NationStates Jolt Archive

Kerry's strategy centered on the swing states, and as you'll notice, he did better than Gore in many important swing states, including Oregon, Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, New Hampshire, Nevada, Washington, and Colorado. Bush on the other hand did MUCH better in the non-battleground states. He got his biggest vote increase NOT from the South, but from the cities, surprisingly. From New York, and California, he pulled millions of extra votes than in 2000. This gave him the illusion of a mandate with a 3.3 million vote lead on Kerry. I understand Kerry's strategy, but it was risky, because if they couldn't secure the electoral vote, they were throwing Bush a large popular vote. We NEED the GOTV efforts in the cities, in California, Illinois, New York...we need those huge votes to give the illusion of our own mandate.

Kerry's campaign was also just generally run terribly. He seemed constantly on the defensive, or just inactive. They waited too damn long to even respond to the Swifties. Kerry didn't even start attacking the president until a month or so before the election.


But, we did not lose Gore voters any moreso than Bush lost his 2000 voters. The exit polls showed that 10% of Gore voters defected to Bush this year, but 9% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry this year. As well, the vote percentages by ideology were unchanged.

What changed was who turned out to vote. 17% were new voters, 37% were Gore voters, 43% were Bush 2000 voters, and 3% were others.

In 2000, Gore beat Bush by 0.5%. This year, Bush 2000 voters turned out by 6% more.

THAT is why we lost. We got beat on turnout.

The registered Democrats were EXACTLY as loyal as they were in 2000, 89%. The registered Republicans increased their loyalty from 91 to 93%. The independant vote largely went from Nader to Kerry. Basically, not much change in these percentages.

HOWEVER, this year 37% of voters were Democrat, 37% were Republican, and 26% were independant.

In 2000, I believe the registered Democrats had a 4% advantage on registered Republicans.

The Republicans won this year because more of them turned out than expected. That's why the polls were so wrong, that explains the surprising issue of morality being the number one issue, that explains the popular vote change from a half million Bush loss to a 3.3 million Bush win.

Bush may have won the most popular votes by any candidate, but Kerry holds second place (Reagan 1984 is in 3rd and Gore is 4th).

In 2008, we need to focus on the swing states, which are trending our way, but we can't forsake the solid states either, or we'll lose the popular vote again and look illegitimate if we take the electoral vote.

We just barely lost this election, the Democrat Party is not dying or fading or whatever other turn of phrase Sean Hannity likes to use. We came back from MUCH bigger losses in the 80s.

The losses in Congress? The entire 4 seat gain in the House can be attributed to Tom DeLay's gerrymandering that threw 5 Texas Democrats into Republican districts, or even competing against other incumbents. Without that, we might have actually picked up a seat! In the Senate, 5 Southern Democrats decided this year was a good time to retire. A 4 seat loss was fairly decent, given that. If 5 Northeastern Republicans had suddenly retired, WE would be the ones anticipating the magic 60.

The solution is not trying to be like Republicans. We have our wedge issues too (healthcare, social security, JOBS, etc). We need to push them. And for godsake we need a better candidate in 2008 (sorry Kerry). I say Evan Bayh, someone from the upper midwest. Cause that's where the election of 2008 is going to be decided.

He lost because he didn't make enough people afraid. The neo-cons are REALLY good at making people afraid. But I do agree with the vast majority of what you've said here.

FEAR - MORE BEER!
(and more public floggings)

Kerry is an empty suit. That contributed as much to his losing as anything else.

Kerry is an empty suit. That contributed as much to his losing as anything else.
Agreed, Kerry was an awful candidate. But the competition wasn't much better (even though Dean is and always will be the man :D)

Huh. That's something to think about.

This caught my attention:
Bush may have won the most popular votes by any candidate, but Kerry holds second place (Reagan 1984 is in 3rd and Gore is 4th).


Don't hear the last part of that sentence very often. Imagine.

Do some thinkin' on that. (I still reserve the right to my personal pessimism about controling discourse and such...)

kerry was going to win Oregon regardless, we can thank Portland, Salem, and Eugene

kerry was going to win Oregon regardless, we can thank Portland, Salem, and Eugene
Yeah, but in 2000 Gore just barely took it. Kerry had it by a comfortable margin this year, even though Bush did better nationally.

Meaning Oregon is moving more Democratic (as are several other important ones, as I listed).

Florida on the other hand was a disaster this year, moving from a tie to a 5% Bush lead. Demographics favor us there in the long run, but we can't let it go the way of Arkansas and Missouri (which were also disasters).

But as I predicted, the election in 2008 will be decided in the upper midwest, and that's where the movement favors us. However, population growth in the South and decrease in the upper midwest means that a more longterm plan is needed. That's where Florida and the Southwest (and Colorado) come in. Immigration favors us, and is slowly turning back the white vote.

Yeah, but in 2000 Gore just barely took it. Kerry had it by a comfortable margin this year, even though Bush did better nationally.

Meaning Oregon is moving more Democratic (as are several other important ones, as I listed).

Florida on the other hand was a disaster this year, moving from a tie to a 5% Bush lead. Demographics favor us there in the long run, but we can't let it go the way of Arkansas and Missouri (which were also disasters).

But as I predicted, the election in 2008 will be decided in the upper midwest, and that's where the movement favors us. However, population growth in the South and decrease in the upper midwest means that a more longterm plan is needed. That's where Florida and the Southwest (and Colorado) come in. Immigration favors us, and is slowly turning back the white vote.
Immigration in the Southwest is predominantly Hispanic. The vast majority of Hispanics are Catholic and may be hesitant to vote for pro-choice candidates(though I hope not).

HE FORGOT POLAND!

I'm an independent, and I agree with all of this. Even if he was the incumbent, he was still GEORGE BUSH for crying out loud!! A year ago, democrats were drooling over this position that Bush obviously had no chance of keeping. I seriously hope the Democrats find another campaign manager, because Kerry's people managed to spend nearly twice as much as the Republicans (over 300 millions compared to around 190 million I think, feel free to correct me if you know) in campaign funding and, well, look at the results. :rolleyes:

The solution is not trying to be like Republicans. We have our wedge issues too (healthcare, social security, JOBS, etc). We need to push them. And for godsake we need a better candidate in 2008 (sorry Kerry). I say Evan Bayh, someone from the upper midwest. Cause that's where the election of 2008 is going to be decided.

How about Hillary Clinton for 2008?

So you don't think the fact that Kerry was a lying, amoral opportunist had anything to do with his getting his ass kicked, eh?

The real reason why John Kerry lost was that Mr. Bush received more votes than he did....am i wrong?

I agree with you wholeheartedly. We need to stop being "Republican-lite." We need to scrap centrist Democrats like Vilsacks. Get rid of the status qou. They've been trying that strategy in the last two election cycles and look at where it got us. We need to grow a spine and actually stand up for our own ideals, not following the Republicans like we are thier lap-dogs.

First stop, divide and conquer. Show the moderate republicans how thier party is being hijacked by scary fundies, and what fiscal responsibility, and small governments? It seems to me that Bush's administration have strayed afar.

Also, federalism. Democrats need to use that plaform to stop bigoted ammendments from being forced on them. The Republicans have used it, why not us? Why not stop state welfare, and watch as predominantly republican states haemmorhage. You can be as hateful as much as you want, but I ain't subsidizing your farms, that apprently, people in rural areas feel as a big "Terrorist Target." We Californians need the money anyway to sip more lattes.

Also, federalism. Democrats need to use that plaform to stop bigoted ammendments from being forced on them. The Republicans have used it, why not us? Why not stop state welfare, and watch as predominantly republican states haemmorhage. You can be as hateful as much as you want, but I ain't subsidizing your farms, that apprently, people in rural areas feel as a big "Terrorist Target." We Californians need the money anyway to sip more lattes.


I agree 120%

I had read about 2 weeks ago or so about possible election fraud that swung the election in George Bush's favor in about 8 states. I'll try to find the link but don't count on it. Basically, exit polls in those states showed Kerry leading by a significant amount and news agencies were predicting a win for him there. Then the votes came in and the votes were the opposite! On top of that, the correlation of Democrat voters vs Republican voters should have swung the vote in Kerry's favor but the exact opposite of what was expected turned up! Exit polls are almost never wrong and to have 8 states wrong in one election is basically impossible.

Now, this may not seem like much to go on until you understand some details about the voting machines used. They were the Diebold ones. These are based on Windows machines. After the votes are sent in to the central tabulating machine someone can easily exit the program, get into the database backend (it's a layout similar to MS Office's Excel spreadsheet), and just switch the final count, all in about a minute's time (I'm a programmer, believe me, it's VERY easy to change stuff like this if you have the access and knowhow). The vote count will be the same but the votes are switched.

Yes, this is just speculation but if I could find the story again I'll let you know. BTW, I hated both candidates and voted for the Green party so I'm not some pissed off Kerry supporter. I just hate the thought of an election being stolen as it pretty much throws out any democratic process. What would be the point of voting then? Just have a freakin' dictatorship and get it over with!

Ooh! Found it: http://www.kenlayne.com/2004blog.html Scroll down to the title "HACKTACKULAR". Don't forget to check out the links in orange type!

Ooh! Found it: http://www.kenlayne.com/2004blog.html Scroll down to the title "HACKTACKULAR". Don't forget to check out the links in orange type!

Unadulterated bull-shit. If this were true, don't you think Kerry and Kompany would have raised holy hell about it? But no, he conceded the election. That alone should tell you these people are so far around the bend that the rest of us can't even see their asses anymore. And exit polls have been shown to be completely unreliable as a means of predicting elections. Give it up.

All politicians are useless. Who cares who won... both of them would be assholes.

Yeah, I'm so glad Howard Dean won the elections in America. Bush had that loss coming to him anyway.

Kerry couldn't decide who he was going to be: a liberal or a moderate. That's why he lost since most people are somewhere near the center. If he was more of a centrist he would have won.

Kerry couldn't decide who he was going to be: a liberal or a moderate. That's why he lost since most people are somewhere near the center. If he was more of a centrist he would have won.


He WAS centrist. Didnt work. =\

So you don't think the fact that Kerry was a lying, amoral opportunist had anything to do with his getting his ass kicked, eh?
I agree with that.

I agree with that.

Then perhaps you can tell us why the other immoral, lying, opportunistic bastard got more votes?

Then perhaps you can tell us why the other immoral, lying, opportunistic bastard got more votes? :rolleyes: Shaddap!

Then perhaps you can tell us why the other immoral, lying, opportunistic bastard got more votes?because he is better at lying, Cheating and being opportunistic...

This gave him the illusion of a mandate with a 3.3 million vote lead on Kerry. I understand Kerry's strategy, but it was risky, because if they couldn't secure the electoral vote, they were throwing Bush a large popular vote. We NEED the GOTV efforts in the cities, in California, Illinois, New York...we need those huge votes to give the illusion of our own mandate.
What is this illusion you are talking about? There is no illusion of a mandate. Bush recieved more popular votes and more electoral votes than Kerry. Bush is the first President since 1988 to be elected with a MAJORITY of the popular vote. The GOP increased its lead in the Senate, House of Reps, and with state governors.

There is no illusion of a mandate, there is one. The reason why you think there is an "illusion" is because you are living in your own little world and do not see the truth that the USA is pretty much covered in red.

Why does everyone assume the candidate was entirely responsible for his position? John Kerry and John Edwards were products being sold, and they picked a terrible advertising agency to sell their product.

