NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.gregpalast.com/

http://www.gregpalast.com/
WOW! A website on the internet that supports your conspiracy theory! Well gee golly whiz, if that just isn't an unassailible indictment of democracy!

Ahhh omfg itz another conspiracy!!!1oneone1one+shift111

I like the eloquent reference to the political situation in the article

“examining that messy sausage called American democracy”

LOL GREAT STUFF

Theres a story going round of there having been some 250,000 spolied votes in Ohio

Theres a story going round of there having been some 250,000 spolied votes in Ohio
Yeah, I heard there were like 2 million spoiled votes in California.

Theres a story going round of there having been some 250,000 spolied votes in Ohio

Same with Florida. I've heard rumor on various news channels that that hundreds of thousands of ballots were loaded up into vans then driven off.

I'll continue watching the news to see if more stories break on this.

Er, exit polls have been known to be wrong, you know. Some of the factors affecting it could be where the poll was taken (i.e. they can get more people in more populated areas which favor Kerry), when it was taken, who agrees to take it, and that good old margin of error in every poll. This is conspiracy theory at its best.

Biggest load of **** I've ever seen... :headbang:

George Bush did not win the election; the Democrats lost it. I say this as a Democrat, ex-military, card-carrying and proud of it Liberal. Our dear party has gone bankrupt on a solid, identifiable ideology, and we allowed ourselves to be duped into attempting to be "Republican-lite" in order to sway swing voters.

We should have just stuck to our traditional Party values and assailed attempts to characterize them as "un-American" or out of touch.

So no, Bush did not steal the election. Whatever the vote count, whatever the efforts at disenfranchisement, the outcome is the same. If we had a clear identity and a solid message, we would have (and should have) won this election be a landslide---particularly given the state of our economy and the status of the Iraq debacle.

If you want to know why Kerry lost - here's a good start from an actual, credible news source:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1344943,00.html

Having worked professionally in politics for some time - I can personally vouch for the impact this type of stuff has on a campaign.

W.

I am a Massachusets Liberal, and even I am not convinced by that article.

As much as I would like it to be true, the evidence is so flimsy it is not even worth considering. Exit Polls are not a perfect indication of how the vote went. Plus the article fails to explain why "spoiled' votes would most likely be democrat votes.

Like it or not, Bush actually won the popular vote. There are now officially more rednecks in America than thinkers.

didn't you guys HEAR?

Bush stole the election by enlisting the help of extraterrestrials who abducted one million (give or take a few) Democrats and anally probed them until they promised to vote for him.

i can't believe that he did that!

Like it or not, Bush actually won the popular vote. There are now officially more rednecks in America than thinkers.
Actually, I think more people live in cities than the mountains, but that's just me. Just because the thinkers were either too lazy, too stupid, or perhaps both to get out and vote, isn't an indictment on the rednecks.

exit polls mean nothing, i voted and no one asked me who i voted for does that mean my vote didnt count. no it means exit polls only asked certain people in certain places. DOES NOT GIVE AN ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE ELECTION AT ALL

didn't you guys HEAR?

Bush stole the election by enlisting the help of extraterrestrials who abducted one million (give or take a few) Democrats and anally probed them until they promised to vote for him.

i can't believe that he did that!

yeah i did hear something about that i also heard that he invented a time machine and brought republicans from the past in to vote for him
lol

yeah i did hear something about that i also heard that he invented a time machine and brought republicans from the past in to vote for him
lol
That's not quite right. The Democrats got people from back in time to vote for them, that's why so many of the dead ones voted.

Oh yes, I don't know if this made national news or not, but Michael Moore was in Cuyahoga County, which votes heavily Democratic, on election day and said he didn't see any fraud.

BTW: Cuyahoga County is Cleveland, for the rest of you.

There were Democrats everywhere handing out punch-ballots to everyone in those long ass lines here in Ohio. There were liberal celebrities all over the State talking about the evils of George W. Bush. Liberal lawyers were acting to keep Ohio polls open till late in the night. Who had the dominance where you voted?

I like the eloquent reference to the political situation in the article

“examining that messy sausage called American democracy”

LOL GREAT STUFF

It is a reference to a comment once made by Germany's 19th century chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, who noted there are two things people never want to see being made: sausage and law.

If you want to know why Kerry lost - here's a good start from an actual, credible news source:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1344943,00.html

Having worked professionally in politics for some time - I can personally vouch for the impact this type of stuff has on a campaign.

W.


That made me laugh, the British Press.

Us Brits have that one downside to us.

Like it or not, Bush actually won the popular vote. There are now officially more rednecks in America than thinkers.

Ahh a Mass. Liberal calling Southerners rednecks, what else is new? There is a reason we don't like y'all and this arrogance is it.

BTW, those crackheads and gubmint cheese folks are sure thinkers. :rolleyes:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/FrankAntenori/BushCountry04Map.jpg
2004 Election: county by county map


bush = red

read em and weep

exit polls mean nothing, i voted and no one asked me who i voted for does that mean my vote didnt count. no it means exit polls only asked certain people in certain places. DOES NOT GIVE AN ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE ELECTION AT ALL


It's simple really. Millions of Americans actually voted for John Kerry before they voted against him.

I am amused by the fact that you eternally stupid and easily decieved liberals continue to blame conservatives for all the scandalous actions that you yourselves participate in. It is also amusing that even given the numerous attempts to rig yet another election, you find yourselves in an even deeper hole to dig yourselves out of. Not only did your dead votes and felon votes not win you this election, they didn't even bring you close enough to try another hustle this year! There is a reason why there are no super powers anywhere else in the world, and it's because most of Europe is run by childish fools such as yourselves. Just stop crying and realize that yes, finally most of America has grown a brain and done the right thing, and finally, they see the liberals for what they are, liars, crybabies and cheaters.

^^,

It's simple really. Millions of Americans actually voted for John Kerry before they voted against him.

lol thats such a great comment
thanks i needed that laugh

Originally Posted by The Phoenix Milita
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ountry04Map.jpg

that map is beutiful shows Americas true colors and restored my faith back into this counrty that Americans will not vote for a complete moron

bush = red

read em and weep

You're and idiot, did it ever occur to you that some counties might actually have a higher population than other counties?

You're and idiot, did it ever occur to you that some counties might actually have a higher population than other counties?
Actually, you're and idiot, did it ever occur to you that those counties also have Republicans in them?

Same with Florida. I've heard rumor on various news channels that that hundreds of thousands of ballots were loaded up into vans then driven off.

I'll continue watching the news to see if more stories break on this.
minor minor minor problem with the "ballots loaded into vans and driven off" part. Florida voted almost entirely by electronic touch screen things. No ballots to load up and drive off.

I've seen at least three references to this websites article on the General forum today.

The article is wrong.

The exit polls are general samples, they don't interview everyone, they don't even interview half the people who vote. Whilst votes are 100% of those who voted properly.

I didn't get asked an exit poll when I mailed my abesntee ballot in.

My parents didn't get asked an exit poll when they left their white, middle class, suburban polling place.

The people on my floor didn't get asked who they voted for when they trundled out of the student union.

The only person I know who got in an exit poll was voting in a poor urban district in downtown columbus.

The exit polls are wrong.

The Exit polls also did not take into account the millions of people who voted early, either through early voting places, or absentee. Face it, Kerry lost!

George Bush did not win the election; the Democrats lost it. I say this as a Democrat, ex-military, card-carrying and proud of it Liberal. Our dear party has gone bankrupt on a solid, identifiable ideology, and we allowed ourselves to be duped into attempting to be "Republican-lite" in order to sway swing voters.

We should have just stuck to our traditional Party values and assailed attempts to characterize them as "un-American" or out of touch.

So no, Bush did not steal the election. Whatever the vote count, whatever the efforts at disenfranchisement, the outcome is the same. If we had a clear identity and a solid message, we would have (and should have) won this election be a landslide---particularly given the state of our economy and the status of the Iraq debacle.
So you think that Kerry wasn't liberal enough? Name one state Kerry lost because he wasn't liberal enough.

The election is over. Bush won. Kerry admitted it. Get over it. Move on. You'll survive.

your poll is biased in the first place. In order to have stolen another election, that assumes he stole the first one. :rolleyes:

This is funny. The great part is that the further wild left they go(the Dem Party) the more of their own members they are alienating in the middle of the country. The single biggest mistake in Kerry's campaign was getting musicians and Hollywood actors on stage, having them call Bush a thug,murderer,criminal, etc. then making the statement that they spoke for America...they do not speak for most Americans. It is actually funny that other than the Bay area in Cali, a state given up on by the Repubs, nearly every county in that state even was either won or close enough to be winnable by Bush.Looking at that map, with a knowledge of what lies in each of those counties, puts the belief that Dems are the "educated"somehow, to be a lie.The majority of Democrat support came from inner city areas...yes,the drug infested,high school dropout,high crime areas where most of the candidates would not even want to drive at night without their secret service protection.

The election is over. Bush won. Kerry admitted it. Get over it. Move on. You'll survive.
Semantics can be fun.

If I concede in a game of chess, it doesn't mean my opponent was the 'better man', nor that he won. I merely gave up.

Regardless of how the '04 election ultimately ends (since a concession isn't legally binding if the end numbers tally up differently), Bush did not win in 2000. The courts intervened, the proper process was not observed and adhered to. It's over, it's not worth fighting about this late, it's just the way it is.

And now.. 4 more years of Dubya. Clearly, there is no 'God'.

your poll is biased in the first place. In order to have stolen another election, that assumes he stole the first one. :rolleyes:

people who say bush stole the first election dont understand the way the American elcetion system work and should maybe go back to 9th grade government class

The American Republic is corrupted. You have to be rich to run. Large corporations fund political candidates. The world is very corrupt.
Note it is a Republic and not a Democracy. Oh......and if we are truly free, why do we have to go through the electorial college.....why doesn't the people vote direct(popular vote only)?

George Bush did not win the election; the Democrats lost it. I say this as a Democrat, ex-military, card-carrying and proud of it Liberal. Our dear party has gone bankrupt on a solid, identifiable ideology, and we allowed ourselves to be duped into attempting to be "Republican-lite" in order to sway swing voters.

We should have just stuck to our traditional Party values and assailed attempts to characterize them as "un-American" or out of touch.

So no, Bush did not steal the election. Whatever the vote count, whatever the efforts at disenfranchisement, the outcome is the same. If we had a clear identity and a solid message, we would have (and should have) won this election be a landslide---particularly given the state of our economy and the status of the Iraq debacle.
You do not really sound military.
Also, as a military man myself, I vote Republican because they do more for us, but my family in Ohio grew up Democrat,so I know what I am talking about with this next statement...the reason the Dems lost, and will always lose in Middle America UNTIL they get rid of the left fringe, is because they have moved too far left for even their own party in the middle of the country. My hometown mayor, a Dem, campaigned for Bush even.

You do not really sound military.
Also, as a military man myself, I vote Republican because they do more for us, but my family in Ohio grew up Democrat,so I know what I am talking about with this next statement...the reason the Dems lost, and will always lose in Middle America UNTIL they get rid of the left fringe, is because they have moved too far left for even their own party in the middle of the country. My hometown mayor, a Dem, campaigned for Bush even.
You ignorant hick! It has nothing to do with dems or repubs, this is about Kerry or Bush. And Bush shouldn't have won cause he's an ignorant hick.

Semantics can be fun.

If I concede in a game of chess, it doesn't mean my opponent was the 'better man', nor that he won. I merely gave up.

Regardless of how the '04 election ultimately ends (since a concession isn't legally binding if the end numbers tally up differently), Bush did not win in 2000. The courts intervened, the proper process was not observed and adhered to. It's over, it's not worth fighting about this late, it's just the way it is.

And now.. 4 more years of Dubya. Clearly, there is no 'God'.
Actually Bush won the recount in 2000 anyway, the court merely stepped in to say enough when the Dems wanted yet more recounts, and wanted to begin "interpreting"what the voters "meant" on improperly marked ballots.The Supreme court decided that the only way to do that was to ask the actual voters, and ballots do not come with names.Bush won in FLA despite throwing out 27,000 military votes, who vote 70% Republican.

Biggest load of **** I've ever seen... :headbang:

Amen to that!

You ignorant hick! It has nothing to do with dems or repubs, this is about Kerry or Bush. And Bush shouldn't have won cause he's an ignorant hick.
I am not an ignorant hick. I have more education most likely than you in classrooms, and certainly more than you in the world.

Bush should have won because he's smarter than kerry
What the hell are you talking about!? Bush has an IQ of 91, the lowest of any US president.

I am not an ignorant hick. I have more education most likely than you in classrooms, and certainly more than you in the world.

Ahh but if you are ignorant then who would you know? ;)

Where have you been Tak? Just curiosity mind you.....

You do not really sound military.
Also, as a military man myself, I vote Republican because they do more for us

very true, i am not in the military myself yet but i plna to be. i grew up around the military with my father being in the military since before i was born. Democrats generally want to downsize the millitary. clinton closed a few bases done and downsized the forces. republicans tend to treat the military better and also the families that are with the military.

