at that) is still there from arm chair quarterbacks.

Give the guys and gals in uniform a break and rush out to your local recruitment office if you feel this is a necessary war.

I just think it's the opposite side of the "love it or leave it" coin Dave and toj liked to spout off about and it's a reasonable alternative to pointing at the "libs" and screaming "unamerican, unpatriotic, borders on treason".

Dave and toj were both morons. While they served, they thought it made them experts on the whole of Iraq and the actions taken by the administration.

My request is simple ... if you feel our actions and presence in Iraq is a must ... give one of the soldiers over there a break. Let them come back here and do the things they're "fighting" to protect and take your turn protecting this great nation.

Stop being an arm chair QB.

This isn't directed at you specifically CT, rather everyone so adamant to defend actions based on a lie. Actions that most of this country can't get behind because they don't buy the lie.

Gan

12-24-2005, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
What I did say is no more than join up if you feel that strongly about it.
What about those who cant join for physical or any other reason that would disqualify them for service? They are not allowed to have a voice, regardless of what side they believe in?

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
We already know Iraq was not about terrorism or WMDs, nor was it really about Sadam, yet support (and strong support at that) is still there from arm chair quarterbacks.
So if you agree with the war you're an armchair quarterback, but if you disagree with the war you are a speaker of truth. :rolleyes: If this were any more one sided you'd be published on moveon.org

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Give the guys and gals in uniform a break and rush out to your local recruitment office if you feel this is a necessary war.
Again with the 'go out and do it' concept. So people are not allowed to voice their opinion unless it fits your viewpoint. Nice First Amendment usage there.

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I just think it's the opposite side of the "love it or leave it" coin Dave and toj liked to spout off about and it's a reasonable alternative to pointing at the "libs" and screaming "unamerican, unpatriotic, borders on treason".
No worse than your idea to run out and 'join up!' or shut up ideas.

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Dave and toj were both morons. While they served, they thought it made them experts on the whole of Iraq and the actions taken by the administration.
Agreed TOJ was a moron, and Dave was just overwhelmed when he was only one of the few who stood out against the rampant liberal viewpoint here on the PC and fell back on the same style of argument that you are using now.

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
My request is simple ... if you feel our actions and presence in Iraq is a must ... give one of the soldiers over there a break. Let them come back here and do the things they're "fighting" to protect and take your turn protecting this great nation.
Not like they were 'drafted' or anything. Its their job, its what they get paid to do. If I could join, I would have 18 years ago. That does not discredit my viewpoints or who(m) I choose to support. Congratulations on forming a completely one sided argument.

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
This isn't directed at you specifically CT, rather everyone so adamant to defend actions based on a lie. Actions that most of this country can't get behind because they don't buy the lie.
What some of us dont buy is the rhetoric and propeganda that has dominated the biased media since the war started from the opposition party to the Bush administration. And some of us are not afraid to offer opposition, as seen by some of us even here on the PC.