Blame Mary Beth Cahill for a lot of it. She had her man run on platitudes and the "I'm not Bush" platform. I was hungry for issues, not character. I didn't get fed anything except empty rhetoric. Cahill allowed Ted Kennedy and Al Sharpton to get plenty of TV time - not the best strategy when you are demonstrating your party's move towards the center.

Ken Mehlman ran the Bush campaign, and he kept his people on point. They made the points they wanted to make. They muzzled Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and Wolfowitz on the right, and Powell on the left. They promoted the team that best represented the core image they wanted to present.

The presidency is not a one-man job. He's the leader of a hand-picked team. Like it or not, Bush picked the better team to get himself elected. Kerry and the dems blew it.

So you don't think the fact that Kerry was a lying, amoral opportunist had anything to do with his getting his ass kicked, eh?
How many thousands of times have you used that phrase??? I don't even see how "opportunist" is an insult.

How about Hillary Clinton for 2008?
She is unelectable. Only party loyalist Democrats like her. And if you thought the Republican anti-Kerry campaign this year was harsh, just wait to see what they have in store for her!

Also, federalism. Democrats need to use that plaform to stop bigoted ammendments from being forced on them. The Republicans have used it, why not us? Why not stop state welfare, and watch as predominantly republican states haemmorhage.
Are you seriously suggesting that Democrats in government cut subsidies to farmers simply because of political differences? Republicans currently hold the trophy for most extremist partisan hatred. Don't take it from them.

There is no illusion of a mandate, there is one. The reason why you think there is an "illusion" is because you are living in your own little world and do not see the truth that the USA is pretty much covered in red.
Covered in red? What? Has Heinz ketchup finally taken over?!?! But I thought it was Bush that won!

Covered in red? What? Has Heinz ketchup finally taken over?!?! But I thought it was Bush that won!

Or there is blood on their hands, possibly? ;)

She is unelectable. Only party loyalist Democrats like her. And if you thought the Republican anti-Kerry campaign this year was harsh, just wait to see what they have in store for her!

Haha, I agree. Every time I think of her I think of her making fun of Ghandi and making fun of women that bake cookies...

Not liking cookies? That's unnatural!

Chodolo:
You bring up good points and I can see you put a lot of thought in to your post. But focusing more on non battle ground states will cost a lot of extra money, plus there was only one Sen. Kerry and one Sen. Edwards to go around and they are needed in the battle ground states to help secure those electoral votes. I worked for (not volunteered) for the Kerry campaign, I live in Northern Kentucky but went across the river everyday to help in Ohio, Bush was leading in KY by about 17%, so more visit by the campaign to KY or more focus on KY wouldn't help win an election with the possibility of more votes, as it was impossible that it would have swung the state (and the few electoral votes) towards Kerry.

I don't like the idea of the Electoral College but until it's changed the popular vote plays second fiddle and a candidate that expects to win has to focus on the battleground states.

I was surprised at how many people voted their "morality" and ignored the economy and about the terrible situation we are in over in Iraq. On a side note studies have shown that most who support Bush still think that Iraq and Saddam had something to do with 9/11 as well as Iraq having WMD's, both were found to be wrong but they still thought it was true.

The Democratic party needs to do a few things for 2008, one would be still focus on the core values of the party which includes the economy and social issues. But we need to switch the thinking of abortion, as I think that alone was the deciding factor, Could Kerry have taken away votes from Bush if he wasn't "Pro Choice'? I think so, I think it would have been a lot of votes and would have swung the election. Although I see Kerry's point on being anti abortion but pro choice many in the USA did not and saw it as not taking a stand on the issue. The other is to bring the DNC national convention to Ohio, bring the fight where the fight is taking place, in Cincinnati, the heart of the Ohio republican party.

I agree that Kerry took too long to attack Bush, this has been a problem within the democratic party for a while, the republicans attack too much and too often while the democrats sit back and take the BS for way too long until it's too late to counter the damage, this is where the "new blood" in the party will help. I think with Dean as the head of the DNC will help solve this problem.

Some say Kerry was weak to begin with, but this weak Sen. Kerry pushed Bush to the limit and Bush still only had 51% ofd the vote? I don't call that a mandate, I still see the nation being very divided and that will not change. I say a "mandate" is when you have over 70% of the popular vote, still half this nation hates Bush big time and that will only get worse. Did you hear Bush on his press conference the day after the election? he was acting like he was a "God" or something, or a King (and I really believe he thinks that). He wouldn't respond to any reporter who asked more than one question, stating it was the "will of the people" and the rules have changed due to the "will of the people" Bush has a serious ego problem and it will only tick more and more people off.

I say Kerry MAY be the best candidate in 2008, if he is surrounded by the right people, and I think we covered that with the "new blood". I was thinking that MAYBE Obama could run, But would the South vote for a black person? even if he is the best person for the job? Now to Hillary, would this nation elect a woman? even if she was the best person for the job? Sadly on both I say NO, it won't happen.

Hopefully some democrat will start to think NOW about the future and mold themselves NOW for 2008, Maybe it will be a "new and improved" Kerry" then again maybe not. But we need EVERYONE in the democratic party to get out in 2008 and help get new voters as to help show the republicans that Bush did nothing to help this nation, only to divide it.

Why did John Kerry lose. Becuase he was a horrible candidate, he was up against a great president. and Kerry lied, Lied, Lied, Lied, and when that didn't work, he had Edwards lie.

The other is to bring the DNC national convention to Ohio, bring the fight where the fight is taking place, in Cincinnati, the heart of the Ohio republican party.

Well, maybe Cleveland or Youngstown. But, I don't think it's wise to bring the DNC to Cincinatti....Rev. Sharpton might get beat up.

Why does everyone assume the candidate was entirely responsible for his position? John Kerry and John Edwards were products being sold, and they picked a terrible advertising agency to sell their product.

Blame Mary Beth Cahill for a lot of it. She had her man run on platitudes and the "I'm not Bush" platform. I was hungry for issues, not character. I didn't get fed anything except empty rhetoric. Cahill allowed Ted Kennedy and Al Sharpton to get plenty of TV time - not the best strategy when you are demonstrating your party's move towards the center.




I couldn't agree more....

The reason kerry lost is because a majority of americans are bad people.

In a country of decent people, anyone but a convicted felon could have won in a landlside against bush.

The problem was not kerry and was not the DNC, it was the american people. They failed.

The reason kerry lost is because a majority of americans are bad people.


Hey! This is an insult to all bad people. I am a very, very bad person but even I wouldn't have voted for Bush.

The reason kerry lost is because a majority of americans are bad people.

In a country of decent people, anyone but a convicted felon could have won in a landlside against bush.

The problem was not kerry and was not the DNC, it was the american people. They failed.

Don't you think this is a more-than-a-little one-sided view of people, candidates, and beliefs?

The dems failed to get a truly inspirational candidate. Dean would have inspired the dems like none other (and probably lost like McGovern, but that's a whole 'nother story.) They nominated someone they thought would appeal to the middle and beat Bush, and he just came across as a flat occasionally boring.

Having attended rallies for both candidate I can say the supporters at the Bush rally were very dead set on seeing Bush re-elected. They had a "we will do this attitude." Meanwhile at the Kerry rally the supporters had a "We must defeat Bush, or bad things happen." attitude. This attitude didn't appeal to the "swing voters" like me.

Don't you think this is a more-than-a-little one-sided view of people, candidates, and beliefs?



Once i would have agreed.

Bush lied to the country, stole power, invaded another country, massacred its people and is stealing money for his buddies.

This was done blatantly and in the open.

Only bad people vote for somone like that.

Once i would have agreed.

Bush lied to the country, stole power, invaded another country, massacred its people and is stealing money for his buddies.

This was done blatantly and in the open.

Only bad people vote for somone like that.
Hey don't forget that almost half of us that voted voted against him. You are lumping me in with those conservatives.

Only bad people vote for somone like that.

Stop it! Stop insulting us bad people! :mad:

Bush lied to the country, stole power, invaded another country, massacred its people and is stealing money for his buddies.


[jedi-ness]

To sound like Obi-Wan, this is true..."from a certain point of view"--which is largely determined by your personal beliefs, moral standing, and religious persuasions. Not everyone views the bush's actions the same way that you, as testified by the vote outcome. True, IF everyone in the country were in agreement that your arguments were the case, then I imagine that only "bad" people would vote for bush. But, since not everyone agrees with you on the factuality of these arguments, they don't have to be "bad" to vote for him. They're just of a different opinion.

[/jedi-ness]

In fact, I think that attacks upon those that don't agree play a large factor in how the Americans that voted for bush view his actions. All the sentiments of "8u5h 15 4 fr1gg1n l14r! And I want to eat his lying children" (or something along those lines: condecending and defamatory) only fueled those that do not perceive bush as a liar, a thief, or a murderer.

Are you seriously suggesting that Democrats in government cut subsidies to farmers simply because of political differences? Republicans currently hold the trophy for most extremist partisan hatred. Don't take it from them.

If there is any reason I would be glad Bush won, it's this: his spending habits are going to hurt the red states the most. And they bloody well deserve it in my eyes. Let them deal with what they created.

You liberals are exhibiting the exact reasons Kerry lost.

1) The liberal media let everyone know the moment any Bush statement or policy even might play poorly with voters, while they covered up all of Kerry's problems in their attempt to convince everyone that Kerry would win. As a result, most democrats viewed the entire election, right up through much of election night, as a democratic cakewalk.

2) democrats in general, and the media elites in particular, mostly live in a few large cities and urban areas like New York, California, and the New England states more generally. These areas are excessively democratic - so much so that many who live there never really get to know anyone who isn't a liberal, so they can't understand why anyone wouldn't be. They think that because they don't know any conservatives, the conservatives that do exist are caricatures who couldn't possibly be right about anything. They are narrowminded and bigoted in exactly the ways that they portray republicans as being.

3) For 50 years the democratic party's candidates and spokesmen have been explaining their views to the people of America. Ever since Lyndon Johnson was president the liberal view has been explained more and more clearly. A slow but steady trend has emerged: the American people REJECT liberalism in all its forms. Look at the differences between now and then: LBJ got 66% of the vote, and Kerry got 44%. LBJ's democrats controlled 2/3 of the Senate seats and had a majority of the House seats. You have 44 Senate seats and the Republicans have a significant majority in the House. LBJ had more than half of the governors of the states on his side; you have 17/51 (counting DC). Everywhere the American people have heard your views, and have slowly rejected them. To those of you who are saying "the voters are morons! that's why we lost! we just need to speak LOUDER AND S L O W E R!": I am laughing at you.

4) In case you hadn't noticed, terrorists have attacked the US, not just on Sept. 11, but a dozen times before that, and they have been caught in several attempts to attack us since then. Bush is doing exactly what most Americans want to see the president do: he's hunting down and killing terrorists. He isn't waiting for some cheese-eating surrender monkey in France to approve it, either. The American people want everyone who is trying to kill us and destroy democracy to be killed, and GWB is doing a great job of it too. Bin Laden is not even important anymore; we toppled his Afghanistan government, toppled his backers in Iraq, killed the vast majority of his Al qaeda troops, and captured or killed the 4 levels of management below him. In 20 years, whether or not we've caught him, everyone of importance will say, "Bin Laden? Who?" because he's completely helpless now, unless he already died in some Afghanistan cave.