I am not an ignorant hick. I have more education most likely than you in classrooms, and certainly more than you in the world.

Now honestly, look at his name. Why do you bother. He is clearly flamy and biased.

I am not an ignorant hick. I have more education most likely than you in classrooms, and certainly more than you in the world.
Now what are you talking about? You probably didn't even know that the capital of Turkmenistan is Ashgabat. And as for the classroom stuff, what the hell are you going on about?

What the hell are you talking about!? Bush has an IQ of 91, the lowest of any US president.
Looks like you have an IQ of 20, since you don't bother to do any fact checking:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

I am not an ignorant hick. I have more education most likely than you in classrooms, and certainly more than you in the world.

This is where it gets sad. People get so personal about such stupid things. I supported Kerry, but Bush won, I have to accept that. Sure, let the conspiracy sites arise, let the conspiracies be considered. But if you're going to flame someone for political views, I have no respect for you. And if you say you have a better education than someone you've never met who has different views than you, you're a fool.

Looks like you have an IQ of 20, since you don't bother to do any fact checking:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm
Maybe, young lady, but to say that Bush is smarter than kerry is nonsense.

What the hell are you talking about!? Bush has an IQ of 91, the lowest of any US president.
First, allow me to say you are hillarious. I did not say what you quoted, anywhere.
Second, Bush graduated Yale with a 3.6GPA...I am fairly certain you cannot get into Yale even, and probably cannot spell it..it is Y, then A, then L, then E :) Stop with the old B.S. about the IQs as that is a old disproven joke.

Maybe, young lady, but to say that Bush is smarter than kerry is nonsense.
Except for the fact that every IQ test they both took indicated Bush was smarter:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm
Now start thinking and stop believing.

This is where it gets sad. People get so personal about such stupid things. I supported Kerry, but Bush won, I have to accept that. Sure, let the conspiracy sites arise, let the conspiracies be considered. But if you're going to flame someone for political views, I have no respect for you. And if you say you have a better education than someone you've never met who has different views than you, you're a fool.

I have to confess to tossing the ignornat comment.

But I would have to explain that I would only use it for people that voted because of the gay marriage thing. If the Bush people voted for him because of the economy, terrorism, etc. I may disagree but I don't consider it ignornat.

This is where it gets sad. People get so personal about such stupid things. I supported Kerry, but Bush won, I have to accept that. Sure, let the conspiracy sites arise, let the conspiracies be considered. But if you're going to flame someone for political views, I have no respect for you. And if you say you have a better education than someone you've never met who has different views than you, you're a fool.
Actually if you bothered reading, it was this person flaming me, not the other way around. He decided that as I support Bush and am from Ohio, I am a hick.

First, allow me to say you are hillarious. I did not say what you quoted, anywhere.
Second, Bush graduated Yale with a 3.6GPA...I am fairly certain you cannot get into Yale even, and probably cannot spell it..it is Y, then A, then L, then E :) Stop with the old B.S. about the IQs as that is a old disproven joke.
I went to Cambridge university - why would I even consider Yale? That's Cambridge, England, by the way (E-N-G-L-A-N-D). Before you check, no england isn't a state of the USA.

I am not an ignorant hick. I have more education most likely than you in classrooms, and certainly more than you in the world.

Dude, stop and think about your situation here for a moment. You are having an argument about who is more intelligent, you or a Buttered Rectum?

Are you really sure you want to continue that discussion?

First, allow me to say you are hillarious. I did not say what you quoted, anywhere.
Second, Bush graduated Yale with a 3.6GPA...I am fairly certain you cannot get into Yale even, and probably cannot spell it..it is Y, then A, then L, then E :) Stop with the old B.S. about the IQs as that is a old disproven joke.


Well there are cases. I once dated a girl whose IQ was unmeasurable(what she saw in me I never knew ;) ).

She went to both Stanford and Yale and remarked there were stupid people there with big bank accounts.

She was not an arrogant person so I believed her.

As with anything there are exceptions.....

Ahh but if you are ignorant then who would you know? ;)

Where have you been Tak? Just curiosity mind you.....
Germany, Iraq, Korea,All over our country,and most of South America.

Dude, stop and think about your situation here for a moment. You are having an argument about who is more intelligent, you or a Buttered Rectum?

Are you really sure you want to continue that discussion?
Good point;) God been too long at this screen, getting itchy.

I went to Cambridge university - why would I even consider Yale? That's Cambridge, England, by the way (E-N-G-L-A-N-D). Before you check, no england isn't a state of the USA.
Ok, as I said you at least are funny. And I did know Brits like butter on everything they eat, but I have never tried rectums, and for the record, probably won't ;)
Edit:it is a joke, you all. I do have alot of British friends.

Nine mein Herr, I mean no Mister, Bush did not steal the elections. To state such a thing is treason. If you where in Moronicanistan I'd have you executed for saying that.

So speaks

Al-Moe Hailstonhamad

Nine mein Herr, I mean no Mister, Bush did not steal the elections. To state such a thing is treason. If you where in Moronicanistan I'd have you executed for saying that.

So speaks

Al-Moe Hailstonhamad
Think you meant "Nein mein Herr" :)

YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY!!!
You think Bush won?
You think Kerry won?

You are all WRONG

Micheal Bardnik is the president-elect and soon he will leagalize weed!!!
:gundge:

This is more lies from The Great Satan! Bush won, Kerry lost. Kerry is a Satan and the Great Satan controls him. All who voted for Kerry are worshipers of Satan and must be destroyed. So speakth me, Al-Moe Hailstonhamad, ruler of Moronicianistan!

No, you guys are silly. Palast has won multiple awards for his journalistic integrity. Clearly this story, just like his "proof" of Bush stealing the 2000 election, must be true.

:rolleyes:

Nine mein Herr, I mean no Mister, Bush did not steal the elections. To state such a thing is treason. If you where in Moronicanistan I'd have you executed for saying that.

So speaks

Al-Moe HailstonhamadNo, it's not treason. It may or may not be true, but it's not treason to say it.

Bush was elected in 2000 by the Supreme Court - and Gore lost.
Bush was elected in 2004 by a majority of the popular vote, and a majority of the electoral vote - and Kerry lost.

Saddly, we are stuck with this nitwit for another 4 years.

No, it's not treason. It may or may not be true, but it's not treason to say it.

Bush was elected in 2000 by the Supreme Court - and Gore lost.
Bush was elected in 2004 by a majority of the popular vote, and a majority of the electoral vote - and Kerry lost.

Saddly, we are stuck with this nitwit for another 4 years.
He was elected by the electoral college.

Germany, Iraq, Korea,All over our country,and most of South America.

Cool a fellow All Stater. Been to all 50 myself. Almost born in Korea. Dad was going to ship out but his CO didn't like the idea of Americans being born offshore(strange).

South America? For the military or personal? Only made it through Mexico myself.

Germany and Iraq. I understand the obvious reasons. ;)

What did you say you did for the service?

He was elected by the electoral college.


No, it's not treason. It may or may not be true, but it's not treason to say it.

Bush was elected in 2000 by the Supreme Court - and Gore lost.
Bush was elected in 2004 by a majority of the popular vote, and a majority of the electoral vote - and Kerry lost.

Saddly, we are stuck with this nitwit for another 4 years.Read what I wrote. My point is that he WAS elected this time by the popular vote and the electoral vote (interestingly - the electoral college has NOT YET cast it's votes - but at this point, it's almost nothing but a formality) - and I find it very sad that the United States is stuck with him and his cronies for another four years.

Nah. 2000 was illegitimate, but this year Bush won fair and square. I don't like it but I do have to accept it.

Read what I wrote. My point is that he WAS elected this time by the popular vote and the electoral vote (interestingly - the electoral college has NOT YET cast it's votes - but at this point, it's almost nothing but a formality) - and I find it very sad that the United States is stuck with him and his cronies for another four years.
I was talking about 2000, not 2004.

He was elected by the electoral college.
The electoral college IS the electoral vote. And he was victorious by a wide margin in popular vote as well, though you were correct in stating he was not elected by popular vote, he was elected by electoral vote.

The electoral college IS the electoral vote. And he was victorious by a wide margin in popular vote as well, though you were correct in stating he was not elected by popular vote, he was elected by electoral vote.
Read my post above.

Except for the fact that every IQ test they both took indicated Bush was smarter:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm
Now start thinking and stop believing.
what a bunch of crap

Cool a fellow All Stater. Been to all 50 myself. Almost born in Korea. Dad was going to ship out but his CO didn't like the idea of Americans being born offshore(strange).

South America? For the military or personal? Only made it through Mexico myself.

Germany and Iraq. I understand the obvious reasons. ;)

What did you say you did for the service?
:) The only state I have not stepped foot in so far is Maine, and I will do that sometime. South America was for the military first, and a later trip for personal reasons.
I am a captain right now with 2-8 Inf, 2d Bd 4ID.

Im sad to say it but Bush is still pres. At least he won this time. Spoiled votes you say? if so, i doubt there was enough to have to much of an effect anyway. Well just have to accept democracy. However, if Bush "won" the same way he did in 2,000 i bet people would be shooting at the white house with RPGs and screaming "SECRECTS AND LIES!" Nuclear civil war would then ensue...most likely with the most of the military following bush his side will win and then they would establish him as "President for life" for his out standing put down of the "anti american" rebellion.
Wouldnt that be just peachy :)

Yeah, I heard there were like 2 million spoiled votes in California.

You mean Bush might have actually won that state? Wow, that IS crazy...

Read my post above.
Gotcha :) Yes, the old "elected by Supreme Court"argument is getting tiring, as it also proves the person using it has no knowledge of the system.

very true, i am not in the military myself yet but i plna to be. i grew up around the military with my father being in the military since before i was born. Democrats generally want to downsize the millitary. clinton closed a few bases done and downsized the forces. republicans tend to treat the military better and also the families that are with the military.The Base Closures started with Reagan, I believe. They are the result of an on-going Quadienial (sp? means "every 4 years") Review of the entire Military that was ordered by Congress. BRAC (Base Reduction and Closure) was part of the trend towards smaller forces (all services) that began with the end of the cold war. It just made sense to close bases that weren't being used (or could be consolidated) and reduce the size of others. The big issue with BRAC is NOT saving money by closing or downsizing military bases that aren't needed. It's that ALL Senators and Congressmen are in favor of closing/reducing bases - EXCEPT for any that are in THEIR district/state.

Of course, it might make more sense to bring our servicemen and servicewomen home to these bases, and close the ones we have overseas...

You mean Bush might have actually won that state? Wow, that IS crazy...
If San Fran area were not there, Bush actually may have won...he won the majority of the state counties, including the large counties in Southern Cal with the exception of inner Los Angeles city.Very impressive actually for a state the Republicans did not advertise much in, and basically conceded early. I think that might change how they view Cali next election.

:) The only state I have not stepped foot in so far is Maine, and I will do that sometime. South America was for the military first, and a later trip for personal reasons.
I am a captain right now with 2-8 Inf, 2d Bd 4ID.

Ok!

Well I am sure you don't hear it enough. Especially from the democrat minded people! But I do thank you for your service!

I am a Massachusets Liberal, and even I am not convinced by that article.

As much as I would like it to be true, the evidence is so flimsy it is not even worth considering. Exit Polls are not a perfect indication of how the vote went. Plus the article fails to explain why "spoiled' votes would most likely be democrat votes.

Like it or not, Bush actually won the popular vote. There are now officially more rednecks in America than thinkers.

This is the best explination i can see. The Democrats did leave their party values and got hammered for it. I do believe that Dubya's influence has made the country stupider, but if Democrats did good, Kerry would have won. Of course if things were right in 2000 it would be Gore running for reelection. George W. stole the first election so that makes the second one stolen too. I will be determined to dwell in the past...

The Base Closures started with Reagan, I believe. They are the result of an on-going Quadienial (sp? means "every 4 years") Review of the entire Military that was ordered by Congress. BRAC (Base Reduction and Closure) was part of the trend towards smaller forces (all services) that began with the end of the cold war. It just made sense to close bases that weren't being used (or could be consolidated) and reduce the size of others. The big issue with BRAC is NOT saving money by closing or downsizing military bases that aren't needed. It's that ALL Senators and Congressmen are in favor of closing/reducing bases - EXCEPT for any that are in THEIR district/state.

Of course, it might make more sense to bring our servicemen and servicewomen home to these bases, and close the ones we have overseas...
Yes, it would make alot of sense to bring troops back to these bases, except our "allies" put up a tremendous amount of pressure to leave them open, as it saves them the cost of actually defending themselves, and the bases bring in alot of hard currency to the areas in question...which is an even better reason to save the bases here rather than the bases there.

"Like it or not, Bush actually won the popular vote. There are now officially more rednecks in America than thinkers."

lol...that is by far the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

and to everyone who believes the conspiracy theory...your denial is beautiful.

4 More Years!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

If San Fran area were not there, Bush actually may have won...he won the majority of the state counties, including the large counties in Southern Cal with the exception of inner Los Angeles city.Very impressive actually for a state the Republicans did not advertise much in, and basically conceded early. I think that might change how they view Cali next election.

Don't know. It could happen but California has always been the golden fleece for the Republicans. The Bay area probably will never be cracked. Business in the Sillicon Valley is different in it's approach to the rest of the country.

How many office settings have you seen allow torn jeans? ;)

Not too many Republican candidates spend too much time here.

Never mind the fact that Arnie campaigned to remove 12 Democrats from down south and failed.

We are not the same as the rest of the country. Kind of screwy at times ;)

"Like it or not, Bush actually won the popular vote. There are now officially more rednecks in America than thinkers."

lol...that is by far the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

and to everyone who believes the conspiracy theory...your denial is beautiful.

4 More Years!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Shut up Karl Rove! We know who you are! :p

The real problem with that article is that I don't know where that limey got his facts. You see, his exit poll results are just plain wrong. CNN, at least, disagreed.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/epolls.0.html

Their results show Bush leading 52% - 47% among males in Ohio, and tying 50% - 50% among women. Therefore, their numbers would be a more accurate reflection, since Bush won by about 130,000 votes.


Next time you quote some moron with a website, make sure his facts aren't trumped up BS.

Gotcha :) Yes, the old "elected by Supreme Court"argument is getting tiring, as it also proves the person using it has no knowledge of the system.hehehehehe...you're funny...

The Supreme Court rendered a decision NOT to allow a delay long enough to determine which of the many uncounted votes in Florida were valid, and then count them. This action resulted in those votes not being counted. We will never know what the result would have been if the delay, and subsequent determination of validity and counting of those determined valid, would have been. It might have made no difference, and Bush might still have won Florida and thereby the Electoral College vote. Or, it might have resulted in a win for Gore in Florida, which would have meant Gore would have won the Electoral College vote.

We won't know. We can't know. And so, because of the vote in the Supreme Court, those votes were never/will never be looked at. And Bush won the election by the vote of the Supreme Court to deny the delay that would have been required to examine those ballots, and count the valid ones.

4 More Years!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

What a sense of humor. You'll die laughing, no doubt. In Iraq. <_<

Yes, it would make alot of sense to bring troops back to these bases, except our "allies" put up a tremendous amount of pressure to leave them open, as it saves them the cost of actually defending themselves, and the bases bring in alot of hard currency to the areas in question...which is an even better reason to save the bases here rather than the bases there.Exactly my point.

hehehehehe...you're funny...

The Supreme Court rendered a decision NOT to allow a delay long enough to determine which of the many uncounted votes in Florida were valid, and then count them. This action resulted in those votes not being counted. We will never know what the result would have been if the delay, and subsequent determination of validity and counting of those determined valid, would have been. It might have made no difference, and Bush might still have won Florida and thereby the Electoral College vote. Or, it might have resulted in a win for Gore in Florida, which would have meant Gore would have won the Electoral College vote.

We won't know. We can't know. And so, because of the vote in the Supreme Court, those votes were never/will never be looked at. And Bush won the election by the vote of the Supreme Court to deny the delay that would have been required to examine those ballots, and count the valid ones.
No, we do know now. Independent examinations of the votes have shown that, unless very lenient counting methods which wouldn't have been used anyway, Bush would have won the recount.

hehehehehe...you're funny...

The Supreme Court rendered a decision NOT to allow a delay long enough to determine which of the many uncounted votes in Florida were valid, and then count them. This action resulted in those votes not being counted. We will never know what the result would have been if the delay, and subsequent determination of validity and counting of those determined valid, would have been. It might have made no difference, and Bush might still have won Florida and thereby the Electoral College vote. Or, it might have resulted in a win for Gore in Florida, which would have meant Gore would have won the Electoral College vote.

We won't know. We can't know. And so, because of the vote in the Supreme Court, those votes were never/will never be looked at. And Bush won the election by the vote of the Supreme Court to deny the delay that would have been required to examine those ballots, and count the valid ones.
Actually several Florida newspapers did sponsor a recount, which Bush still won by 537 votes I believe, after the Supreme Court decision.(so it was a non binding recount, which by the papers' reps, they still probably were hoping to use to embarass Bush)
That all said, there were hundreds of votes from long deceased dems for Gore in th at state, which were uncovered in the February 2001 Miami newspaper as well. And the fact that they did not allow the votes of some 27,000 military(70% Republican) to be counted from FLA because of a problem with the time of their arrival(admitted even it was a postal service screwup,but still did not count the votes)

No, we do know now. Independent examinations of the votes have shown that, unless very lenient counting methods which wouldn't have been used anyway, Bush would have won the recount.Who selected the independent examiners? How soon did they get to see the ballots in question? How many went missing before they got to see them? What is meant by "very lenient counting methods"?

The Supreme Court should have allowed the delay. THEN we would know. Now, we can only guess.

Bush won, kerry lost. end of story. You can be stubborn and make up conspiracy theories all you like, fact remains that kerry is not in office, nor is he likely to ever be.

What a sense of humor. You'll die laughing, no doubt. In Iraq. <_<
Spoken like the voce of someone who knows nothing but what they are told by the latest liberal media. Do you realize your country , France, and Germany are trying now very hard to make friends with the US administration again, after betting on the wrong horse?

Who selected the independent examiners? How soon did they get to see the ballots in question? How many went missing before they got to see them? What is meant by "very lenient counting methods"?

The Supreme Court should have allowed the delay. THEN we would know. Now, we can only guess.
"very lenient" was because the independent verifiers were actually media types HOPING to show a Bush loss. Anything they could use, they did, even unclear choices where an indentation was made on the ballot,assuming that the person MAY have voted for him(Gore)

Welcome to another four years of unsubstantiated garbage towards the president. :rolleyes:

Actually several Florida newspapers did sponsor a recount, which Bush still won by 537 votes I believe, after the Supreme Court decision.(so it was a non binding recount, which by the papers' reps, they still probably were hoping to use to embarass Bush)
That all said, there were hundreds of votes from long deceased dems for Gore in th at state, which were uncovered in the February 2001 Miami newspaper as well. And the fact that they did not allow the votes of some 27,000 military(70% Republican) to be counted from FLA because of a problem with the time of their arrival(admitted even it was a postal service screwup,but still did not count the votes)
A recount of ballots, based on whatever ballots they were allowed to see/count, is not quite the same as allowing the voting officials the time to determine the validity of questioned votes and then count those determined valid. Assuming that 70% of the military absentee ballots were for the Republican candidate is also not the same as counting them (I'm a Democrate, still in the military (28 years, thank you), and have cast absentee ballots) those absentee ballots should have been counted, too.

The bottom line, for me, still remains this - The Supreme Court voted to stop the counting of the ballots based on some screwy provision of Florida state law about timing - when it was still WEEKS away from when the Electoral College would vote to officially elect the President.

The Court should have allowed all those un-counted ballots to be counted.

George Bush did not win the election; the Democrats lost it. I say this as a Democrat, ex-military, card-carrying and proud of it Liberal. Our dear party has gone bankrupt on a solid, identifiable ideology, and we allowed ourselves to be duped into attempting to be "Republican-lite" in order to sway swing voters.

We should have just stuck to our traditional Party values and assailed attempts to characterize them as "un-American" or out of touch.

So no, Bush did not steal the election. Whatever the vote count, whatever the efforts at disenfranchisement, the outcome is the same. If we had a clear identity and a solid message, we would have (and should have) won this election be a landslide---particularly given the state of our economy and the status of the Iraq debacle.

If democrats lose and the third parties lose that means Rebpulicans win you f*cking idiot

Welcome to another four years of unsubstantiated garbage towards the president. :rolleyes:

It is sad how b*tchy the democrats are when they lose
GET A GRIP

Who selected the independent examiners? How soon did they get to see the ballots in question? How many went missing before they got to see them? What is meant by "very lenient counting methods"?

The Supreme Court should have allowed the delay. THEN we would know. Now, we can only guess.
Very lenient methods meaning the "dimpled chad" method which had no way of verification without contacting the original voter, which of course can not be tracked down. They were working for the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.

It examined every ballot and came up with the same conclusion if the method used was that most state recounters would have, Bush would have won by 493 votes statewide. They also said that if they did the four-county, all heavy democratic, recount Bush would still win. 2,200 problem ballots could not be delivered, but with 99% of the rejected ones recounted it should give you a pretty clear picture.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

A recount of ballots, based on whatever ballots they were allowed to see/count, is not quite the same as allowing the voting officials the time to determine the validity of questioned votes and then count those determined valid. Assuming that 70% of the military absentee ballots were for the Republican candidate is also not the same as counting them (I'm a Democrate, still in the military (28 years, thank you), and have cast absentee ballots) those absentee ballots should have been counted, too.

The bottom line, for me, still remains this - The Supreme Court voted to stop the counting of the ballots based on some screwy provision of Florida state law about timing - when it was still WEEKS away from when the Electoral College would vote to officially elect the President.

The Court should have allowed all those un-counted ballots to be counted.
I actually do agree with you they should have, my point is that it would have not changed anything, except at least given us 4 less years of"Bush stole the election".
For your service, thanks. You would be only the 4th or 5th Democrat I know in the military :)What branch might I ask?

Here are the REAL facts:
http://www.270towin.com/

Bush won, kerry lost. end of story. You can be stubborn and make up conspiracy theories all you like, fact remains that kerry is not in office, nor is he likely to ever be.Well, depends on what office you're talking about. He is still a US Senator - which is an office.

But...it is true, Bush won and Kerry lost.

And, it is sad.

And as far as being stubborn and making up conspiracy theories -

1. What happened to the much vaunted Republican value of not flip-flopping?

2. What conspiracy? I'm saying the Supreme Court stopped votes from being counted in Florida in 2000. The record shows that to be fact.

Very lenient methods meaning the "dimpled chad" method which had no way of verification without contacting the original voter, which of course can not be tracked down. They were working for the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.

It examined every ballot and came up with the same conclusion if the method used was that most state recounters would have, Bush would have won by 493 votes statewide. They also said that if they did the four-county, all heavy democratic, recount Bush would still win. 2,200 problem ballots could not be delivered, but with 99% of the rejected ones recounted it should give you a pretty clear picture.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
Thanks for that, I was trying to go by memory on the numbers, but yes,just like Ohio this year...Kerry conceded because the ballots that might be questioned, numbered fewer than the votes he was trailing by...counting 99% of the votes, especially in the heavy Dem areas, still left Bush with enough lead that the Dems were not going to recover in the Repub areas and 1% of those.

It is sad how b*tchy the democrats are when they lose
GET A GRIP

THANK GOD! SOMWEONE WHO SHARES MY OPINION! Being a Republican in Massachusetts, I have gotten one chair over the head, 2 pens stabbed into my leg (those hurt like hell), and a death threat form a martial arts "master". (he knocked me over with one hand, I won't piss him off). Not just b*tchy, but plain as day violent. However, since this is the last term for Bush, he is definetly pulling out all the stops. From what I've heard on the news, he is planning "Operation Whoopass"

I think that bush did not steal the election by forme in 2004 because so many peole vote for the incumbent because it is basic, but the other election in 2o000 belonged ito gore and gore alone. I love AL Gorwe when people call him the prisedent I want to do the happy dance (oh yeah!!) Al gore is one of the best vice prisendent in history and one of the bewst people in history. I wish al gore was incharge of the country right now instead of dick chaney. Becaause dick is a dick. In other news All gore is one of the best people in the world and I can not see what I am typing because I have a really bad moniter that does not capture detail in any way. I think that sucks and really blows. !!!

This is a offical message of the Dictatorshi;p of Haryandian and I approve this message.
H Hill

Thanks for the article... i haven't laughed that hard in weeks! I wonder what color the sky is on his planet?

Better be careful, though... the black helicopters might come and get him.

I actually do agree with you they should have, my point is that it would have not changed anything, except at least given us 4 less years of"Bush stole the election".
For your service, thanks. You would be only the 4th or 5th Democrat I know in the military :)What branch might I ask?Army - and, you know, just because you only know 4 or 5 Democrats in the service, doesn't mean they're the only ones. (joke, there). The military is a weird place. The high ranking officers are basically almost all Republican (from where I stand), and loud about it. To contradict a superior officer is NOT a really good idea in the military - so, those of us who are Democrats are quiet Democrats.

I will grant you, sometimes it seems like about 98% of the military is Republican.

I hope all Bush voters are happy when they get called up to fight the War on Islam.

It is sad how b*tchy the democrats are when they lose
GET A GRIP

Sad? The only reason we wouldn't be bitchy, as you say, would be if we didn't care who won. However, we think the party that controls the executive and legislative branches of government makes a difference in the future heath, well being, and direction of the nation. So, yes, we are disappointed, frustrated, angry, and bitchy, just as I imagine Republicans would be if the election had gone a couple of percentage points in the other direction.