5) Over the past few decades, Europeans, led by the French and the Germans, have consistently and outrageously proclaimed their anti-Americanism. Hardly a day goes by without Jaques "I'm immune from prosecution for the bribes I was caught taking because I'm president" Chiraq calling Bush evil or (ignoring Bush's degree at Yale and MBA from Harvard) calling him a moron. The American people hear this stuff more than most liberals realize, and there is a lot of anti-European sentiment in America, especially among immigrants from 3rd world countries who know what evil really is. You may laugh at "freedom fries" but the democratic party has essentially aligned itself with the America-haters, and the voters know it. Bush is far nicer than the French and Germans deserve, but at least he isn't a craven multilateralist like Kerry would be.

6) the democratic party is the party of special interests, and their alliance of special interests is collapsing. Blacks and Hispanics in particular don't like gays and gay marriage, don't like feminism, and don't like trial lawyers. Women don't like what the feminist movements have become, and no group likes abortion or gun control. The dems are losing their monolithic control of these groups, without which they cannot win the election. Most damaging of all, a new generation of youth voters has arrived at the polls in this election, and they vote as much for Bush as the electorate in general. Since each generation grows more conservative as they grow older and wiser, you dems are in for some serious trouble over the next few decades. You don't have to be a Christian (I'm not religous at all) to understand what moral values are and how important they are for a president to have. You just have to be in a party that doesn't accept the scum of the earth in return for money and votes.

The reason you liberals don't understand these things is that you don't know and hear many conservatives, only the liberal caricatures of them. We, on the other hand, hear the liberal view every time we turn on the TV and see CBS's forged documents, or friends' promiscuous single women, or any of the multitude of hippie losers that inhabit Hollywood. Don't even get me started on the socialists in the BBC and other foreign news. Almost every conservative (myself included) knows exactly what the liberal talking points are on every issue; you often don't seem to know that we even have logical points to make. We do, on every major issue.

[jedi-ness]

To sound like Obi-Wan, this is true..."from a certain point of view"--which is largely determined by your personal beliefs, moral standing, and religious persuasions. Not everyone views the bush's actions the same way that you, as testified by the vote outcome. True, IF everyone in the country were in agreement that your arguments were the case, then I imagine that only "bad" people would vote for bush. But, since not everyone agrees with you on the factuality of these arguments, they don't have to be "bad" to vote for him. They're just of a different opinion.

[/jedi-ness]

In fact, I think that attacks upon those that don't agree play a large factor in how the Americans that voted for bush view his actions. All the sentiments of "8u5h 15 4 fr1gg1n l14r! And I want to eat his lying children" (or something along those lines: condecending and defamatory) only fueled those that do not perceive bush as a liar, a thief, or a murderer.

Very good point. I love how I've been called a moron because I voted for Bush, even though I deliberated constantly over who I should vote for up until I actually did so.

Another person in Columbus!

You liberals are exhibiting the exact reasons Kerry lost.

1) The liberal media let everyone know the moment any Bush statement or policy even might play poorly with voters, while they covered up all of Kerry's problems in their attempt to convince everyone that Kerry would win. As a result, most democrats viewed the entire election, right up through much of election night, as a democratic cakewalk.

2) democrats in general, and the media elites in particular, mostly live in a few large cities and urban areas like New York, California, and the New England states more generally. These areas are excessively democratic - so much so that many who live there never really get to know anyone who isn't a liberal, so they can't understand why anyone wouldn't be. They think that because they don't know any conservatives, the conservatives that do exist are caricatures who couldn't possibly be right about anything. They are narrowminded and bigoted in exactly the ways that they portray republicans as being.

3) For 50 years the democratic party's candidates and spokesmen have been explaining their views to the people of America. Ever since Lyndon Johnson was president the liberal view has been explained more and more clearly. A slow but steady trend has emerged: the American people REJECT liberalism in all its forms. Look at the differences between now and then: LBJ got 66% of the vote, and Kerry got 44%. LBJ's democrats controlled 2/3 of the Senate seats and had a majority of the House seats. You have 44 Senate seats and the Republicans have a significant majority in the House. LBJ had more than half of the governors of the states on his side; you have 17/51 (counting DC). Everywhere the American people have heard your views, and have slowly rejected them. To those of you who are saying "the voters are morons! that's why we lost! we just need to speak LOUDER AND S L O W E R!": I am laughing at you.

4) In case you hadn't noticed, terrorists have attacked the US, not just on Sept. 11, but a dozen times before that, and they have been caught in several attempts to attack us since then. Bush is doing exactly what most Americans want to see the president do: he's hunting down and killing terrorists. He isn't waiting for some cheese-eating surrender monkey in France to approve it, either. The American people want everyone who is trying to kill us and destroy democracy to be killed, and GWB is doing a great job of it too. Bin Laden is not even important anymore; we toppled his Afghanistan government, toppled his backers in Iraq, killed the vast majority of his Al qaeda troops, and captured or killed the 4 levels of management below him. In 20 years, whether or not we've caught him, everyone of importance will say, "Bin Laden? Who?" because he's completely helpless now, unless he already died in some Afghanistan cave.

5) Over the past few decades, Europeans, led by the French and the Germans, have consistently and outrageously proclaimed their anti-Americanism. Hardly a day goes by without Jaques "I'm immune from prosecution for the bribes I was caught taking because I'm president" Chiraq calling Bush evil or (ignoring Bush's degree at Yale and MBA from Harvard) calling him a moron. The American people hear this stuff more than most liberals realize, and there is a lot of anti-European sentiment in America, especially among immigrants from 3rd world countries who know what evil really is. You may laugh at "freedom fries" but the democratic party has essentially aligned itself with the America-haters, and the voters know it. Bush is far nicer than the French and Germans deserve, but at least he isn't a craven multilateralist like Kerry would be.

6) the democratic party is the party of special interests, and their alliance of special interests is collapsing. Blacks and Hispanics in particular don't like gays and gay marriage, don't like feminism, and don't like trial lawyers. Women don't like what the feminist movements have become, and no group likes abortion or gun control. The dems are losing their monolithic control of these groups, without which they cannot win the election. Most damaging of all, a new generation of youth voters has arrived at the polls in this election, and they vote as much for Bush as the electorate in general. Since each generation grows more conservative as they grow older and wiser, you dems are in for some serious trouble over the next few decades. You don't have to be a Christian (I'm not religous at all) to understand what moral values are and how important they are for a president to have. You just have to be in a party that doesn't accept the scum of the earth in return for money and votes.

The reason you liberals don't understand these things is that you don't know and hear many conservatives, only the liberal caricatures of them. We, on the other hand, hear the liberal view every time we turn on the TV and see CBS's forged documents, or friends' promiscuous single women, or any of the multitude of hippie losers that inhabit Hollywood. Don't even get me started on the socialists in the BBC and other foreign news. Almost every conservative (myself included) knows exactly what the liberal talking points are on every issue; you often don't seem to know that we even have logical points to make. We do, on every major issue.

Very good. You nailed it. The Democrats are so out of step with the rest of us. Just the other day, Hillary Clinton portrayed herself as a "Conservative Christian." :rolleyes:

You liberals are exhibiting the exact reasons Kerry lost.

1) The liberal media let everyone know the moment any Bush statement or policy even might play poorly with voters, while they covered up all of Kerry's problems in their attempt to convince everyone that Kerry would win. As a result, most democrats viewed the entire election, right up through much of election night, as a democratic cakewalk.
THe media failed on so many levels it's rediculous. Saying the media is liberal only shows you to be an idiot.

2) democrats in general, and the media elites in particular, mostly live in a few large cities and urban areas like New York, California, and the New England states more generally. These areas are excessively democratic - so much so that many who live there never really get to know anyone who isn't a liberal, so they can't understand why anyone wouldn't be. They think that because they don't know any conservatives, the conservatives that do exist are caricatures who couldn't possibly be right about anything. They are narrowminded and bigoted in exactly the ways that they portray republicans as being.
Only, the current republican party is NOT conservative at all. Anyone who thinks Bush is a conservative is either ignorant, a fucking dumbass, or both.

3) For 50 years the democratic party's candidates and spokesmen have been explaining their views to the people of America. Ever since Lyndon Johnson was president the liberal view has been explained more and more clearly. A slow but steady trend has emerged: the American people REJECT liberalism in all its forms. Look at the differences between now and then: LBJ got 66% of the vote, and Kerry got 44%. LBJ's democrats controlled 2/3 of the Senate seats and had a majority of the House seats. You have 44 Senate seats and the Republicans have a significant majority in the House. LBJ had more than half of the governors of the states on his side; you have 17/51 (counting DC). Everywhere the American people have heard your views, and have slowly rejected them. To those of you who are saying "the voters are morons! that's why we lost! we just need to speak LOUDER AND S L O W E R!": I am laughing at you.
I'm glad Bush won for one reason: his tax habits hurt those big red states the most.

Really, I don't care anymore. As far as I'm concerned, fuck the red states. Fuck 'em. They're going to be hurt hard by BUsh, and they voted him because of baby Jesus. And really, I'm just going to laugh if I hear about job problems and whatnot in the red states. No really, I'm going to laugh. Hard.

4) In case you hadn't noticed, terrorists have attacked the US, not just on Sept. 11, but a dozen times before that, and they have been caught in several attempts to attack us since then. Bush is doing exactly what most Americans want to see the president do: he's hunting down and killing terrorists. He isn't waiting for some cheese-eating surrender monkey in France to approve it, either. The American people want everyone who is trying to kill us and destroy democracy to be killed, and GWB is doing a great job of it too. Bin Laden is not even important anymore; we toppled his Afghanistan government, toppled his backers in Iraq, killed the vast majority of his Al qaeda troops, and captured or killed the 4 levels of management below him. In 20 years, whether or not we've caught him, everyone of importance will say, "Bin Laden? Who?" because he's completely helpless now, unless he already died in some Afghanistan cave.
You see, this is because Americans are FUCKING STUPID. You can't stop "terrorism" by trying to kill terrorists. That's idiotic. It DOESN'T WORK. The "War on Terror" has only INCREASED the number of terrorists. It's fucking rediculous. And yet people STILL stand behind it. Fucking stupid, half of us.

5) Over the past few decades, Europeans, led by the French and the Germans, have consistently and outrageously proclaimed their anti-Americanism. Hardly a day goes by without Jaques "I'm immune from prosecution for the bribes I was caught taking because I'm president" Chiraq calling Bush evil or (ignoring Bush's degree at Yale and MBA from Harvard) calling him a moron. The American people hear this stuff more than most liberals realize, and there is a lot of anti-European sentiment in America, especially among immigrants from 3rd world countries who know what evil really is. You may laugh at "freedom fries" but the democratic party has essentially aligned itself with the America-haters, and the voters know it. Bush is far nicer than the French and Germans deserve, but at least he isn't a craven multilateralist like Kerry would be.
You know, maybe there's a REASON the WHOLE FUCKING WORLD hates America right now? NAWWWWWWWW, that couldn't be! Because we're perfect right?

6) the democratic party is the party of special interests, and their alliance of special interests is collapsing. Blacks and Hispanics in particular don't like gays and gay marriage, don't like feminism, and don't like trial lawyers. Women don't like what the feminist movements have become, and no group likes abortion or gun control. The dems are losing their monolithic control of these groups, without which they cannot win the election. Most damaging of all, a new generation of youth voters has arrived at the polls in this election, and they vote as much for Bush as the electorate in general. Since each generation grows more conservative as they grow older and wiser, you dems are in for some serious trouble over the next few decades. You don't have to be a Christian (I'm not religous at all) to understand what moral values are and how important they are for a president to have. You just have to be in a party that doesn't accept the scum of the earth in return for money and votes.
**spits out drink** The DEMS are a party of special interests?! FIrst of all, the republican party today has the hand of corporations in it's ass. Secondly, like I said before, I no longer give a fuck. People don't like gay marrige? FUck 'em. People didn't like ending segregation either, and we said "Fuck 'em" back then, so why not do it now?