I am tired of people who think that less than a week after the most devisive election in recent history we should all cross the isle and sing kumbaiya with people who continue to call us unpatriotic and anti-American because of our philosophical and political beliefs.

If bringing an end to nasty partisanship is so important to you how about being gracious winners and taking the first step to heal the rift by acknowledging that liberal Democrats are every bit as moral and love our country every bit as much as conservative Republicans, even though we disagree with you about the war in Iraq, gay rights, abortion, civil rights, and the environment.

Are you able to take that step and disagree without being disagreeable?

I hope all Bush voters are happy when they get called up to fight the War on Islam.
There is no draft, there will be no draft, the military does not want or need a draft, and the only attempt recently at one was by DEMOCRATS in congress, and even they were not serious, they were playing politics.
That said, there is also no war on Islam, there is a war on people who murder civilians in the name of Islam, and against their OWN religion.

There is no draft, there will be no draft, the military does not want or need a draft, and the only attempt recently at one was by DEMOCRATS in congress, and even they were not serious, they were playing politics.
That said, there is also no war on Islam, there is a war on people who murder civilians in the name of Islam, and against their OWN religion.

Question then:

Let's say the President is on a crusade and wants to attack Syria or Iran.

Don't you need more soldiers to at least police Iraq while the combat troops are engaged?

Semantics can be fun.


Regardless of how the '04 election ultimately ends (since a concession isn't legally binding if the end numbers tally up differently), Bush did not win in 2000. The courts intervened, the proper process was not observed and adhered to. It's over, it's not worth fighting about this late, it's just the way it is.

.

You do realize that three news organizations went into Florida in 2001 and hand counted the ballots in each of the ways proscribed by each campaign in the courts, right? Bush won all of those media recounts. The method didn't matter. For the record, the newspapers were, USA Today, The New York Times, and The Miami Herald. None of the three papers are fans of the president.

If you really think an editorial based solely on cojecture, exit polls that were acknowleged to have been flawed by the pollster in calls it placed to the news networks which paid for them on election afternoon, and posted to the personal website of a guy linking to such unbiased and non-partisan websites like Michael Moore's, Arianna Huffington's, and the ubiquitous Bushwhacked.com, is the arbiter of truth here, I seriously question your ability to tie your own shoes, let alone think critically.

The following website might help you deal with your emotions:

http://www.kleenex.com

:D

Army - and, you know, just because you only know 4 or 5 Democrats in the service, doesn't mean they're the only ones. (joke, there). The military is a weird place. The high ranking officers are basically almost all Republican (from where I stand), and loud about it. To contradict a superior officer is NOT a really good idea in the military - so, those of us who are Democrats are quiet Democrats.

I will grant you, sometimes it seems like about 98% of the military is Republican.
I would hope that you and other enlisted would not feel compelled to be silent Dems. One of the Dems I know by the way is a 1st Lt ,who voted Kerry he said so Bush wouldn't get a sweep of the military votes...I didn't give him a hard time about it,just joked with him.

Question then:

Let's say the President is on a crusade and wants to attack Syria or Iran.

Don't you need more soldiers to at least police Iraq while the combat troops are engaged?
There is no officer I know who wants to command troops who don't want to be there. Also, your argument is pretty much the reason why we WONT go after Syria or Iran, while still tied in Iraq,although we are more than capable of fighting a defensive war against an aggressor anywhere in the world still(defense takes fewer men, and is basically conducted on the cheap, easier)

So you think that Kerry wasn't liberal enough? Name one state Kerry lost because he wasn't liberal enough.

Liberal enough? Not my point, actually. He was not enough of a Democrat to properly energize the electorate. This is not Kerry's fault alone, of course; it is endemic to the national party. To be a Liberal, you must value the rights of the individual over that of the many, and must be willing to insist that your government take care of its citizens before it provides for business interests. This is the clear dividing line between Liberal and Conservative, Republican and Democratic ideology.

Senator Kerry attempted to come out pro-defense (i.e., supporting the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive military action) and pro-tax reduction (i.e., wanting to give it to the bottom 90% of the tax base.) The problem is that both of those ideas are counter-productive to U.S. interests (in the long run) and both are Republican, conservative mantras (however misguided they may be.)

The Bush Doctrine will lead to alienation from allies and increased global hostility toward the U.S.. It will lead to more---not less---terrorism against U.S. interest domestically and abroad.

Wide-scale tax reduction is great for securing votes, but is harmful unless combined with very disciplined governmental spending. To do otherwise creates a cumulative deficit, and places a mortgage on our children's future earnings.

Liberals are correct in our focus on the government's role in society, and we should stop apologizing for it or trying to explain it away. The conservatives "family values" mantra will lose steam soon enough, and they will have to figure out another way to distract the generel population from issues which really affect their lives.

I am amused by the fact that you eternally stupid and easily decieved liberals continue to blame conservatives for all the scandalous actions that you yourselves participate in. It is also amusing that even given the numerous attempts to rig yet another election, you find yourselves in an even deeper hole to dig yourselves out of. Not only did your dead votes and felon votes not win you this election, they didn't even bring you close enough to try another hustle this year! There is a reason why there are no super powers anywhere else in the world, and it's because most of Europe is run by childish fools such as yourselves. Just stop crying and realize that yes, finally most of America has grown a brain and done the right thing, and finally, they see the liberals for what they are, liars, crybabies and cheaters.
^^,

Illyan, STOP FLAMING. This is a warning.

Sad? The only reason we wouldn't be bitchy, as you say, would be if we didn't care who won. However, we think the party that controls the executive and legislative branches of government makes a difference in the future heath, well being, and direction of the nation. So, yes, we are disappointed, frustrated, angry, and bitchy, just as I imagine Republicans would be if the election had gone a couple of percentage points in the other direction.

I am tired of people who think that less than a week after the most devisive election in recent history we should all cross the isle and sing kumbaiya with people who continue to call us unpatriotic and anti-American because of our philosophical and political beliefs.

If bringing an end to nasty partisanship is so important to you how about being gracious winners and taking the first step to heal the rift by acknowledging that liberal Democrats are every bit as moral and love our country every bit as much as conservative Republicans, even though we disagree with you about the war in Iraq, gay rights, abortion, civil rights, and the environment.

Are you able to take that step and disagree without being disagreeable?
As someone who comes from a long family of Democrats, I do not look on them as unpatriotic. The only ones I look at in that way are their far left, people such as M Moore who are willing to use lies, and cause danger to the lives of American troops in harms way,by aiding and abetting the enemy...which basically is the same as treason once taken to an extreme.
That said, most Dems I do know, are quite patriotic still...that was the reason for my earlier statement that the national Dem Party is actually alienating those Dems with the heavy left slant lately...nearly every Dem I know, from back home, voted Bush because the national party was leanin too far left, and had become unrecognizable from the party of John Kennedy etc.

Liberal enough? Not my point, actually. He was not enough of a Democrat to properly energize the electorate. This is not Kerry's fault alone, of course; it is endemic to the national party. To be a Liberal, you must value the rights of the individual over that of the many, and must be willing to insist that your government take care of its citizens before it provides for business interests. This is the clear dividing line between Liberal and Conservative, Republican and Democratic ideology.

Senator Kerry attempted to come out pro-defense (i.e., supporting the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive military action) and pro-tax reduction (i.e., wanting to give it to the bottom 90% of the tax base.) The problem is that both of those ideas are counter-productive to U.S. interests (in the long run) and both are Republican, conservative mantras (however misguided they may be.)

The Bush Doctrine will lead to alienation from allies and increased global hostility toward the U.S.. It will lead to more---not less---terrorism against U.S. interest domestically and abroad.

Wide-scale tax reduction is great for securing votes, but is harmful unless combined with very disciplined governmental spending. To do otherwise creates a cumulative deficit, and places a mortgage on our children's future earnings.

Liberals are correct in our focus on the government's role in society, and we should stop apologizing for it or trying to explain it away. The conservatives "family values" mantra will lose steam soon enough, and they will have to figure out another way to distract the generel population from issues which really affect their lives.

Well said, indeed. Real Democrats would like to have a substantive discussion about how much money the U.S., the world's only superpower, needs to spend on its military to be secure. The proposed U.S. military budget for 2005 is $420.7 Billion. To put that into perspective:

The US military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's.

The US military budget is more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.

The US military budget is more than 29 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.4 billion.

It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty three nations.

Well said, indeed. Real Democrats would like to have a substantive discussion about how much money the U.S., the world's only superpower, needs to spend on its military to be secure. The proposed U.S. military budget for 2005 is $20.7 Billion. To put that into perspective:

The US military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's.

The US military budget is more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.

The US military budget is more than 29 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.4 billion.

It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty three nations.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Your "figures" mean nothing. Compare them as percentages of the total budgets of those countries. Or as a percentage of GDP. Of course the US spends more in flat amounts, we're a bigger nation than all those (probably combined) and have the most advanced (hence more expensive) equipment.

You provide no "perspective" at all.

Well said, indeed. Real Democrats would like to have a substantive discussion about how much money the U.S., the world's only superpower, needs to spend on its military to be secure. The proposed U.S. military budget for 2005 is $20.7 Billion. To put that into perspective:

The US military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's.

The US military budget is more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.

The US military budget is more than 29 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.4 billion.

It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty three nations.
A few points...Your math cannot be right in both the US budget and the 29 times the seven rogue states, 29 times 14.4 would be much higher than 20.7.
That said, I actually agree in a way, the military should cut out much of the admin type functions, and focus on the warfighting force. This would save money,as well as the fact congressmen from many states insist on forcing the military to buy weapon systems made in their areas, even when the military states it does not need or want said system.
There are things we do still need,but much of what usually is given,is not really what we want or need.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Your "figures" mean nothing. Compare them as percentages of the total budgets of those countries. Or as a percentage of GDP. Of course the US spends more in flat amounts, we're a bigger nation than all those (probably combined) and have the most advanced (hence more expensive) equipment.

You provide no "perspective" at all.
Yes, those figures do not account for the technologies, all expensive, that we use, in order to minimize casualties.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Your "figures" mean nothing. Compare them as percentages of the total budgets of those countries. Or as a percentage of GDP. Of course the US spends more in flat amounts, we're a bigger nation than all those (probably combined) and have the most advanced (hence more expensive) equipment.

You provide no "perspective" at all.

Hmmm. How exactly is the percentage of GDP or even the percentage of the total budget relative to the discussion of how much military the U.S. needs? If a nation has a total budget of $10 billion and spends 100% of it on its military does it make it stronger than the U.S., even if our $420 billion military spending represented a tiny fraction of our budget?

The question remains, without a superpower rival, does the U.S. need to spend $420 billion (it goes up every year) on our military?

A few points...Your math cannot be right in both the US budget and the 29 times the seven rogue states, 29 times 14.4 would be much higher than 20.7.
That said, I actually agree in a way, the military should cut out much of the admin type functions, and focus on the warfighting force. This would save money,as well as the fact congressmen from many states insist on forcing the military to buy weapon systems made in their areas, even when the military states it does not need or want said system.
There are things we do still need,but much of what usually is given,is not really what we want or need.


TYPO The proposed U.S. military budget for 2005 is $420.7 Billion

TYPO The proposed U.S. military budget for 2005 is $420.7 Billion
Ok,that makes more sense.
Note that we do trade money for lives, by which I mean many things...more training,better tech,etc, all of which are expensive,but save lives in battle.
I would rather save those lives than say "well then,we wont go to battle" as it is not the deciders whose lives are on the line,and presidents of both parties are always willing to send us in.

I'd say that one of the most telling aspects of the article, without even looking at any outside information, is that, on two separate occasions, the author refers to his own predictions of what would happen during the election. So basically, he predicted what he thought would happen before the fact, then confirms his own opinions after the fact. :rolleyes:

BTW, where'd you get those figures, Ogiek?

BTW, where'd you get those figures, Ogiek?

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

Interestingly enough we have gone from $288 billion in 2000 to $420 billion in 2005. Yes, there is a "war on terrorism" (don't get me started on the silliness of fighting a war against a tactic), but terrorism is low tech asymetrical warfare that is not offset by greater spending or technology.

However, we can't have this public discussion because the first time a Democrat even hints that maybe Eisenhower was right about the military-industrial complex and perhaps there should be a limit on what we spend on the military the rabid right-wing will gear up its Democrats-hate-America blitz and that will be the end of the discussion.

Ok, well it has been fun everyone. No hard feelings I hope. Alas, my free time has come to an untimely demise:(

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

Interestingly enough we have gone from $288 billion in 2000 to $420 billion in 2005. Yes, there is a "war on terrorism" (don't get me started on the silliness of fighting a war against a tactic), but terrorism is low tech asymetrical warfare that is not offset by greater spending or technology.

However, we can't have this public discussion because the first time a Democrat even hints that maybe Eisenhower was right about the military-industrial complex and perhaps there should be a limit on what we spend on the military the rabid right-wing will gear up its Democrats-hate-America blitz and that will be the end of the discussion.
A parting note...you hit the nail on the head, but I know you know Eisenhower was a Republican and a general as well.That said, it is the industrial part of the military industrial complex that needs work...but the people who oversee it usually end up as part of the game themselves.
Anyway,pleasure talking with you.

A parting note...you hit the nail on the head, but I know you know Eisenhower was a Republican and a general as well.That said, it is the industrial part of the military industrial complex that needs work...but the people who oversee it usually end up as part of the game themselves.
Anyway,pleasure talking with you.

Be well, Takrai. Enjoy the weekend.

What the hell are you talking about!? Bush has an IQ of 91, the lowest of any US president.


And Kerry's was lower, According to his unavailabel military record that he supposedly made public to the nation
:sniper:
sniping more holes in the web of lyes that man told

Don't believe everything you read. Exit polls are and always have been slightly inaccurate, especially in states as divided as Ohio. Why? Because they don't ask every single person. I'd guess around a quarter, maybe even half.

Kerry lost because not many people voted for him. A whole lot of people marked Kerry on the ballot, but the vast majority were voting against Bush rather than for Kerry. Thankfully, most people realize that a man who can't decide where he stands (look at his congressional voting record and see what I mean) would be a far worse leader than a man who does, even if they don't agree with him. I seriously considered voting for Kerry, but after some research, I came to the conclusion that the United States would be in far worse shape in 2008 than it is in 2004 if Kerry were elected. The same may be true for Bush, but I feel safe in my belief that he's the better of two bad choices.

I think Douglas Adams said i best in his infamous trilogy in five books The Hithchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "Anyone who has the means to become President, should under no circumstances be allowed to do so."
Unfortunately, we've had eight years of this. Neither Gore nor Bush were good choices, and Bush proved why he wasn't a good choice here (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=facts), and this election, our choices were Bush and Kerry, but given Bush's record of screwing everything up, I voted for Kerry (he literally couldn't do worse). Maybe if there was an option "No", thereby forcing the parties to pick better candidates. I don't think it would work anyway, as too many people would be all "OMFG n00b, Bush/Kerry r0x0rz" despite any and all evidence to the contrary.

It grows depressing when you see enormous lies continuously propagated beyond whatever facts you stand in their way. I cannot really say anything that has not been said already, but I will give one attempt to summarize the arguments I consider most critical.
2004 Election: Exit polls are not gospel. No poll is completely accurate unless it surveys the everyone. There have been no substantiated reports of disenfranchisement. Occasional errors have been found in the electronic voting but have been immediately corrected. Bush obviously won the election. No ifs, ands, or buts.
2000 Election: Bush won. No witnesses were found who could testify to disenfranchisement. Florida law at that time set a final date for recounts, and the Democrats wished to exceed that and violate that state's laws. Thus, the Supreme Court was correct in ordering the cessation of excessive recounts. In any case, studies done by various media organizations, some with a known liberal bias, have found that Bush would have won anyway.

Bush won both elections, fair and square. Do not spout any more garbage regarding such foolish myths.
Some of the junk that I have to hear is really starting to vex me. Verify your 'facts' before presenting them.

Like it or not, Bush actually won the popular vote. There are now officially more rednecks in America than thinkers.



NOt a fan of that comment there man. I happen to be a Bush voter, and I am not a blind follower. I don't believe in everything that Bush has done is good, but he was better than Kerry. Nor am I a redneck, I am an Ohio resident with a solid suburban upper middle class background. I went to one of the best high schools in the state and was accepted into Ivy league. I am going to a state school for monetary reasons though.

Let's not stereotype now chillun's.

and, anyways, look at what their name is, Carthage and Troy, the defeated. Not Rome and Greece.

Scipio and Agamemnon 4-eva!

Well, depends on what office you're talking about. He is still a US Senator - which is an office.

But...it is true, Bush won and Kerry lost.

And, it is sad.

And as far as being stubborn and making up conspiracy theories -

1. What happened to the much vaunted Republican value of not flip-flopping?

2. What conspiracy? I'm saying the Supreme Court stopped votes from being counted in Florida in 2000. The record shows that to be fact.

correction: the supreme court stopped the votes from being re-re-re-re-recounted in 2000

yes bush won that means we will get to go to more wars i personaly love killing and am wery willing to go in to a nother third world country and kill me some littel babys go bush long live the great dictator long live assult wepons and screw the libirals with their precyous human rights long live the repuplican party hail to the elephant.
p.s maby if we are lucky we will get to start the third world war that would be cool:mp5: :sniper: :D

yes bush won that means we will get to go to more wars i personaly love killing and am wery willing to go in to a nother third world country and kill me some littel babys go bush long live the great dictator long live assult wepons and screw the libirals with their precyous human rights long live the repuplican party hail to the elephant.
p.s maby if we are lucky we will get to start the third world war that would be cool:mp5: :sniper: :D

Ok, lay of the propaganda. It isn't comical. And utilize some correct spelling.

It grows depressing when you see enormous lies continuously propagated beyond whatever facts you stand in their way. I cannot really say anything that has not been said already, but I will give one attempt to summarize the arguments I consider most critical.
2004 Election: Exit polls are not gospel. No poll is completely accurate unless it surveys the everyone. There have been no substantiated reports of disenfranchisement. Occasional errors have been found in the electronic voting but have been immediately corrected. Bush obviously won the election. No ifs, ands, or buts.

No evidence is yet available to the contrary.

The worrying part, democracy or not, is the growing move towards theocracy in the US. And GWB's sense of being god's messenger, which is worrying, whichever way you cut it.


2000 Election: Bush won. No witnesses were found who could testify to disenfranchisement. Florida law at that time set a final date for recounts, and the Democrats wished to exceed that and violate that state's laws. Thus, the Supreme Court was correct in ordering the cessation of excessive recounts. In any case, studies done by various media organizations, some with a known liberal bias, have found that Bush would have won anyway.

No. He did not. The democrats asked that the votes be counted and the Republican Supreme Court denied them. If the votes were counted, regardless of illegal disenfranchisement, Gore would have won.


As an outsider, the worrying development is not the rise of the republicans, because in substance, if not style, there is not much difference between them and the democrats. It is the rise of the "moral voters".

One of the reasons given (and we all know how easily they were thrown around) for going to war with the taliban was the denial of women's rights. Yet the same public who backed their president there also now democratically have backed the denial of a woman's right to abortion. Also under threat are gay rights.

If using religion to undermine human rights is wrong (in the case of the taliban), how is it acceptable in the case of the evangelical christians?

If Mr Bush is an evangelical christian, who believes in the 10 commandments, how does he square that with the 100,000 civilian fatalities (independent estimates - I would use a US estimate, but the US don't count civilian casualties), primarily at the hands (or bombs) of the US, in Iraq?

Morality is one thing. Being able to live a moral life under your own standards is to be commended.

Imposing your morals (abortion, gay rights) on others is a different matter. Especially when part of your policy is to deny others the possibility of imposing their morals on others (eg. taliban).

And killing civilians is wrong, whichever way you cut it.

As outsiders, we can only hope that the US catch themselves in the mirror some day and realise what they've become.

Well said, indeed. Real Democrats would like to have a substantive discussion about how much money the U.S., the world's only superpower, needs to spend on its military to be secure. The proposed U.S. military budget for 2005 is $420.7 Billion. To put that into perspective:

The US military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's.

The US military budget is more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.

The US military budget is more than 29 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.4 billion.

It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty three nations.

I find it hard to believe people can be so stupid, what do you think would happen to the U.S. if we suddenly stopped spending money on the military. Face it most of the world hates us, do you really think we'd be safe if we didn't have the biggest "stick" so to speak

No. He did not. The democrats asked that the votes be counted and the Republican Supreme Court denied them. If the votes were counted, regardless of illegal disenfranchisement, Gore would have won.




I emphsize my point: The Supreme Court stopped the re-re-re-re-recount of the votes. Not the first counting, not the second, not the third, the fifth! It was about a month after the election when this occured! If you claim that the votes weren't counted, then you clearly are uninformed.

http://www.hannity.com/img/usa_election_map.jpg

Say no more...

*shakes head at thread*

George Bush did not win the election; the Democrats lost it. I say this as a Democrat, ex-military, card-carrying and proud of it Liberal. Our dear party has gone bankrupt on a solid, identifiable ideology, and we allowed ourselves to be duped into attempting to be "Republican-lite" in order to sway swing voters.

We should have just stuck to our traditional Party values and assailed attempts to characterize them as "un-American" or out of touch.

So no, Bush did not steal the election. Whatever the vote count, whatever the efforts at disenfranchisement, the outcome is the same. If we had a clear identity and a solid message, we would have (and should have) won this election be a landslide---particularly given the state of our economy and the status of the Iraq debacle.
liberalism is a mental disorder.

Bush won, Kerry lost, get over it, and stop crying

Ok, here's what I got, I'm a redneck, and indeed a lot of rednecks voted for bush 'cause he kicks ass and take names'. No one knows the issues, and their so convinced they do that they felt they had to be heard. Conservatists insult intellegence, that's just plain rich. I'm terrified by George Bush, what redeemable acts has he done these past 4 years? I shudder to think what he has instore for us, probably more phony Terrorists.

Ok, here's what I got, I'm a redneck, and indeed a lot of rednecks voted for bush 'cause he kicks ass and take names'. No one knows the issues, and their so convinced they do that they felt they had to be heard. Conservatists insult intellegence, that's just plain rich. I'm terrified by George Bush, what redeemable acts has he done these past 4 years? I shudder to think what he has instore for us, probably more phony Terrorists.Phony terrorists? what the hell is your problem? becuase sadam was not real...ya!

By phony terrorist I mean Of course 9/11 and saddam hussien. Everyone knows 9/11 never happened, atleast not the way Bush said it.

what you saw on t.v was special affects. They shipped the twin towers to mexico!

what you saw on t.v was special affects. They shipped the twin towers to mexico!

Oh really? And what about my friends who were killed that day? Special effects too?

minor minor minor problem with the "ballots loaded into vans and driven off" part. Florida voted almost entirely by electronic touch screen things. No ballots to load up and drive off.


But I have one better for you: I just heard on the news that some machines had a glitch in them that when someone selected Kerry, it said that your selection was George W. Bush. Same thing happened in Ohio, but the scale of the glitch is not known. CNN also has an atricle on their website about how a few thousand votes for him quite literally appeared out of nowhere for him.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html

Imagine if this happened elsewhere on a larger scale.

Makes sense, in a new age, why use something so tamperable? And your friends died, maybe, but did you see a terrorist fly in the plane with em?

Oh really? And what about my friends who were killed that day? Special effects too?
You didnt catch the sarcasim, did you?

Originally Posted by The Phoenix Milita
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ountry04Map.jpg

that map is beutiful shows Americas true colors and restored my faith back into this counrty that Americans will not vote for a complete moron

Are you blind? They did vote for a moron. :(

I liked what Illyan said back there...good call.

I was just curious, why would you want John Kerry to win anyway? Let me hear some good answers.

I know I know...hmmmm....wait.....Nope sorry i cant.

This is conspiracy theory at its best.

I have seen much better :D

I liked what Illyan said back there...good call.

I was just curious, why would you want John Kerry to win anyway? Let me hear some good answers.

You know thats a good idea, the only reason ive heard for Karry is he's better than Bush, surely you great and wise people who seem to hate bush can tell us more

what you saw on t.v was special affects. They shipped the twin towers to mexico!

And just how are they going to ship two super sized towers to mexico without being seen? clearly they can't!
What really happened was that they had David Copperfield come and make them dissapear. Then they plan on raiseing alot of money to rebuild them. After they raise the money they will have David make the towers re-apear and pocket all the money while claiming that they built the tower really quickly. :D

see the problem with many voters today is simply the lack of REAL information. They will listen to everytihng they hear on the radio or see on TV and take it as a fact. People will watch movies and take it as a fact(I am thinking of a specific movie which has a complete lack of any real world information.) If more people would get out there and look up the facts, they would see that many of the things kerry has said to us were decietful twists of the truth. I remember him speaking of the projected deficit...he didnt mention that maybe this could have been caused by a terrorist attack and a war...then he repeatedly told us he had a plan. I challenge all of you today....what was his plan? does anybody know yet?...no....instead of telling us his plan he either just told us what bush did wrong, or simply took bushes plan, added some fancy adjectives and called it his own...Like training more troops in Iraq....I guess everybody failed to notice that Bush already has this plan in motion. I am not trying to tell you you should vote republican, or conservative, or any which way.....but you should vote informed....and informed does not mean going to a democratic, or republican, or any party's website and looking for "facts" becasue they will always be in favor of whomever owns the site. Go to third party sites, that are known for thier honesty and real information. This means news channels are useless. On a sidenote, anybody who votes based on style is an idiot. I don't want to call names but it is the truth. Who cares if Kerry had better posture, or Bush's tie was nice....if you care about that stuff watch the "style" network. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

You know thats a good idea, the only reason ive heard for Karry is he's better than Bush, surely you great and wise people who seem to hate bush can tell us more

My way of thinking is that bush has had four years and has not done a good job. So he should be fired and someone else givin a chance. I just wish there was another conservative that would have ran agianst him.