And people don't grow conservative as they grow "older and wiser," that's just a crock of shit.

Who is this "scum of the earth?" Because by pandering directly to big buisness, that's what Bush did, and he won. Seriously, are you ignorant or stupid? I wanna know. I'm curious now.

The reason you liberals don't understand these things is that you don't know and hear many conservatives, only the liberal caricatures of them. We, on the other hand, hear the liberal view every time we turn on the TV and see CBS's forged documents, or friends' promiscuous single women, or any of the multitude of hippie losers that inhabit Hollywood. Don't even get me started on the socialists in the BBC and other foreign news. Almost every conservative (myself included) knows exactly what the liberal talking points are on every issue; you often don't seem to know that we even have logical points to make. We do, on every major issue.
That's because you DON'T. Everything you've said in this long post has been an absolute pile of dung. You know what, if someone says "I'm against gay marrige," they loose all respect from me. As far as I'm concerned, they don't have any logical points. When someone says "I'm for the war on terror," the same fucking thing happens.

America has become a nation of fucking idiots, THAT'S why republicans won. So fuck it. Really, fuck it. When we get raped during these four years, we deserved it.

THe media failed on so many levels it's rediculous. Saying the media is liberal only shows you to be an idiot.


Only, the current republican party is NOT conservative at all. Anyone who thinks Bush is a conservative is either ignorant, a fucking dumbass, or both.


-snip-

America has become a nation of fucking idiots, THAT'S why republicans won. So fuck it. Really, fuck it. When we get raped during these four years, we deserved it.

Whoa, with that many f-bombs you could take out a small country. But probably not a high-quality girl...

I think you need some pills or something, you're gonna blow a gasket with this much hate.

You liberals are exhibiting the exact reasons Kerry lost.

1) The liberal media let everyone know the moment any Bush statement or policy even might play poorly with voters, while they covered up all of Kerry's problems in their attempt to convince everyone that Kerry would win. As a result, most democrats viewed the entire election, right up through much of election night, as a democratic cakewalk.

2) democrats in general, and the media elites in particular, mostly live in a few large cities and urban areas like New York, California, and the New England states more generally. These areas are excessively democratic - so much so that many who live there never really get to know anyone who isn't a liberal, so they can't understand why anyone wouldn't be. They think that because they don't know any conservatives, the conservatives that do exist are caricatures who couldn't possibly be right about anything. They are narrowminded and bigoted in exactly the ways that they portray republicans as being.

3) For 50 years the democratic party's candidates and spokesmen have been explaining their views to the people of America. Ever since Lyndon Johnson was president the liberal view has been explained more and more clearly. A slow but steady trend has emerged: the American people REJECT liberalism in all its forms. Look at the differences between now and then: LBJ got 66% of the vote, and Kerry got 44%. LBJ's democrats controlled 2/3 of the Senate seats and had a majority of the House seats. You have 44 Senate seats and the Republicans have a significant majority in the House. LBJ had more than half of the governors of the states on his side; you have 17/51 (counting DC). Everywhere the American people have heard your views, and have slowly rejected them. To those of you who are saying "the voters are morons! that's why we lost! we just need to speak LOUDER AND S L O W E R!": I am laughing at you.

4) In case you hadn't noticed, terrorists have attacked the US, not just on Sept. 11, but a dozen times before that, and they have been caught in several attempts to attack us since then. Bush is doing exactly what most Americans want to see the president do: he's hunting down and killing terrorists. He isn't waiting for some cheese-eating surrender monkey in France to approve it, either. The American people want everyone who is trying to kill us and destroy democracy to be killed, and GWB is doing a great job of it too. Bin Laden is not even important anymore; we toppled his Afghanistan government, toppled his backers in Iraq, killed the vast majority of his Al qaeda troops, and captured or killed the 4 levels of management below him. In 20 years, whether or not we've caught him, everyone of importance will say, "Bin Laden? Who?" because he's completely helpless now, unless he already died in some Afghanistan cave.

5) Over the past few decades, Europeans, led by the French and the Germans, have consistently and outrageously proclaimed their anti-Americanism. Hardly a day goes by without Jaques "I'm immune from prosecution for the bribes I was caught taking because I'm president" Chiraq calling Bush evil or (ignoring Bush's degree at Yale and MBA from Harvard) calling him a moron. The American people hear this stuff more than most liberals realize, and there is a lot of anti-European sentiment in America, especially among immigrants from 3rd world countries who know what evil really is. You may laugh at "freedom fries" but the democratic party has essentially aligned itself with the America-haters, and the voters know it. Bush is far nicer than the French and Germans deserve, but at least he isn't a craven multilateralist like Kerry would be.

6) the democratic party is the party of special interests, and their alliance of special interests is collapsing. Blacks and Hispanics in particular don't like gays and gay marriage, don't like feminism, and don't like trial lawyers. Women don't like what the feminist movements have become, and no group likes abortion or gun control. The dems are losing their monolithic control of these groups, without which they cannot win the election. Most damaging of all, a new generation of youth voters has arrived at the polls in this election, and they vote as much for Bush as the electorate in general. Since each generation grows more conservative as they grow older and wiser, you dems are in for some serious trouble over the next few decades. You don't have to be a Christian (I'm not religous at all) to understand what moral values are and how important they are for a president to have. You just have to be in a party that doesn't accept the scum of the earth in return for money and votes.

The reason you liberals don't understand these things is that you don't know and hear many conservatives, only the liberal caricatures of them. We, on the other hand, hear the liberal view every time we turn on the TV and see CBS's forged documents, or friends' promiscuous single women, or any of the multitude of hippie losers that inhabit Hollywood. Don't even get me started on the socialists in the BBC and other foreign news. Almost every conservative (myself included) knows exactly what the liberal talking points are on every issue; you often don't seem to know that we even have logical points to make. We do, on every major issue.

That was incredibly awesome. I was going to say something, but that pretty much wraps it up right there.

THe media failed on so many levels it's rediculous. Saying the media is liberal only shows you to be an idiot.


Only, the current republican party is NOT conservative at all. Anyone who thinks Bush is a conservative is either ignorant, a fucking dumbass, or both.


I'm glad Bush won for one reason: his tax habits hurt those big red states the most.

Really, I don't care anymore. As far as I'm concerned, fuck the red states. Fuck 'em. They're going to be hurt hard by BUsh, and they voted him because of baby Jesus. And really, I'm just going to laugh if I hear about job problems and whatnot in the red states. No really, I'm going to laugh. Hard.


You see, this is because Americans are FUCKING STUPID. You can't stop "terrorism" by trying to kill terrorists. That's idiotic. It DOESN'T WORK. The "War on Terror" has only INCREASED the number of terrorists. It's fucking rediculous. And yet people STILL stand behind it. Fucking stupid, half of us.


You know, maybe there's a REASON the WHOLE FUCKING WORLD hates America right now? NAWWWWWWWW, that couldn't be! Because we're perfect right?


**spits out drink** The DEMS are a party of special interests?! FIrst of all, the republican party today has the hand of corporations in it's ass. Secondly, like I said before, I no longer give a fuck. People don't like gay marrige? FUck 'em. People didn't like ending segregation either, and we said "Fuck 'em" back then, so why not do it now?

And people don't grow conservative as they grow "older and wiser," that's just a crock of shit.

Who is this "scum of the earth?" Because by pandering directly to big buisness, that's what Bush did, and he won. Seriously, are you ignorant or stupid? I wanna know. I'm curious now.


That's because you DON'T. Everything you've said in this long post has been an absolute pile of dung. You know what, if someone says "I'm against gay marrige," they loose all respect from me. As far as I'm concerned, they don't have any logical points. When someone says "I'm for the war on terror," the same fucking thing happens.

America has become a nation of fucking idiots, THAT'S why republicans won. So fuck it. Really, fuck it. When we get raped during these four years, we deserved it.

Is that your reasoning for everything? "They're STUPID!" If you cannot argue correctly, doesn't that say something about your intelligence too?

What really blows my mind is the fact that the liberal media (and yes, it is liberal) keeps analyzing the election of 2004 as if they're investigating an accident, a component that malfuctioned and now they're doing toubleshooting. I don't think it has occurred to them even for a moment that maybe... just maybe... the reason Bush won was because the people voted him in, and it's that simple. They rejected Kerry and chose Bush. Nothing went wrong, nothing malfunctioned, the process isn't broken. The people have spoken, and the liberals won't open their eyes and see the reason.

I've heard NBC's Dan Rather do segments on this, I've heard ABC-owned radio news stations bring on guests to offer their opinions on this, and always it's from the same angle: "Why did Kerry lose? What went wrong? How did we fail?"

The answer is, because despite the best efforts of the liberal media, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. That's why.

THe media failed on so many levels it's rediculous. Saying the media is liberal only shows you to be an idiot.


Only, the current republican party is NOT conservative at all. Anyone who thinks Bush is a conservative is either ignorant, a fucking dumbass, or both.


I'm glad Bush won for one reason: his tax habits hurt those big red states the most.

Really, I don't care anymore. As far as I'm concerned, fuck the red states. Fuck 'em. They're going to be hurt hard by BUsh, and they voted him because of baby Jesus. And really, I'm just going to laugh if I hear about job problems and whatnot in the red states. No really, I'm going to laugh. Hard.


You see, this is because Americans are FUCKING STUPID. You can't stop "terrorism" by trying to kill terrorists. That's idiotic. It DOESN'T WORK. The "War on Terror" has only INCREASED the number of terrorists. It's fucking rediculous. And yet people STILL stand behind it. Fucking stupid, half of us.


You know, maybe there's a REASON the WHOLE FUCKING WORLD hates America right now? NAWWWWWWWW, that couldn't be! Because we're perfect right?


**spits out drink** The DEMS are a party of special interests?! FIrst of all, the republican party today has the hand of corporations in it's ass. Secondly, like I said before, I no longer give a fuck. People don't like gay marrige? FUck 'em. People didn't like ending segregation either, and we said "Fuck 'em" back then, so why not do it now?

And people don't grow conservative as they grow "older and wiser," that's just a crock of shit.

Who is this "scum of the earth?" Because by pandering directly to big buisness, that's what Bush did, and he won. Seriously, are you ignorant or stupid? I wanna know. I'm curious now.


That's because you DON'T. Everything you've said in this long post has been an absolute pile of dung. You know what, if someone says "I'm against gay marrige," they loose all respect from me. As far as I'm concerned, they don't have any logical points. When someone says "I'm for the war on terror," the same fucking thing happens.

America has become a nation of fucking idiots, THAT'S why republicans won. So fuck it. Really, fuck it. When we get raped during these four years, we deserved it.

Use of the word "f*ck" in this post:13
Instances of name-calling in this post:10

And this is supposed to be taken as a serious argument? Argue with maturity or please, don't waste our time. Acting like this so damages your credibility that even if you have a valid point in there, it's likely to be ignored or overlooked.

Just a word of advice.

Just barely lost? Last I checked, 3.5 MILLION more people voted for Bush than for Kerry, Bush won 31 states to Kerry's 20, and Bush won 286 electoral votes to Kerry's 253.

You may have missed it, but Ohio trended to Bush and bush picked up New Mexico from the blue side as well. New Jersey was classified a "swing state" but has traditionally been a Democratic stronghold, as has Pennsylvania.