That's a stupid poll. President Bush didn't steal another election, he has never stolen an election. Feel free to retire the garbage rhetoric.

i think its quiet funny, im no fan of bush (nor kerry for tht matter) but bush won the election with the most turnout in american history why is everyone then making exuses for kerry losing? lost votes, wrong votes, systems going wrong could it not be that perhaps people just voted for bush more than kerry?

One problem: Like what has been stated before, the exit polls are not accurate. People don't have to answer their questions if they do not. The point is moot. Bush won. Deal with it.

And just how are they going to ship two super sized towers to mexico without being seen? clearly they can't!
What really happened was that they had David Copperfield come and make them dissapear. Then they plan on raiseing alot of money to rebuild them. After they raise the money they will have David make the towers re-apear and pocket all the money while claiming that they built the tower really quickly. :D
You're sarcasim skills are great!
Edit: I think i love you.

see the problem with many voters today is simply the lack of REAL information. They will listen to everytihng they hear on the radio or see on TV and take it as a fact. People will watch movies and take it as a fact(I am thinking of a specific movie which has a complete lack of any real world information.) If more people would get out there and look up the facts, they would see that many of the things kerry has said to us were decietful twists of the truth. I remember him speaking of the projected deficit...he didnt mention that maybe this could have been caused by a terrorist attack and a war...then he repeatedly told us he had a plan. I challenge all of you today....what was his plan? does anybody know yet?...no....instead of telling us his plan he either just told us what bush did wrong, or simply took bushes plan, added some fancy adjectives and called it his own...Like training more troops in Iraq....I guess everybody failed to notice that Bush already has this plan in motion. I am not trying to tell you you should vote republican, or conservative, or any which way.....but you should vote informed....and informed does not mean going to a democratic, or republican, or any party's website and looking for "facts" becasue they will always be in favor of whomever owns the site. Go to third party sites, that are known for thier honesty and real information. This means news channels are useless. On a sidenote, anybody who votes based on style is an idiot. I don't want to call names but it is the truth. Who cares if Kerry had better posture, or Bush's tie was nice....if you care about that stuff watch the "style" network. Thank you for taking the time to read this.


too true. well stated. Oh and just to show where i stood. I voted for bush, not because i liked him, but becase i disliked kerry more. I really wish we could have gotten a decent canidate. Well maybe 2008. I want Powell with a moderate vice pres. Anyone got any ideas for the VP to run with Powell?

I'm a republican, but i would so vote for Jon stewert/lewis black.

You know thats a good idea, the only reason ive heard for Karry is he's better than Bush, surely you great and wise people who seem to hate bush can tell us more

It is interesting to see that many people hate Bush so much that they vote Kerry. It is ok to hate Bush, but even if you do, you need to consider the 'lesser of two evils' concept and you will see that compared to Kerry, Bush is the ultimate president. He has a plan, he has experience, he is aggressive enough to not sit back and try to "understand" the terrorists first. With that attitude the world would be so funny. As you are getting mugged you would say "Wait, take the money, and you can have my family too, but I want to understand why you do this. Please tell me"

i think its quiet funny, im no fan of bush (nor kerry for tht matter) but bush won the election with the most turnout in american history why is everyone then making exuses for kerry losing? lost votes, wrong votes, systems going wrong could it not be that perhaps people just voted for bush more than kerry?

No bush had some aliens come down and brain wash people by the thousands. It was horrible. Their was this light and i was beamed abord this ship and the aliens said "vote for bush" and then put me back in my room... It was horrible......... Damn you aliens come get some :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: take that :sniper: and that and some of this :mp5:

LoL.

In order for Bush to steal this election, he would have had to steal another.

Go cry somewhere else you idiot liberal.

No bush had some aliens come down and brain wash people by the thousands. It was horrible. Their was this light and i was beamed abord this ship and the aliens said "vote for bush" and then put me back in my room... It was horrible......... Damn you aliens come get some :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: take that :sniper: and that and some of this :mp5:
*Whispers in ear* He knows to much...take him out!

I'm a republican, but i would so vote for Jon stewert/lewis black.
Interesting... Ya i'd vote for that.

1) Sheesh, there's no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

"meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. ... to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

So says our very own 9/11 commission. Yes, Iraq and Bin Laden were friendly, at least after Bin Laden stopped fighting against Saddam...

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

"Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army."

"With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request."

9/11 was a perfect excuse to do absolutely anything and veil it as "fighting the war on terror," including invading Iraq.

I'm so calling stewert and telling him my idea.

1) Sheesh, there's no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

"meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. ... to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

So says our very own 9/11 commission. Yes, Iraq and Bin Laden were friendly, at least after Bin Laden stopped fighting against Saddam...

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

"Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army."

"With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request."

9/11 was a perfect excuse to do absolutely anything and veil it as "fighting the war on terror," including invading Iraq.Why dont you start talking when you acualy start paying attention to are conversation.

1) Sheesh, there's no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

"meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. ... to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

So says our very own 9/11 commission. Yes, Iraq and Bin Laden were friendly, at least after Bin Laden stopped fighting against Saddam...

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

"Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army."

"With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request."

9/11 was a perfect excuse to do absolutely anything and veil it as "fighting the war on terror," including invading Iraq.


Regardless of that, the fact of the matter is they are there now. Whether or not they had a link to Al Qaeda is not important at this point. We are there now, and so are they. 90% of the insurgents are not native to Iraq. Only 10% are. The other 90% are Al Qaeda. Whether or not they were there in the first place is no longer the issue. The issue now is about fighting them where they are. In Iraq.

Nicly put.

we also stole the national popular vote,
55 republican senators
and at least 320 to 322 house seats.

As much as a hate to admit it
listen to Clinton when he said dont whine
and improve your image, and have a more clear message.

I think some of the reasons Kerry lost is
he really did flip flop on Iraq and he really seemed
to say anything that he thought would get him elected.

Exsample
1. He voted against the first desert storm war coalition
while praiseing the first Bush and criticizeing the second Bush.
2. He voted against the milatary equipment for the war
while critizeing president Bush for that.
3. When the missing explosives story came out
he said the war in Iraq was a mess than he changed tatics
and talked about the excelent work the troops were doing
in Iraq but it was the Presidents fault that things were so bad
in Iraq, how can he say things are going so bad and at the
same time then say the troops are doing an excellent job
but it is the presidents fault iraq is a such a mess.

Did you see the smile on Senator Hillary Rodham Clintons face
in the news.

Oh I did.

Nicly put.

Thank you.

Another problem:

He complained that we didn't have enough armor for the troops, but I was under the impression that he voted against the funding that would have given them the armor. How does that "man" complain when he tried to deprive those men and women of their ability to defend?

He also said that he wanted to vut the milatary budget, but get armored cars in there... Where is he getting the armor from?

Some one just poted about there being no connection between Iraq and al quadda (i spelled it worng i know, sorry) I would like to say the same thing that everybody on Bush's side has been saying for months.......

THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN AL QUADDA(i cant remember how to spell it) AND IRAQ

WE KNOW, Cheney said it in the vice presidential debate, and of course edwards came back on his response with "but there is no connection between al quadda and iraq" VERY FRUSTRATING

for those of you who did not notice, Kerry has stated over and over again that he thinks we should have gon to iraq, the only reason you hear his "wrong war, wrong time" speech is becasue he was trying to appeal to anit-war voters, that is why he won the primaries.

Iraq has been a threat for years, what makes you think that more sanctions would fix anything? he has had sanctions for well over ten years. Further, do any of you remember the aerial photographs of large mobile launch platforsm in Iraq, that was years ago, just becasue we did not find the weapons dioeas not mean they are not there, or somewheree else waiting to be brought back in(obviosuly saddam is gone they wont be comeing back)

and for those of tyyou who think iraq sohuld not have been invaded...its cool to just forget about the mass graves found in iraq with 1000's of women and children, lets forgive genocide and mass murder because im on the liberal bandwagon...and dont even try to tell me that garage about it all being about oil....of course we want some oil, but we are clearly using more oil and resources to wage this war than we are gaining. We are not recieving free oil like france or germany.

As you are getting mugged you would say "Wait, take the money, and you can have my family too, but I want to understand why you do this. Please tell me"

Here's a different analogy.

Every day, as you walk from work, random guys throw rocks at you. Sometimes you can dodge them, sometimes you can catch them, sometimes they catch you off guard and hit you. Sometimes you get so pissed off you take your gun and shoot at them, sometimes killing them. But the next day there are more that come.

What do you do? Invest in a tank to drive to and from work? or maybe try to burn all of the bushes by the side of the road so that they've got nowhere to hide? Or do you keep trying to buy more and more weaponry, hoping that the next time you'll get them *all* and they won't come back?

Or do you, one day, try to call out to them and find out what they have against you and why?

...point of the matter being, analogies tell you nothing. My analogy is just as valid as yours, and they lead to different conclusions. I agree that sitting and doing nothing is stupid, but going into Iraq is, IMO, worse than doing nothing.

Seeing how you seem to lack the ability to read what is against your point of view, let me post this again.

Regardless of that, the fact of the matter is they are there now. Whether or not they had a link to Al Qaeda is not important at this point. We are there now, and so are they. 90% of the insurgents are not native to Iraq. Only 10% are. The other 90% are Al Qaeda. Whether or not they were there in the first place is no longer the issue. The issue now is about fighting them where they are. In Iraq.

You are true on every part of that. :sniper: (im just puting this in becuase i like it)

ok, i agree that the analogys do not make good points, but look at these terrorists. look at al quaida (spelling?) these people are killing us without a reason except hate, if they wanted something from us, they would have said it. Instead, they hateed us and decided to destroy some of our buildings that they could not have possbily made. They are angry becasue they do not have the things we have, they cannot create things like we do. So instead, they destroy things. Now, let us say that we study them and watch them, and we now understand. So now that we know that they want to kill us, and there is nothing we can do to change thier minds, should we stand by and wait? or should we stand up and fight back? I do not yet have a family of my own, but I hope to one day. And I know, that I will not stand by and watch these destroyers kill off the people of this country and compromise its security. If we end up with more liberal presidents the security of this nation is likely to be weakened radically.We have poeple tying to kill us in any way possible, whether we understand it or not.

This entire thread has been governed by the kind of people that are the entire reason why 'America is divided', as the British press have been fond of saying.

Ilyushin and Privelege especially... please PLEASE stop sucking each other's cocks and insulting any non-Republican just for being a non-Republican... start actually reading other's posts! If you set aside your prejudice for a second, most of these guys make at least one very useful point!
Except for me. I just babble.
Oh, and also... this is not a stolen election. 2000 was probably not a stolen election. Gore voters and Kerry voters, just accept that the majority of Americans didn't think like you at the time, cos it's your job to turn 'em round by 2008... otherwise, what'll it be? dick cheney as pres? ugh!

Love,
the govenor of majimbojambo.

Im not making fun of them becuase there not republican. I'm making fun of them becuase they think 9/11 was a conspericy.
Also, how mature you are. I'm 13 and I come off better then you.

the 13 year old has a point....and please, dont tell me that we are not listening becasue they are anti-republican, they are doing the same becasue we are anti-democrat

Exactly. :mp5: (this is pretty cool)

Was 9/11 a conspiracy? Doubt it. But it was a convenient excuse for W to settle some old depts. As far as the elections are concerned, I pity the us, and the whole world. Why? Because 4 more years of that man in the White House will not be healthy for anyone, mark my words.
(isn't a democrat, or republican. as a matter of fact isn't even in the U.S)

Of course Bush won through a conspiracy, that is the only way that he can win!

god won't somebody please kill this thread. /stabs the thread in the heart with a flower/ Isn't their enough hate in this world that we don't need to be spreading over al gores internet?

Lets just be friends.

awwww, is this a hate free zone? sorry to wrinkle you sunshine and flowers, people like you are the problem with America, yea peace is good, but you cant stab a terrorist in the heart with a flower...they just want to kill you. They arent gonna hold hands and sing songs around the campfire with any living american, so just grow up and accept reality, open your eyes to the hate in this world, and we can try to make ourselves safer. (no offense, although i am aware that was offensive)

Ok where to start. 9/11 was not a conspericy. If it was big deal we got rid of a big enemy. Bush would of won if there was no war. If anything the war made the election for him alot harder, and to get this out of the way, Bush is one of the smartest people ever when it comes to war. He may not be good with words, but in the end it doesnt come down to words. Plus aviation your just a retard. I know my post arent exactly the best spelled or checked, but a little proper grammar wouldent hurt.