The truth is that turn out DID win the election for Bush, but the real reason that Kerry lost is that he didn't give ANY one a real choice. Kerry repeatedly said he would do the same things that Bush was currently doing in Iraq, only he'd "do it smarter/faster/better."

With the lack of a REAL choice between candidates, the base that was more excited about the election (republicans) and the undecided voters tended to vote for Bush.

But 2008 is going to be interesting because in the aftermath of this election, the "How could you people be so stupid" arguement is going to backfire on Democrats... They lost the election and instead of saying that they had a candidate that pretty much sucked and never gave the American people a choice, they assault the people who voted against them as "stupid," "rubes," and "uneducated."

Way to appeal to the other side dems! Go ahead and give the right another reason to hold your party in contempt and turn out in even greater numbers to support thier candidates.

John Kerry lost because he was never a factor in the election at all. The only prominent figure in 2004 was George W. Bush. One side voted for him and one voted against him. Talk to almost anyone who voted for Kerry, and the first thing that they'll tell you is it was because the needed to get Bush out of office. Love him or hate him, the election was only about him.

As far as the future of Republicans vs Democrats, I really couldn't care less. I strongly dislike both parties, and believe that corruption at the highest levels of both of them is a major problem with our government today. Everything about our current government is built to protect the two-party system, which is quite possibly the most detrimental aspect of all.

Democrats and Republicans both are becoming far more extreme than the vast majority of the American people. The gap will likely continue to widen, furthering the division that we see so clearly now.

We need to move away from the two-party system, and elect someone who cares more about the welfare of the people and the country than about partisan politics. Now is the time for a strong independant to rock the electoral college, and fortunately, we have one planning to run.

Jesse Ventura in 2008!

Jesse Ventura in 2008!

I could see voting for Jesse... I don't always like his politics, but I respect the fact that he's never been one to kiss up to the media. To me, that says a lot.

Use of the word "f*ck" in this post:13
Instances of name-calling in this post:10

And this is supposed to be taken as a serious argument? Argue with maturity or please, don't waste our time. Acting like this so damages your credibility that even if you have a valid point in there, it's likely to be ignored or overlooked.

Just a word of advice.
Definitely a good piece of advice...

Yeah, I'm so glad Howard Dean won the elections in America. Bush had that loss coming to him anyway.
:confused: What alternate universe are you living in?

To those of you who are saying "the voters are morons! that's why we lost! we just need to speak LOUDER AND S L O W E R!": I am laughing at you.
No the reason that doesn't work is because you end up alienating those "morons", whom, ironically enough, are needed to win an election.

You liberals are exhibiting the exact reasons Kerry lost.

1) The liberal media let everyone know the moment any Bush statement or policy even might play poorly with voters, while they covered up all of Kerry's problems in their attempt to convince everyone that Kerry would win. As a result, most democrats viewed the entire election, right up through much of election night, as a democratic cakewalk.

2) democrats in general, and the media elites in particular, mostly live in a few large cities and urban areas like New York, California, and the New England states more generally. These areas are excessively democratic - so much so that many who live there never really get to know anyone who isn't a liberal, so they can't understand why anyone wouldn't be. They think that because they don't know any conservatives, the conservatives that do exist are caricatures who couldn't possibly be right about anything. They are narrowminded and bigoted in exactly the ways that they portray republicans as being.

3) For 50 years the democratic party's candidates and spokesmen have been explaining their views to the people of America. Ever since Lyndon Johnson was president the liberal view has been explained more and more clearly. A slow but steady trend has emerged: the American people REJECT liberalism in all its forms. Look at the differences between now and then: LBJ got 66% of the vote, and Kerry got 44%. LBJ's democrats controlled 2/3 of the Senate seats and had a majority of the House seats. You have 44 Senate seats and the Republicans have a significant majority in the House. LBJ had more than half of the governors of the states on his side; you have 17/51 (counting DC). Everywhere the American people have heard your views, and have slowly rejected them. To those of you who are saying "the voters are morons! that's why we lost! we just need to speak LOUDER AND S L O W E R!": I am laughing at you.

4) In case you hadn't noticed, terrorists have attacked the US, not just on Sept. 11, but a dozen times before that, and they have been caught in several attempts to attack us since then. Bush is doing exactly what most Americans want to see the president do: he's hunting down and killing terrorists. He isn't waiting for some cheese-eating surrender monkey in France to approve it, either. The American people want everyone who is trying to kill us and destroy democracy to be killed, and GWB is doing a great job of it too. Bin Laden is not even important anymore; we toppled his Afghanistan government, toppled his backers in Iraq, killed the vast majority of his Al qaeda troops, and captured or killed the 4 levels of management below him. In 20 years, whether or not we've caught him, everyone of importance will say, "Bin Laden? Who?" because he's completely helpless now, unless he already died in some Afghanistan cave.

5) Over the past few decades, Europeans, led by the French and the Germans, have consistently and outrageously proclaimed their anti-Americanism. Hardly a day goes by without Jaques "I'm immune from prosecution for the bribes I was caught taking because I'm president" Chiraq calling Bush evil or (ignoring Bush's degree at Yale and MBA from Harvard) calling him a moron. The American people hear this stuff more than most liberals realize, and there is a lot of anti-European sentiment in America, especially among immigrants from 3rd world countries who know what evil really is. You may laugh at "freedom fries" but the democratic party has essentially aligned itself with the America-haters, and the voters know it. Bush is far nicer than the French and Germans deserve, but at least he isn't a craven multilateralist like Kerry would be.

6) the democratic party is the party of special interests, and their alliance of special interests is collapsing. Blacks and Hispanics in particular don't like gays and gay marriage, don't like feminism, and don't like trial lawyers. Women don't like what the feminist movements have become, and no group likes abortion or gun control. The dems are losing their monolithic control of these groups, without which they cannot win the election. Most damaging of all, a new generation of youth voters has arrived at the polls in this election, and they vote as much for Bush as the electorate in general. Since each generation grows more conservative as they grow older and wiser, you dems are in for some serious trouble over the next few decades. You don't have to be a Christian (I'm not religous at all) to understand what moral values are and how important they are for a president to have. You just have to be in a party that doesn't accept the scum of the earth in return for money and votes.

The reason you liberals don't understand these things is that you don't know and hear many conservatives, only the liberal caricatures of them. We, on the other hand, hear the liberal view every time we turn on the TV and see CBS's forged documents, or friends' promiscuous single women, or any of the multitude of hippie losers that inhabit Hollywood. Don't even get me started on the socialists in the BBC and other foreign news. Almost every conservative (myself included) knows exactly what the liberal talking points are on every issue; you often don't seem to know that we even have logical points to make. We do, on every major issue.


The fact that you mentioned a 'liberal media' in your first point foreshadowed a lot of bullshit. Upon reading the rest, I applaude you in your use of literary devices.

And that guy is, right, a lot of America is stupid, and a lot more than just the bit who voted for Bush. Ever since the mid 50's -- With the rebellion of the 60's and 70's being an interjection -- the incredible power of the Image has ruled America through the hands of the advertising executives and the TV men.

EDIT:

By the way, the reason Kerry lost is because of the immense slant there was in the way of Image talent between the parties. The Dem's campaign runners absolutely sucked at what they did. It was no deficiency of Kerry's, if his history (The history you find by reading about him, not what you're told by the democrats or republicans) is any indicator, he would have made a very good president, perhaps even an amazing one.

In contrast, Bush had some simply amazing Image experts working to make him much better than he was and Kerry horribly worse than he actually is. Everything from the lies of the SBVFT to the lies about Kerry's position on Gay Marriage and Abortion, to the way in which they somehow managed to portray the war in Iraq as having to do with terrorism (Though, that isn't entirely surprising. A good percentage of Republicans are still dumb enough to believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11), these guys knew exactly what they were doing.

You see, increasingly, the Presidential office is becoming a figure head. We will never have great presidents like Teddy Roosevelt or Abe Lincoln again, we will never see poor boys from poor backgrounds like Polk getting into office again, this country is slowly shifting from a real Constitutional Republic to a Capitalist Aristocracy, the sad part being is that it is so hidden no one will even notice when the change is complete, indeed it may already be. The invention of mass media was both mankinds greatest boon and his greatest curse.

The liberals in the Democratic Party still haven't figured out that sucking up to Michael Moore and dismissing middle America as a bunch of idiots isn't a very good campaign strategy. Oh well, get back to your therapists and cry to them about how you can't get Chimpy Bushitler to stop messing with your minds.

The fact that you mentioned a 'liberal media' in your first point foreshadowed a lot of bullshit. Upon reading the rest, I applaude you in your use of literary devices.

And that guy is, right, a lot of America is stupid, and a lot more than just the bit who voted for Bush. Ever since the mid 50's -- With the rebellion of the 60's and 70's being an interjection -- the incredible power of the Image has ruled America through the hands of the advertising executives and the TV men.

So essentially, you made a judgement based upon the first sentence, and then read the rest of the post through that filter. Thanks, by the way for some more profanity.

Why, exactly, are the majority of Americans stupid? Simply because they disagree with the left? In my opinion, the fact that they were able to see past the propaganda and coverups is an indicator that they're smarter than they're given credit for. But then again, that's the issue, isn't it?

So essentially, you made a judgement based upon the first sentence, and then read the rest of the post through that filter. Thanks, by the way for some more profanity.

Actually, I always read with a filter running in my head, it is very hard to sift through the bullshit that one side or another spouts.

By the way, if you aren't ready to deal with a few words -- for that is really all they are -- then I suggest finding a nice book to read and coming back to the internet when you've grown up.

Why, exactly, are the majority of Americans stupid? Simply because they disagree with the left? In my opinion, the fact that they were able to see past the propaganda and coverups is an indicator that they're smarter than they're given credit for. But then again, that's the issue, isn't it?

Actually, if you had read my post, I called both those that agree with leftist thinking and those that disagree with it stupid. Of course, this is no fault of their's, it was in action long before any of them were born.

Actually, I always read with a filter running in my head, it is very hard to sift through the bullshit that one side or another spouts.

Ah I see, so this is your excuse for closing your mind to the possibility that someone who disagrees with you might make a valid point. Gotcha.


By the way, if you aren't ready to deal with a few words -- for that is really all they are -- then I suggest finding a nice book to read and coming back to the internet when you've grown up.

I understand. You write with a foul mouth and I'm the one that needs to grow up. I find that marvelous.

Actually, to repeat what I said earlier, when you use profanity in what is supposed to be an intelligent and mature discussion, you ruin your own credibility. I don't personally find profanity offensive... I used to work in an auto shop so I'm as used to it as can be. That doesn't change that fact that I've found that typically in a discussion, the guy (or gal) doing all the cussing is the one who is least in control of their emotions, and more likely trying to win the debate by shock value rather than actually making intelligent arguments.


Actually, if you had read my post, I called both those that agree with leftist thinking and those that disagree with it stupid. Of course, this is no fault of their's, it was in action long before any of them were born.

Therefore by your logic EVERYONE is stupid, and the entire point becomes moot. Why did you waste our time with this?

Ah I see, so this is your excuse for closing your mind to the possibility that someone who disagrees with you might make a valid point. Gotcha.

Would you actually read what I say instead of skimming it to get a general gist of it?

I said both sides spout bullshit, so I filter it through to get as many actual facts and observations as I can.

I understand. You write with a foul mouth and I'm the one that needs to grow up. I find that marvelous.

I apologize for the lightly veiled insult, I'm just getting tired of dealing with idiots who can't deal with a few harsh words. If you aren't like that, I understand and will try to keep it to a minimum.

Actually, to repeat what I said earlier, when you use profanity in what is supposed to be an intelligent and mature discussion, you ruin your own credibility. I don't personally find profanity offensive... I used to work in an auto shop so I'm as used to it as can be. That doesn't change that fact that I've found that typically in a discussion, the guy (or gal) doing all the cussing is the one who is least in control of their emotions, and more likely trying to win the debate by shock value rather than actually making intelligent arguments.

Though it may seem to run contradictory to what I said above, I really do not feel there is anything inherently immature about using any of those words. They are emotive words meant to express emphasis, perhaps strong emotion, behind a certain phrase of idea. This is all the more important over the internet where meaning is hard to carry and tone is impossible.


Therefore by your logic EVERYONE is stupid, and the entire point becomes moot. Why did you waste our time with this?

Well, not EVERYONE, but most people are. Just giving up, though, would be the worst thing I could do. You see, I'm part of a dying breed, a true idealist. When I do something, I don't particularly care about the physical gain, more about the metaphysical satisfaction. I am one of the greatest proponents for the space program you will ever meet, for instance, but not because of all the benefits there would be to venturing among the stars, but because I would just want to see them.

However, idealism is slowly being killed by the materialism of the corrupting greed that has destroyed my precious Jeffersonian Capitalism. With the advent of mass media, the target shifted from idealistic capitalism to the idealists themselves, advertisements grew in number and the almighty Image was born.

Though it may seem to run contradictory to what I said above, I really do not feel there is anything inherently immature about using any of those words. They are emotive words meant to express emphasis, perhaps strong emotion, behind a certain phrase of idea. This is all the more important over the internet where meaning is hard to carry and tone is impossible.

Admittedly, it is difficult to convey emotion on a forum like this. I have heard that something like 20% of communication between two people is the actual words used. The rest is body language and tone, which are obviously missing in this format. I do see your point. At the same time there is that caveat that there are those who will dismiss you for that particular approach.

I am one of the greatest proponents for the space program you will ever meet, for instance, but not because of all the benefits there would be to venturing among the stars, but because I would just want to see them.

In this, you and I are kindred spirits. I get choked up whenever I watch a Shuttle launch because to me, it symbolizes our progress toward that. One of the greates things the President tried to do was motivate the country to turn its goal to Martian exploration. Sadly, it appears that this vision has failed unless someone picks up the ball and runs with it.


However, idealism is slowly being killed by the materialism of the corrupting greed that has destroyed my precious Jeffersonian Capitalism. With the advent of mass media, the target shifted from idealistic capitalism to the idealists themselves, advertisements grew in number and the almighty Image was born.

I agree, but I think the pendulum is beginning to swing back the other way. People are getting tired of this sort of thing.

What needs to be made clear, is the fact that while historically it has been the Republican party that has been associated with big business and elitism, it is becoming more and more apparent to the population at large that at best, BOTH parties are elitist, and in my opinion, the Democratic party is moreso.

For the record, I am a registered Independent.

I have heard Republican supporters describes as knuckle draggers, homophobes, bigots, nut-jobs and a host of other names, all for disagreeing with the left. Do Conservatives speak unkindly of liberals? Of course they do, but when celebrities from Hollywood rub pictures of the President on their crotch or refer to Bush supporters as unwashed masses, that is not only elitist but frighteningly un-American. If all of us are equal, why then do these folks seem to be trying to take it upon themselves to do our thinking for us?

The people are aware of this. They see it, and they resent it. That is why Bush won.

The fact that you mentioned a 'liberal media' in your first point foreshadowed a lot of bullshit. Upon reading the rest, I applaude you in your use of literary devices.

And that guy is, right, a lot of America is stupid, and a lot more than just the bit who voted for Bush. Ever since the mid 50's -- With the rebellion of the 60's and 70's being an interjection -- the incredible power of the Image has ruled America through the hands of the advertising executives and the TV men.

EDIT:

By the way, the reason Kerry lost is because of the immense slant there was in the way of Image talent between the parties. The Dem's campaign runners absolutely sucked at what they did. It was no deficiency of Kerry's, if his history (The history you find by reading about him, not what you're told by the democrats or republicans) is any indicator, he would have made a very good president, perhaps even an amazing one.

In contrast, Bush had some simply amazing Image experts working to make him much better than he was and Kerry horribly worse than he actually is. Everything from the lies of the SBVFT to the lies about Kerry's position on Gay Marriage and Abortion, to the way in which they somehow managed to portray the war in Iraq as having to do with terrorism (Though, that isn't entirely surprising. A good percentage of Republicans are still dumb enough to believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11), these guys knew exactly what they were doing.

You see, increasingly, the Presidential office is becoming a figure head. We will never have great presidents like Teddy Roosevelt or Abe Lincoln again, we will never see poor boys from poor backgrounds like Polk getting into office again, this country is slowly shifting from a real Constitutional Republic to a Capitalist Aristocracy, the sad part being is that it is so hidden no one will even notice when the change is complete, indeed it may already be. The invention of mass media was both mankinds greatest boon and his greatest curse.

I just love how every bleeding heart liberal likes to call conservatives dumb.

Well, here's the truth: just because somebody disagrees with you politically doesn't make them dumb.

Actually, it's stupid to even think you're better than anybody else. Does your poop not stink? Do you not make decisions of which you feel are right? Does that mean somebody else can call you dumb for making it?

To me it is stupid to sit there and drink $5 crapafrapachino (aka expensive sub-standard coffee) and claim how smart you are, considering you have no earthly idea how even your food gets to market, or how your car works, or how to keep yourself out of immense credit debt. Most "redneck retards" (as I myself have once been called) knows such information. (Those cars out front of our houses are not junk, they're learning tools. ;-))

So before liberals go about spouting their rhetoric, consider the fact that they themselves may be substandard to those that that believe to be superior to.

As far as the whole Swift boat thing, I digress to my previous statement. Actually, I'd consider the weight of their testimony over anybody else's in that respect; they are a primary source that chose to let the truth be known. Kerry spent 4 short months in Vietnam, had some questionable metals, and in the end bashed his fellow Americans by making up false accusations. If Dan Rather can make up stories about Bush's guard record, then why can't the truth be told about Kerry?

If you'd taken the time and researched the topic, you would have found that out of the Newsweek picture of his fellow swift-boaters, only 3 supported him. http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/index.php

I'd agree that in the end the Presidency has become a figure-head position.

Wikipedia.com:

"A government by aristocracy is generally held to be incompatible with the notion of political egalitarianism and with democracy itself.
Nonetheless, it is clear that the concept of human rights itself has roots in agreements that were originally between aristocrats and monarchs."

We live in a representative democracy. To a certain extent, we will always have a hint of aristocracy within us. People like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and every president hence have all been white men. To many, they were the aristocrats. Do we really consider Washington or Lincoln's adminstration based on an Aristocracy? No. Why? The people (save women and minorities) had the right to chose who they wanted. We called it a representative democracy, even though they were electing the aristocratic white males. Even now, with equal rights and protection under the law, we continue to elect these types of people. Why? That's for you to decide. However, we are still given the choice, and therefore it can never be a full aristocracy.

We are capitalists. It's not exactly a perfect system, however it beats socialism and communism every day.

What is this illusion you are talking about? There is no illusion of a mandate. Bush recieved more popular votes and more electoral votes than Kerry.
Yes he did. 51-48% popular vote, 60.6 to 57.3 mil.
In the electoral college (the only votes that count) Bush won 286-252.

Now take a look through history and see why that is NOT a landslide.

Bush is the first President since 1988 to be elected with a MAJORITY of the popular vote.
Because the third party candidates got slaughtered this year.

The GOP increased its lead in the Senate, House of Reps, and with state governors.
They picked up 4 in the Senate because 5 Southern Democrats retired this year. It was pure bad luck. They picked up a couple in the House because Tom DeLay gerrymandered the districts to beat 4 Texas Democrats. Had he not done that, the DEMOCRATS would have picked up a seat. And the state governorships are unchanged so far (dependant on the outcome of Washington). Do your research.

There is no illusion of a mandate, there is one. The reason why you think there is an "illusion" is because you are living in your own little world and do not see the truth that the USA is pretty much covered in red.
Take a look at population clusters. Barely anyone lives in the "covered in red" areas. The fact remains that a change of a percent in Ohio would have given the election to Kerry. I'd say that's pretty damn close.

The liberals in the Democratic Party still haven't figured out that sucking up to Michael Moore and dismissing middle America as a bunch of idiots isn't a very good campaign strategy. Oh well, get back to your therapists and cry to them about how you can't get Chimpy Bushitler to stop messing with your minds.
It can be said that Kerry tried to hard to get to "middle America" and alienated his base.

Throwing out grand pronouncements like this without facts isn't helpful. I've gone over the exit polls and identified where we lost this year.

It's because more Republicans showed up to vote.

Just barely lost? Last I checked, 3.5 MILLION more people voted for Bush than for Kerry, Bush won 31 states to Kerry's 20, and Bush won 286 electoral votes to Kerry's 253.
Actually, Bush's lead is down to 3.3 million. http://news.yahoo.com/electionresults
Kerry had 252 electoral votes.
And the number of states do not matter, considering how few people live out across the rockys and plains states.

And if you bothered to look at previous elections, you would see this is the closest election (not counting 2000) since 1916.

You may have missed it, but Ohio trended to Bush and bush picked up New Mexico from the blue side as well. New Jersey was classified a "swing state" but has traditionally been a Democratic stronghold, as has Pennsylvania.
In 2000, Bush carried Ohio by 3.6%. This year he carried it by 2.5%. Gore took New Mexico by a few hundred votes, Bush took it this year by a few thousand. Still pretty close considering over 750,000 votes were cast. And New Jersey was never a swing state. BS polls like Strategic Vision kept insisting it was tied, and Kerry takes it by 7%. Pennsylvania was a swing state 4 years ago and it is now.

You deliberately ignore New Hampshire, which we took from a 2% Bush lead 4 years ago. You also ignore how we increased our percentages in the swing states of Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Maine.

With the lack of a REAL choice between candidates, the base that was more excited about the election (republicans) and the undecided voters tended to vote for Bush.
The undecideds actually did break for Kerry, but they weren't enough to overcome the Republican turnout.

But 2008 is going to be interesting because in the aftermath of this election, the "How could you people be so stupid" arguement is going to backfire on Democrats... They lost the election and instead of saying that they had a candidate that pretty much sucked and never gave the American people a choice, they assault the people who voted against them as "stupid," "rubes," and "uneducated."
Name one Democrat politician who has said that. Name one official Party announcement that has said that.

You listen to Hollywood and bloggers and assume we represent the Democratic Party. There's nasty stuff said by everyone...when I am called a sniveling pinko commie worm on this forum, I do not take it to be representative of the Republican Party.

In any case, 2008 is an open election...no incumbents, no VPs...

I love how almost every conservative poster that has an opinion as to why the democrats lost says that the democrats lost because either Kerry was a liberal douche or because liberals are so arrogant.

Then when liberal posters say democrats lost because they didn't reach out to the correct voters, or said they lost because of the issues, the republicans scoff, like those issues didn't matter.

I think that alone should show all of us liberals why we lost.

"It can be said that Kerry tried to hard to get to "middle America" and alienated his base."

Not really, although he did attempt to run to the right of his Senate record. But Kerry basically ignored most of middle America while trying to cherry pick a few states like Ohio and Florida.