This thread has to go. It's very premise, that a poll conducted of 2,000 voters out of millions on the day of an election proves somthing so serious is insulting to our intelligence.

you cant stab a terrorist in the heart with a flower

Yes you can i've see it done. Me and a friend were walking along and this terrorist came along. So my friend picked up a flower and i was like, 'what are you going to do with that' and he walked right up to him and stabbed him with the flower. The terrorist was all screaming like and then fell to the groud, and i was like that is cool, but then the terrorist became a zombie and ate us both and so we became zombies and we have been eating american, europians, and terrorists, since then. We're like the 3 amigos only the 3 zombies. Eating mankind one person at a time.

That was you!

That was you!
yes yes it was me. i'm sorry. Nothing can stop us. Well except for getting stabbed through the heart with with a prarie hawk.

This thread has to go. It's very premise, that a poll conducted of 2,000 voters out of millions on the day of an election proves somthing so serious is insulting to our intelligence.


you need to understand though, that polls do not represent reality at all, let us say for example that the polls were conducted in philadelphia, of course they would come out as kerry winning, that is generally what urban populations vote for(the democrat). i voted, i was not polled, so how does this represent the population? and likely, the pollsters (is that what we call them?) would go to more populated areas in order to poll more people. Or, maybe they were polling in a democratic state, there are more variables than just the numbers.

:(
It has been vereifed that of the approx. 127'000 American soldiers serving in Iraq, 25'000 voter cards were sent with less than 12'000 having been returned in time to be counted.

Is this right? I personally don't think so as I myself was denied the vote as I was on military training this summer at the time of the Canadian federal vote, being disallowed to leave the barracks for half an hour to choose a candidate.

I really hope America and Canada can fix this problem, the soldiers deserve better.

you need to understand though, that polls do not represent reality at all, let us say for example that the polls were conducted in philadelphia, of course they would come out as kerry winning, that is generally what urban populations vote for(the democrat). i voted, i was not polled, so how does this represent the population? and likely, the pollsters (is that what we call them?) would go to more populated areas in order to poll more people. Or, maybe they were polling in a democratic state, there are more variables than just the numbers.


hahahaha score another one for me, now that i read your post again, i realize you are saying what i just said.....my bad

didnt hear those facts perimeter, but didnt hear otherwise, good point, the soldiers should be able to get thier vote out. I am sorry to hear that. I am surprised that you say only 25000 soldiers voted, that is so low, i suppose many more tried, but were unable to, like you said?

You're right, they did try... Not enough cards were sent overseas and over half of those who managed to get ahold of a card didn't have their vote counted in time.

It's a sad day when the people who are fighting overseas can't have a say in the direction of their "representative" government.

Worst part is that it's not only America, but Canada and if I'm not mistaken, the British as well.

(The fact that I didn't go overseas and I STILL wasn't allowed to vote.... really disappoints me)

I am not happy about Bush winning but I don't not believe Bush stole the election this round. There were lawers everywhere of both sides to make sure those things won't happy.

Even if I do think, the first election was stolen by Bush. But the first unforunately went fair and sqaure for Bush. It just because Bush went for the hicks in rural areas (such places as where I am from) and got the upstirred to get the votes he needed. Not saying there aren't other people that voted for Bush, I am just saying what the news said.

funny...someone named Buttered Rectums calling someone else an ignorant hick!

I'm so glad you pointed that out.

Ok. I am getting rather sick of all this. America is divided. This is a problem. But it has a solution. Below is something I wrote the day after the election, which was a day of torture for me. The only thing is, my guy won. Please, America, I beseech you. Read what it has to say. It could save our country.

(Note: It was written the day after the election, so when I say, "yesterday," I am reffering to the election.)


I have only a few things to say today, so I will try to keep this short.

Last night, the eyes of the world were on us, the Citizens of America. Last night shows how truly great our democracy is. States came within a mere thousand votes between the candidates. You cannot say every vote didn’t count. This election proves the point, that the United States was, is, and will be the greatest Democracy in the entire world. And, whether you like it or not, George W. Bush will be your president for the next four years.

But, you can either be miserable about the decision, about the fact that over half the country would rather have Bush than Kerry, and let it ruin your life until 2008. Or, there is another option. What the US needs right now is not partisanship. It needs Unity. I capitalize it because, in this case, Unity would be an entity, something you can feel when you enter the US.

By saying things like Sevelle said; “I saw Bush being sworn into office (and this was before the votes had been sent in, so I didn't know he won.) Then everything around started to die and whiter into the wind. The skies turned black. The earth brown from death. Cities burned. I saw the end.”

Or, what Rhian Kendra said; “For the Sake of All Americans, I Apologize. Today, is a tragic day in American history. It is the day we truly see the demise of our once great nation.”

Things like this can only bring the “demise” that is being referred to, not the administration. When asked at the Vice Presidential debates, “Why is the country more split now than it was four years ago?” VP Cheney failed to answer. Well, I will answer for him.

The reason things are so divided now is a mater of values. Moral Values were the #1 issue for people voting yesterday. What may be right in some eyes is different in others.

But, we have no empathy.

Today, at school, when someone who I had considered a friend found out I consider myself a conservative, he called me a name I will repeat here, for I would be banned. Then, he walked out of my life.

Is this the type of behavior we need if we expect to be the great country we have worked so hard for these past few hundred years? Is everything that took place on those fateful days in 1776 and 1787 going to go to waste just because we can’t agree.

As Abraham Lincoln said, “A house divided will not stand.”

By acting in this way, we are only proving the point. I am not saying that the US is falling apart, simply that if so much hate inside our borders continues, the US as we know it will cease to exist. This is the power of hate. That is why we were attacked on September 11th. Because people hate us. We will not sink to that level. If we do, we become barbarians, we become guilty of what we ourselves are fighting against: terrorists.

We cannot let this happen.

Today is a day of celebration for some, of sadness for others.

To those who are celebrating today:

We have earned this win. It was a hard race, but it has been a decisive victory. But, do not take it to far. Remember that a lot of time, energy, and money has been spent on both sides, not just your own. Think of the people on the other side, those who think, “The world will end when Bush gets re-inaugurated,” and ignore them. By responding to these comments, you are merely widening the gap that needs to be closed right now. We can have our celebration. But, our economy needs fixing, and the War on Terror needs to advance. We need to bring flu vaccines to those who need them, and make sure our country is safe. We cannot do these things without our Democrat allies.


To those who are sad:

Do not look at this election as a loss. You have the perfect opportunity now to fix the damage that has been done by hateful comments from both sides. I can almost guarantee that we have not heard the last from John Kerry. He has lost this race, but there will be others. Right now, the focus should not be on who won Ohio, but who will help repair the damage of words and ideas. As I said before, “A house divided will not stand,” and by making these comments, you are only further dividing what needs to be fixed.


Right now, it seems to me that we should be ashamed of ourselves. We should call ourselves American citizens, not in shame, but in pride. We are all member of this country, just like everyone else. But, it seems easy to forget that there is anyone else. In closing, I shall quote Senator John Kerry in the speech he gave at 1:00 this afternoon, Eastern Time:

“But in an American election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans. And that -- that is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on earth. With that gift also comes obligation. We are required now to work together for the good of our country. In the days ahead, we must find common cause. We must join in common effort without remorse or recrimination, without anger or rancor. America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion.”

Good luck and God Bless America.

Nice. Well im off for today.

Ok. I am getting rather sick of all this. America is divided. This is a problem. But it has a solution. Below is something I wrote the day after the election, which was a day of torture for me. The only thing is, my guy won. Please, America, I beseech you. Read what it has to say. It could save our country.

(Note: It was written the day after the election, so when I say, "yesterday," I am reffering to the election.)


I have only a few things to say today, so I will try to keep this short.

Last night, the eyes of the world were on us, the Citizens of America. Last night shows how truly great our democracy is. States came within a mere thousand votes between the candidates. You cannot say every vote didn’t count. This election proves the point, that the United States was, is, and will be the greatest Democracy in the entire world. And, whether you like it or not, George W. Bush will be your president for the next four years.

But, you can either be miserable about the decision, about the fact that over half the country would rather have Bush than Kerry, and let it ruin your life until 2008. Or, there is another option. What the US needs right now is not partisanship. It needs Unity. I capitalize it because, in this case, Unity would be an entity, something you can feel when you enter the US.

By saying things like Sevelle said; “I saw Bush being sworn into office (and this was before the votes had been sent in, so I didn't know he won.) Then everything around started to die and whiter into the wind. The skies turned black. The earth brown from death. Cities burned. I saw the end.”

Or, what Rhian Kendra said; “For the Sake of All Americans, I Apologize. Today, is a tragic day in American history. It is the day we truly see the demise of our once great nation.”

Things like this can only bring the “demise” that is being referred to, not the administration. When asked at the Vice Presidential debates, “Why is the country more split now than it was four years ago?” VP Cheney failed to answer. Well, I will answer for him.

The reason things are so divided now is a mater of values. Moral Values were the #1 issue for people voting yesterday. What may be right in some eyes is different in others.

But, we have no empathy.

Today, at school, when someone who I had considered a friend found out I consider myself a conservative, he called me a name I will repeat here, for I would be banned. Then, he walked out of my life.

Is this the type of behavior we need if we expect to be the great country we have worked so hard for these past few hundred years? Is everything that took place on those fateful days in 1776 and 1787 going to go to waste just because we can’t agree.

As Abraham Lincoln said, “A house divided will not stand.”

By acting in this way, we are only proving the point. I am not saying that the US is falling apart, simply that if so much hate inside our borders continues, the US as we know it will cease to exist. This is the power of hate. That is why we were attacked on September 11th. Because people hate us. We will not sink to that level. If we do, we become barbarians, we become guilty of what we ourselves are fighting against: terrorists.

We cannot let this happen.

Today is a day of celebration for some, of sadness for others.

To those who are celebrating today:

We have earned this win. It was a hard race, but it has been a decisive victory. But, do not take it to far. Remember that a lot of time, energy, and money has been spent on both sides, not just your own. Think of the people on the other side, those who think, “The world will end when Bush gets re-inaugurated,” and ignore them. By responding to these comments, you are merely widening the gap that needs to be closed right now. We can have our celebration. But, our economy needs fixing, and the War on Terror needs to advance. We need to bring flu vaccines to those who need them, and make sure our country is safe. We cannot do these things without our Democrat allies.


To those who are sad:

Do not look at this election as a loss. You have the perfect opportunity now to fix the damage that has been done by hateful comments from both sides. I can almost guarantee that we have not heard the last from John Kerry. He has lost this race, but there will be others. Right now, the focus should not be on who won Ohio, but who will help repair the damage of words and ideas. As I said before, “A house divided will not stand,” and by making these comments, you are only further dividing what needs to be fixed.


Right now, it seems to me that we should be ashamed of ourselves. We should call ourselves American citizens, not in shame, but in pride. We are all member of this country, just like everyone else. But, it seems easy to forget that there is anyone else. In closing, I shall quote Senator John Kerry in the speech he gave at 1:00 this afternoon, Eastern Time:

“But in an American election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans. And that -- that is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on earth. With that gift also comes obligation. We are required now to work together for the good of our country. In the days ahead, we must find common cause. We must join in common effort without remorse or recrimination, without anger or rancor. America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion.”

Good luck and God Bless America.

*Applauds.*

*Bows*

*Bows*

No problem. I'd still like to add my own two cents, thought. Bush was voted in by the Electoral College, so he is legally the winner of the election. He also won the Popular Vote, which means the majority of those who voted feel he should be the President for another four years. Complaining can only hurt all parties involved.

No problem. I'd still like to add my own two cents, thought. Bush was voted in by the Electoral College, so he is legally the winner of the election. He also won the Popular Vote, which means the majority of those who voted feel he should be the President for another four years. Complaining can only hurt all parties involved.

Don't get me wrong. I would have voted for Bush. I am just saying that the division between the parties is not helping at all.

Don't get me wrong. I would have voted for Bush. I am just saying that the division between the parties is not helping at all.

I know what you're saying, and I agree. I'm a supporter of Bush, personally.

But, you can either be miserable about the decision, about the fact that over half the country would rather have Bush than Kerry, and let it ruin your life until 2008. Or, there is another option. What the US needs right now is not partisanship. It needs Unity. I capitalize it because, in this case, Unity would be an entity, something you can feel when you enter the US. Nice. Let's unite behind a president we hate, who has promised to push his conservative agenda on the nation regardless of who opposes it or how extremely partisan it is. Let's unite behind someone who wants our support to commit more domestic and international atrocities. Yes. I totally plan on doing that.

Today, at school, when someone who I had considered a friend found out I consider myself a conservative, he called me a name I will repeat here, for I would be banned. Then, he walked out of my life.

Is this the type of behavior we need if we expect to be the great country we have worked so hard for these past few hundred years? Is everything that took place on those fateful days in 1776 and 1787 going to go to waste just because we can’t agree. Your friend was unfair to act in this way and is probably as upset as the rest of us 54 million who can't stand Bush. I think everything that took place during the founding of this nation is going out the window, and not because liberals object to Bush, but because Bush is demolishing the walls between church and state, demolishing the civil liberties the Anti-Federalists worked so hard to secure us, completely disregarding the fact that 54 million people told him to fuck off on November 2nd... (well, maybe not all of us, but that's definitely what I meant with my vote.)