Still, the problem wasn't so much with the Kerry campaign per se, but with Kerry and the DNC's allies...Moore, MoveOn.org, George Soros, the Hollywood Left, et cetera. Allowing Moore to sit in the presidential box at the convention was an incredibly stupid move.

The fact is that the Democrats also turned out in incredibly high numbers...it just wasn't enough. More people identify with the conservative viewpoint now, and if the Democratic Party ever wants to regain its majority status, it will have to tell the left-wing extremists to go to hell. Bill Clinton, a southern moderate, understood this. Remember Sistah Souljah?

I just love how every bleeding heart liberal likes to call conservatives dumb.

Well, here's the truth: just because somebody disagrees with you politically doesn't make them dumb.

I love how I'm automatically classified as a bleeding heart liberal bashing on conservatives when I make it quite clear I bash both sides.

*Sigh*

Actually, it's stupid to even think you're better than anybody else. Does your poop not stink? Do you not make decisions of which you feel are right? Does that mean somebody else can call you dumb for making it?

To me it is stupid to sit there and drink $5 crapafrapachino (aka expensive sub-standard coffee) and claim how smart you are, considering you have no earthly idea how even your food gets to market, or how your car works, or how to keep yourself out of immense credit debt. Most "redneck retards" (as I myself have once been called) knows such information. (Those cars out front of our houses are not junk, they're learning tools. ;-))

Oh look, he's trying to paint me as some idiotic psuedo-intellectual who spends his time at Starbucks, how quaint.

So before liberals go about spouting their rhetoric, consider the fact that they themselves may be substandard to those that that believe to be superior to.

Funnily enough, I know myself to be no better than anyone else. However, the information I possess IS something I can claim to be greater than the information someone else possesses.

As far as the whole Swift boat thing, I digress to my previous statement. Actually, I'd consider the weight of their testimony over anybody else's in that respect; they are a primary source that chose to let the truth be known. Kerry spent 4 short months in Vietnam, had some questionable metals, and in the end bashed his fellow Americans by making up false accusations. If Dan Rather can make up stories about Bush's guard record, then why can't the truth be told about Kerry?

If you'd taken the time and researched the topic, you would have found that out of the Newsweek picture of his fellow swift-boaters, only 3 supported him. http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/index.php

Explains a few things about you that you take the SBVFT seriously and then go on to believe all the stuff they've spouted.

I'd agree that in the end the Presidency has become a figure-head position.

Wikipedia.com:

"A government by aristocracy is generally held to be incompatible with the notion of political egalitarianism and with democracy itself.
Nonetheless, it is clear that the concept of human rights itself has roots in agreements that were originally between aristocrats and monarchs."

This is a fallacy. Taking something like me saying aristocracy seriously enough to attempt to refute it and then assuming it debases my whole arguement is quite idiotic.

We live in a representative democracy. To a certain extent, we will always have a hint of aristocracy within us. People like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and every president hence have all been white men. To many, they were the aristocrats. Do we really consider Washington or Lincoln's adminstration based on an Aristocracy? No. Why? The people (save women and minorities) had the right to chose who they wanted. We called it a representative democracy, even though they were electing the aristocratic white males. Even now, with equal rights and protection under the law, we continue to elect these types of people. Why? That's for you to decide. However, we are still given the choice, and therefore it can never be a full aristocracy.

We are no longer given a choice. There are two major parties that represent the only hope to be elected president, especially with the current winner-takes-all electoral college. No third party has been elected in decades and no one near the positioning of presidents like Polk have risen to become the supreme executive of our nation.

We are capitalists. It's not exactly a perfect system, however it beats socialism and communism every day.

If you'd bothered to read anything I posted instead of automatically labelling me, you'd find a capitalist as well, just a different kind of capitalist.

The dems failed to get a truly inspirational candidate. Dean would have inspired the dems like none other (and probably lost like McGovern, but that's a whole 'nother story.) They nominated someone they thought would appeal to the middle and beat Bush, and he just came across as a flat occasionally boring.
Dean probably would have lost more like Bob Dole, I'm guessing. Bush isn't THAT popular. ;)

Having attended rallies for both candidate I can say the supporters at the Bush rally were very dead set on seeing Bush re-elected. They had a "we will do this attitude." Meanwhile at the Kerry rally the supporters had a "We must defeat Bush, or bad things happen." attitude. This attitude didn't appeal to the "swing voters" like me.
Hmm...I attended one Kerry rally (it was immediately after the third debate, at Arizona), and the crowd there seemed to have a similar "we will do this" attitude.

In any case, what do you expect? Bush is the freaking incumbent, of COURSE a lot of people voted for Kerry just because they didn't like Bush.

When 41% voted for Dole in 1996, do you think they were voting for Dole, or against Clinton?

Kerry couldn't decide who he was going to be: a liberal or a moderate. That's why he lost since most people are somewhere near the center. If he was more of a centrist he would have won.

what are you smoking dean didn't win the election because he lost to kerry in the... primaries i think it is...

(correct if wrong on the primaires part)

Just like freshly sober newlyweds in Vegas would say: Wow, that got ugly fast.

In any case, what do you expect? Bush is the freaking incumbent, of COURSE a lot of people voted for Kerry just because they didn't like Bush.

When 41% voted for Dole in 1996, do you think they were voting for Dole, or against Clinton?

Definitely voting against Clinton.

Why did John Kerry lose. Becuase he was a horrible candidate, he was up against a great president. and Kerry lied, Lied, Lied, Lied, and when that didn't work, he had Edwards lie.

George Bush is the worst president this country has ever had. He turned the biggest surplus into the biggest defecit, he killed thousands of soldiers for no reason, and you say Kerry lies? He said there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when he had no evidence. And guess what! There were no WMD's. And the reason that he waged war against Iraq? Not because they had WMD's, not because they had links to Al Queda, it is because he wanted revenge because Saddam Hussien made threats against his father. Many people in the US voted for him for moral reasons like religion. He claims he is killing thousands of people in the name of God? That is insulting. I am not a Christian but I know that the Bible is supposed to teach a message of peace. Bush won because ignorant people like you trying to be patriotic and cool so they vote for him. I was not all in favor of Kerry though, he did have his flaws but he would have made a much better president than W.

P.S. When Bush was in high school he was a cheerleader. If you think I am making that up google it. And they called Kerry a girly man.

:( :mp5:
Bush Someone

George Bush is the worst president this country has ever had. He turned the biggest surplus into the biggest defecit, he killed thousands of soldiers for no reason, and you say Kerry lies? He said there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when he had no evidence. And guess what! There were no WMD's. And the reason that he waged war against Iraq? Not because they had WMD's, not because they had links to Al Queda, it is because he wanted revenge because Saddam Hussien made threats against his father. Many people in the US voted for him for moral reasons like religion. He claims he is killing thousands of people in the name of God? That is insulting. I am not a Christian but I know that the Bible is supposed to teach a message of peace. Bush won because ignorant people like you trying to be patriotic and cool so they vote for him. I was not all in favor of Kerry though, he did have his flaws but he would have made a much better president than W.

P.S. When Bush was in high school he was a cheerleader. If you think I am making that up google it. And they called Kerry a girly man.

:( :mp5:
Bush Someone


Lay off the talking points bro'.

>He said there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when he had no evidence. And guess what! There were no WMD's. <

I am looking at the November 15th issue of Newsweek Magazine. On page 114, there is a comment which blew me away.

It says, "The CIA issued a final report on WMD on Iraq." It is noted that the NY Times played up "the CIA's finding that Saddam had destroyed his WMD stockpiles" rather than focus on the "cat and mouse" game Saddam played with the UN trying to get the UN to drop Oil Sanctions on Iraq so he could restart his WMD program again.

Now..

1) I NEVER heard that the CIA found that those WMD had been destroyed.
2) Saddam certainly was playing a cat and mouse game with the UN.

Thoughts/Comments?

We are capitalists. It's not exactly a perfect system, however it beats socialism and communism every day.

Hahahahahhaha
*Rolls around*
I'm afraid I have to let you in a fact of life.
Socialist Countries (Even only partial ones) Have higher standards of living than America. Even Canada (with a Budget ever so much smaller) has a higher standard of living than you.
Sweden has (I believe) Free and Very Excellent Education and Healthcare.
It is almost a paradise.

Capitalism is the worst system, and communism would technically be the best. It'd be the perfect system if the world were perfect. Socialism is more like Communism for the real world.

>Therefore by your logic EVERYONE is stupid...<

Remember... 1/2 of everyone is below average.

So you don't think the fact that Kerry was a lying, amoral opportunist had anything to do with his getting his ass kicked, eh?
You're kidding me. Do I really need to bring out the file on Bush's lying, opportunistic and amoral dealings? How about 9/11 for sheer, unabashed oppotunism on Bush's part?

Hahahahahhaha
*Rolls around*
I'm afraid I have to let you in a fact of life.
Socialist Countries (Even only partial ones) Have higher standards of living than America. Even Canada (with a Budget ever so much smaller) has a higher standard of living than you.
Sweden has (I believe) Free and Very Excellent Education and Healthcare.
It is almost a paradise.

Capitalism is the worst system, and communism would technically be the best. It'd be the perfect system if the world were perfect. Socialism is more like Communism for the real world.

YEAH! Just ask the Russians... Just look at what a paradise the USSR was during its run. It was such a paradise that Americans were just heading ou t in droves to the USSR to defect. Yep the Alaskan Coast Guard just had to blockade the Bearing Strait to keep 'em in. The Soviets had the best tech, best military equipment, the best quality cars and electronics, the most prestige....

Oh wait... that's all fiction. Just like that post.

Hahahahahhaha
*Rolls around*
I'm afraid I have to let you in a fact of life.
Socialist Countries (Even only partial ones) Have higher standards of living than America. Even Canada (with a Budget ever so much smaller) has a higher standard of living than you.
Sweden has (I believe) Free and Very Excellent Education and Healthcare.
It is almost a paradise.

Capitalism is the worst system, and communism would technically be the best. It'd be the perfect system if the world were perfect. Socialism is more like Communism for the real world.

Jeffersonian Capitalism is by far the best, most realistic system. Communism is great, yes, but it doesn't allow for the great amount of variety you'll see in capitalism.

YEAH! Just ask the Russians... Just look at what a paradise the USSR was during its run. It was such a paradise that Americans were just heading ou t in droves to the USSR to defect. Yep the Alaskan Coast Guard just had to blockade the Bearing Strait to keep 'em in. The Soviets had the best tech, best military equipment, the best quality cars and electronics, the most prestige....

Oh wait... that's all fiction. Just like that post.

But wait... the Russians weren't communist. They were totalitarian socialists.

But wait... the Russians weren't communist. They were totalitarian socialists.

It is amazing to me that people love to mischaracterize history by slapping a label on it. The USSR was not communist in the original sense, but used the label. The label is now used to condemn all things communist.

Now, many on the right use the term "communist" to describe liberals, even though the liberal's views have little to do with communism or the Soviet Union. These conservatives (many who are middle class or lower themselves,) see any attempt to level the playing field in favor of the middle and lower class as a clear attempt at converting America into a communist state. The sheer hysteria and ignorance galls me, and makes me wonder why 50% of the country is behind the times.

See, I don't see conservatives as dumb, necessarily. The very term conservative, in it's most pure meaning, means a philosophical approach to the world which means one yearns for the status quo or even a return to a whitewashed rememberance of a more traditional time. Such a view, while important to have for many reasons such as the power of traditions and an appreciation for the good things we keep, tends to retard one's ability to keep up with the times as they unfold.