This is the power of hate. That is why we were attacked on September 11th. Because people hate us. We will not sink to that level. If we do, we become barbarians, we become guilty of what we ourselves are fighting against: terrorists. How convenient, then, that Bush harnessed that power of hate, power of fear, to scare people into voting for him and hating Kerry. How convenient that Bush has used his presidency and 9/11 to further alienate not only fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, but most of the Middle East. How convenient that we have a leader who not only uses hate, but causes it to proliferate world-wide.

But, our economy needs fixing, and the War on Terror needs to advance. We need to bring flu vaccines to those who need them, and make sure our country is safe. We cannot do these things without our Democrat allies. Why do these things need to be fixed? Largely because of the last 4 years. You think the same guy who not only couldn't prevent these before, but actually caused some of the problems, can fix them now?

Do not look at this election as a loss. You have the perfect opportunity now to fix the damage that has been done by hateful comments from both sides. I can almost guarantee that we have not heard the last from John Kerry. He has lost this race, but there will be others. Right now, the focus should not be on who won Ohio, but who will help repair the damage of words and ideas. As I said before, “A house divided will not stand,” and by making these comments, you are only further dividing what needs to be fixed. Yes, Kerry was right to concede. Even had Ohio gone for him, the numbers said he lost the popular vote. It would have been exceedingly hypocritical of us to snitch over some electoral votes when righteous indignation over a stolen election was the only thing keeping us going for the last 4 years. But this election is definitely a horrible loss. It proved that hatred and threats and cruelty are more important to America than global cooperation, kindness to our neighbors and our earth, and security through diplomacy before force. It kept someone we hate in the White House, put people we hate into a huge majority in both houses, and will set up people we hate into the Supreme Court. I'm sorry but all three braches of government controlled by the other side equals disaster, no matter how you look at it.

“But in an American election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans. And that -- that is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on earth. With that gift also comes obligation. We are required now to work together for the good of our country. In the days ahead, we must find common cause. We must join in common effort without remorse or recrimination, without anger or rancor. America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion.” As I shouted in rage and disappointment and helpless fury at the TV when I heard Kerry say this, the difference is whether we wake up as free and secure Americans or Americans living under the shadow of fear our administration has to hold over us in order to remain in power.

Good luck and God Bless America.Yeah, sure, ruin the whole point of your speech by repeating the most rote and most frustrating line in modern political rhetoric. I neither believe that God exists nor that, if he did, he would hold America special or dear to him. If he does exist, it feels a lot like he's punishing us.

Anyway, yes it's all very well to preach unity, but Bush's actions have spoken of anything but. He's very divisive and will take this slim majority as a cue to be even more alienating to those of who disagree with his ideology. I'm devastated and the last thing I want is to rally behind someone who makes me sick to my stomach.

Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -cies
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.



Just in case you fogot what this country is all about.

Just in case you fogot what this country is all about.Not really, it's a constitutional republic. A true democracy would never use an institution as outdated and incompetant as the electoral college.

Here's rhetoric I like much better.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

...

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.I have No. Zero. Zip. Zilch. faith in Bush to start upholding these principles, when he's shown no sign of it so far.

And I guess you didn't read through my post, which is ok, it was full of just the bitter angry feelings I've been harboring since the election.

"Like it or not, Bush actually won the popular vote. There are now officially more rednecks in America than thinkers."

lol...that is by far the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

and to everyone who believes the conspiracy theory...your denial is beautiful.

4 More Years!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

you know it's people like you that make people like me hate republicans.

Originally Posted by The Phoenix Milita

that map is beutiful shows Americas true colors and restored my faith back into this counrty that Americans will not vote for a complete moron
Sooo 48% of the people voted for a complete moron? Actually some people might say that 51% of the people voted for a "complete moron"?

BTW, hate to burst your bubble in regards to that map but here is something that puts it more in perspective:

Total land mass US: 3,537,438 square miles

0.059 square miles per bush vote

0.063 square miles per kerry vote

16.8 bush voters per square mile

15.8 kerry voters per square mile

Little closer than appears?

Sooo 48% of the people voted for a complete moron? Actually some people might say that 51% of the people voted for a "complete moron"?

BTW, hate to burst your bubble in regards to that map but here is something that puts it more in perspective:

Total land mass US: 3,537,438 square miles

0.059 square miles per bush vote

0.063 square miles per kerry vote

16.8 bush voters per square mile

15.8 kerry voters per square mile

Little closer than appears?


Who cares. Bush won, quit whining.

Who cares. Bush won, quit whining.
Who is whining? Just pointing out some facts and making some comments, if that is okay with you?

Who is whining? Just pointing out some facts and making some comments, if that is okay with you?

This whole thread is a whine-fest. Carry on pointing out useless facts if you must.

You can't seriously believe that Bush cheated his way to a 130,000-vote margin in Ohio. You're giving this guy too much credit.

You can't seriously believe that Bush cheated his way to a 130,000-vote margin in Ohio. You're giving this guy too much credit.
I do believe he cheated in Ohio. I don't believe that he cheated on the national popular vote, and that is the important point for me. So instead of agreeing with people that Kerry should have won, I just sit back in utter dispair at the stupidity of my countrymen.

You can't seriously believe that Bush cheated his way to a 130,000-vote margin in Ohio. You're giving this guy too much credit.

:D Sadly, some do actually believe it...

This whole thread is a whine-fest. Carry on pointing out useless facts if you must.
What may be useless facts to you, might be useful facts for others, and if this whole thread is a "whine-fest", what are you doing here?

What may be useless facts to you, might be useful facts for others, and if this whole thread is a "whine-fest", what are you doing here?

I'm whining...about whiners.

I'm whining...about whiners.
Carry on then. :eek:

Carry on then. :eek:

Will do.

Look at it this way; venting through an internet forum is a lot better than running through the streets cursing everyone who voted for Bush.

NO !
It wouldn't be so bad if Bush had won and that was it. But what makes me sick is that the legislative, executive, and soon the judicial branches of the U.S. government are under evangelical republican control. There are no longer any checks and balances that our country was founded upon.
But... the election wasn't stolen. (the last one may have been though) :headbang:

Why are people who voted for Bush labeled "Rednecks" and "stupid?"

That's a sad opinion. I voted for Bush. I'm college educated, painfully middle class, live in the suburbs and work a steady 40 hours a week at a job I could take or leave. I voted with my wallet. I got a nice tax break and every tex season I get a percentage written off based on my retirement fund. None of this happened when the last Democrat was in office. In fact, in pure precentage, I was taxed more in the 90s (roughly 37%) than I am today (roughly 33%) and a literally have doubled my annual income in a decade. If being happy and successful makes me a Redneck and stupid then I say "Duh, YeeHaw!!!!"

On another personal note. I'm ready to unite the country. How about you? If in two years the country is still split, whose fault will it really be?

Why are people who voted for Bush labeled "Rednecks" and "stupid?"

That's a sad opinion. I voted for Bush. I'm college educated, painfully middle class, live in the suburbs and work a steady 40 hours a week at a job I could take or leave. I voted with my wallet. I got a nice tax break and every tex season I get a percentage written off based on my retirement fund. None of this happened when the last Democrat was in office. In fact, in pure precentage, I was taxed more in the 90s (roughly 37%) than I am today (roughly 33%) and a literally have doubled my annual income in a decade. If being happy and successful makes me a Redneck and stupid then I say "Duh, YeeHaw!!!!"

On another personal note. I'm ready to unite the country. How about you? If in two years the country is still split, whose fault will it really be?

Its because you are wrong and unenlightened compared to the vast intellect of the left. ;)

Why are people who voted for Bush labeled "Rednecks" and "stupid?" Because the overwhelming majority of Bush voters I know are.

I voted with my wallet. I got a nice tax break and every tex season I get a percentage written off based on my retirement fund. None of this happened when the last Democrat was in office. In fact, in pure precentage, I was taxed more in the 90s (roughly 37%) than I am today (roughly 33%) and a literally have doubled my annual income in a decade. How nice that the system works for you. Have you ever given a single thought to those who are marginalized under republican control? Do you care about the poor and the people struggling to make ends meet? Does your heart have any say in your life at all? Personally, I'm fucked by the exchange rate, since I want to go study in France for a while off an income in dollars. (Before you yell at me for deserting this country, or some such patriotic nonsense, I had these plans long before Nov 2nd.)

On another personal note. I'm ready to unite the country. How about you? If in two years the country is still split, whose fault will it really be?No. Let me wallow in bitterness for a while. Like you wouldn't be doing at least a little bit of it if Kerry'd won.

On another personal note. I'm ready to unite the country. How about you? If in two years the country is still split, whose fault will it really be?

Do you honestly think that comments from republican pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill Cunningham, Neal Borscht, Beck, Savage, Mc Connel, etc. calling Dems stupid, mentally diseased, the enemy within, evil ( deliver us from evil),etc. is going to unite this country? If you had someone labeling you this way 24/7 would you want to unite with them?
Yeah, I know the conservatives feel like they've been persecuted also. Feel like uniting or just subduing?
If you're ready to unite this country it's gonna take a helluvalot of compromise , sacrifice and hard work on both sides to make it happen. I personally don't think compromise is going to happen because any entreaties by the repubs to the dems or vice/versa is going to be viewed as a trojan horse at this time. I really don't think people have an understanding of the toll that all these years of hate-speech have taken. But I really hope I'm wrong as I have a true understanding of the consequences if compromises aren't made.

My family,and many people I grew up with, are still in Ohio. Not one of them(mostly Dems) were exit polled, and that is out of nearly 50 voters I have spoken to. While being mostly Dem, even our mayor there campaigned for Bush, with Sean Hannity.Most of these Dems voted Bush. I think the Democrat national party just knew how many registered Democrats there were in many of these midwest states, and assumed they would get in line behind a campaign that was run from so far left that even lifelong Democrats like my own father,mother,grandparents,uncles,etc. all said they did not even recognize their own party anymore. You can't line up treasonous clowns like Michael Moore,and the entertainment crowd,and still expect to keep even the base of Dems in the midwest.As a Republican myself,however, I rather hope they do lean even further left, so we can get the 60 senate seats we need to overcome fillibusters next time.

News in Canada has been filled with stories of disgruntled Americans looking to get out of Bush's America.

Allow me to help: http://canadainternational.gc.ca/GTC/Going_To_Canada-EN.htm

News in Canada has been filled with stories of disgruntled Americans looking to get out of Bush's America.

Allow me to help: http://canadainternational.gc.ca/GTC/Going_To_Canada-EN.htm
Here's another one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3987697.stm
Canadian immigration officials said the number of US citizens visiting their website went up six-fold the day after the US election.

There's also this one:
www.marryanamerican.ca
Now that George W. Bush has been officially elected, single, sexy, American liberals - already a threatened species - will be desperate to escape.
These lonely, afraid (did we mention really hot?) progressives will need a safe haven.
You can help. Open your heart, and your home. Marry an American. Legions of Canadians have already pledged to sacrifice their singlehood to save our southern neighbours from four more years of cowboy conservatism.

Here's another one:
http://virtualcanadian.org/
A site for citizens of the United States who no longer wish to be identified with that nation state, or who feel that it has abandoned them, or that it even threatens them.

I thought this pic wasn't bad:
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/11/con04485.html

It also raises a good possibility. What do others think?

Who is whining? Just pointing out some facts and making some comments, if that is okay with you?
making comments, yes. facts, ehhhhhhhhh....

You can't line up treasonous clowns . Going to have
to add "treasonous clowns" to the list of names republican conservatives call liberals. Your complete lack of respect and tolerance for anyone who doesn't share your Republican conservative views is obvious.

Going to have
to add "treasonous clowns" to the list of names republican conservatives call liberals. Your complete lack of respect and tolerance for anyone who doesn't share your Republican conservative views is obvious.

In comparison to "moron, idiot, retarded, nazi, fascist, puppet, ad nauseum..."?

It goes both ways.

Maybe it's because I'm tired, but I find the term "Treasonous Clowns" really amusing. I'm imagining some clowns being lined up against a wall facing a firing squad because of their treasonous actions.

Going to have
to add "treasonous clowns" to the list of names republican conservatives call liberals. Your complete lack of respect and tolerance for anyone who doesn't share your Republican conservative views is obvious.
Actually aiding and abetting the enemy, as M. Moore did in his film, is just that. HOWEVER, the words really were not my own as I personally find them rather a little far also. The words actually were used by DEMS, my family, friends, etc, who love this country, and were voters in Ohio, and for the first time in many years for many of them, swayed from the Dem ticket.

Here's another one:
http://virtualcanadian.org/


I thought this pic wasn't bad:
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/11/con04485.html

It also raises a good possibility. What do others think?

I think, if you'd like to try and bring that situation about, you better stock up on guns and ammo!