Liberals, on the other hand, look to the future, but may tear down too much of the past.

This is why an appreciation and passion for both are needed, but only if one is able to hold oneself to high standards for personal and intellectual honesty. This is not to say one should be a moderate. Too many people who fall into the moderate region fail to have passion or a palpable message and are thus uninspiring.

This is the failing of the two party system. Because things are so boiled down to black and white, either/or and true or false, rarely now are we presented with a leader that has a thoughtful and passionate stance on the big picture. We had a Democrat that was thoughtful, but not passionate, and a Republican who was passionate but not thoughtful.

Me? I'm definitely on the liberal side of things with leanings towards libertarian ideas too. I honestly think that the government could do much much more with less if it weren't run like a popularity contest so much. I despise government pork more than anything else, and I see both parties as being gravely guilty of it.

I was attracted to Kerry as a candidate because he seemed thoughtful, but many interpereted this as being indecisive. I liked Kerry's record as an investigator and prosecutor in the Senate, but of course that activity caused him to write much less legislation than others. I liked Kerry's service and subsequent anti-war activism. Many condemn him for this, but I see a young man, prone to overstatement as we all are or were, fighting for something. Some call him an opportunist. Heh. Every highly ranked politician is an opportunist. They all siezed their chance when they saw it. Several times. We never would have heard about them otherwise.

Every possible niche in Kerry's armor was probed. Every possible perceived weakness. All the minutiae. All of it was used against him with incredible result. I have to hand it to the Republican leadership. They were masterful. They turned every weakness of Bush into an even greater weakness for Kerry. The political machine of the Republicans, not the stupidity of the masses, not moral values and certainly not the issues themselves, is what lost the election for Kerry

For example, Bush called Kerry a tax and spend liberal. Well, guess what? Bush has increased the size of government and increased the deficit to record levels. He lowered taxes, but don't fool yourself. When you have a record deficit, taxes will be raised. In a way, they inevitably already have. Add that to the fact that the dollar is plummeting, and it shouldn't be too difficult to see that the middle class and lower is screwed unless things change and new ideas are created.

Ah well, have at it.

He lost because he didn't make enough people afraid. The neo-cons are REALLY good at making people afraid. But I do agree with the vast majority of what you've said here.

FEAR - MORE BEER!
(and more public floggings)

more public floggings - - - that would make people more fearful. I personally would administer as many a day as my arm could tolerate.

Slender Goddess

Kerry lost because of groups like MoveOn.org and people like Michael Moore. People in the US have hated the Left since September of 2001, when they openly sided with the terrorists against the US.

The Democrats built their protest cage at teh DNC to distance themselves from the loony Left - unfortunately it was too little too late, and in any case Kerry was far too closely associated with them because of his VVAW stint. Franly I'm surprised the vote margin wasn't larger, but him losing was never in doubt.

Kerry lost because of groups like MoveOn.org and people like Michael Moore. People in the US have hated the Left since September of 2001, when they openly sided with the terrorists against the US.

The Democrats built their protest cage at teh DNC to distance themselves from the loony Left - unfortunately it was too little too late, and in any case Kerry was far too closely associated with them because of his VVAW stint. Franly I'm surprised the vote margin wasn't larger, but him losing was never in doubt.

So Bush won because people don't like the left in general? The most important thing to conservative voters wasn't the issues but the image of liberals? They didn't vote for the candidate, they voted for a side?

I guess maybe democracy doesn't work after all. :(

Kerry lost because of groups like MoveOn.org and people like Michael Moore.
Activism is a bad thing then? Having Jerry "9/11 is God's punishment for gays" Falwell on the Republican side didn't seem to hurt too much. In fact, it swelled turnout. Michael Moore's movie took in over $100 million, making it the number one documentary ever. Soon after the opening of Fahrenheit 9/11, Bush's approval ratings sank. I'd say Michael Moore, moveon.org, and all the other activist liberal groups contributed a lot to holding a popular wartime incumbent president to just a 2.8% popular vote win over a dour New England senator.

People in the US have hated the Left since September of 2001, when they openly sided with the terrorists against the US.
Strange. I always thought the terrorists were similar to the types of people that run the Religious Right...moralizing, reactionary, hateful, and dangerous. Christian extremism has a lot in common with Muslim extremism. The tolerant progressives in the West and the middle-east are silenced amid talk of crusades, jihad, wars, and hate by the radical conservatives on both sides.

Franly I'm surprised the vote margin wasn't larger, but him losing was never in doubt.
I'm surprised you were all so certain Bush would win. A 2% percent shift in a swing state and you'd be looking at President Kerry.

YEAH! Just ask the Russians... Just look at what a paradise the USSR was during its run. It was such a paradise that Americans were just heading ou t in droves to the USSR to defect. Yep the Alaskan Coast Guard just had to blockade the Bearing Strait to keep 'em in. The Soviets had the best tech, best military equipment, the best quality cars and electronics, the most prestige....

Oh wait... that's all fiction. Just like that post.

Note that New Scott-land did say that it would be the perfect system if the world was perfect.
That's why all attempts at Communism as practised in the real world fall short of Communism. Nothing has yet actually reached a Communist society - but because of its inherent vagueness and idealism, a lot of people think they can get away with calling what they have Communism.
And real communists, being united in brotherly love with all the workers of the world, would have no need for weapons or the best military equipment. :)

I always read the opinion - mostly from Americans - that "socialism = communism = most evil thing in the world". It appears that this is because the USSR has tainted Socialism.
If socialism is, as I've read on another forum, "that Red disease from Europe that is poisoning American society", then all of Europe should have been in bed with the evil Red monster. Us Brits with our free healthcare, extensive social welfare policies, selected nationalised services - and even worse - a Labour Party, a working class party in power (even if it is New Labour) - bloody hell! Us fricking communists! :rolleyes:

The Soviet Union is a bad example to use for judging socialism or communism, I would say that it was a failure more from the totalitarianism than from socialism.

You're all missing the point, here. Kerry lost because he forgot Poland.

-people did not like his wife (more Leona Helmsley than Stepford wife and she sounds like a foreigner, no offense)

-governors win (Dean would have been the better choice based on this fact and that the governor of a state is runs on their record as a boss)

-senators lose (they have to run on their voting record in the senate which can be manipulated like statistics and they are not bosses they are underlings, generals have a better chance)

-Kerry is a catholic in a protestant dominated society (Kennedy is the only catholic president that I can remember

-he allowed the values issues to become more important than they should have been. Any politician who wants to be president should avoid the gay rights and abortion debates like the plague until they have won. Instead of allowing themselves to be drawn into the debate. He took the hook and lost, showing that he wasn't smart enough to sidestep the issues he wanted to talk about
The post vote analysis showed that these values issues had far more weight than the economy in places where the economy should have been much more important

-he didn't have enough respect for his opponent. You are not the better man until you have won

-I have a plan, what kind of slogan is that? At least Bush could say you can run but you can't hide

-the devil you know rule: both skull and bones members, so why change?

-not perceived to be a man of the people. Lunch bucket guys vote for lunch bucket people. Kerry ain't no lunch bucket guy. The closest he got was professing to be a RedSox fan. But he should have been throwing out that first pitch instead of riding a bike, and when he went hunting he looked more like he was on a british fox hunt that a duck hunt

-John Edwards as running mate. He shoulda found someone who wasn't so pretty. A little less Quayle, a bit more Nixon, yeah I know those were republicans but I can't remember any democrat veeps besides Gore. Who was Cater's veep? Someone who didn't run marathons. Someone who going to help in a battle ground state and not waste votes on the south where they didn't have a chance anyway

-wrong time. Single term presidents are the exception not the rule. Better to let Dubya fuck up the country completely so that they have neither the candidate nor the record to run on in 2008.

Hahahahahhaha
*Rolls around*
I'm afraid I have to let you in a fact of life.
Socialist Countries (Even only partial ones) Have higher standards of living than America. Even Canada (with a Budget ever so much smaller) has a higher standard of living than you.
Sweden has (I believe) Free and Very Excellent Education and Healthcare.
It is almost a paradise.

Capitalism is the worst system, and communism would technically be the best. It'd be the perfect system if the world were perfect. Socialism is more like Communism for the real world.

Canadians may have a higher standard of living than YOU, but they don't have a higher standard of living than ME. That's the difference between capitalists and socialists. Socialists measure their societies by society's weakest link or by averages; capitalists measure their societies by individual opportunity and achievement. You want your standard of living to improve? Work harder.

"Free" education and health care is your idea of paradise? First off: no such thing as free. Second: sorry, but my standards are higher.

I earn my standard of living -- and I'm not interested in letting you socialists suck off my hard work and ride my coattails into financing your version of "paradise." You think your ideals are shared by the collective? How arrogant and egotistical. Maybe -- since I'm not sick! -- I'd prefer to spend my hard-earned money on a beach house instead of on some random person's (an alcoholic? a drug user? someone who eats only candy bars?) health care, or some lazy kid's "free" education (oh, yes, tell me now how there ARE no "lazy" kids milking the system in your socialist Utopia). Want a first-rate education? Earn it. Want great health-care? Earn it. If you want a paradise, you have every opportunity to create it in America -- whatever you, individually, believe that paradise to be.

Why do you socialists always expect the rest of us to finance your opinions? I don't ask YOU to buy me a beach house. :headbang:

Why do you socialists always expect the rest of us to finance your opinions? I don't ask YOU to buy me a beach house. :headbang:

Do you think Nokia, Ikea, Daimler Chrysler and Versace are owned by the state or something?

They all owned by extremely rich people in countries you refer to as socialist. Just because their poor are not as poor as in America does not mean that they cannot be rich.

Canadians may have a higher standard of living than YOU, but they don't have a higher standard of living than ME. That's the difference between capitalists and socialists. Socialists measure their societies by society's weakest link or by averages; capitalists measure their societies by individual opportunity and achievement. You want your standard of living to improve? Work harder.

"Free" education and health care is your idea of paradise? First off: no such thing as free. Second: sorry, but my standards are higher.

I earn my standard of living -- and I'm not interested in letting you socialists suck off my hard work and ride my coattails into financing your version of "paradise." You think your ideals are shared by the collective? How arrogant and egotistical. Maybe -- since I'm not sick! -- I'd prefer to spend my hard-earned money on a beach house instead of on some random person's (an alcoholic? a drug user? someone who eats only candy bars?) health care, or some lazy kid's "free" education (oh, yes, tell me now how there ARE no "lazy" kids milking the system in your socialist Utopia). Want a first-rate education? Earn it. Want great health-care? Earn it. If you want a paradise, you have every opportunity to create it in America -- whatever you, individually, believe that paradise to be.

Why do you socialists always expect the rest of us to finance your opinions? I don't ask YOU to buy me a beach house. :headbang:

THere's a difference between "earning wealth" and "being born into it"

And that's all I really have to say.

Do you think Nokia, Ikea, Daimler Chrysler and Versace are owned by the state or something?

They all owned by extremely rich people in countries you refer to as socialist. Just because their poor are not as poor as in America does not mean that they cannot be rich.

So who pays to make the poor not so poor? The majority; i.e.- all the hard-working stiffs in-between the ludicrously rich at the very top (Kerry's much-maligned 1%) and the somewhat poor at the bottom. In this country, here's where we sit ALREADY: The top 50% of income earners in America pay 96-1/2% of all taxes, and the bottom 50% pay 3-1/2% of all taxes.

I don't consider myself rich, yet statistically, my income is top 5% -- and I crawled there the hard way, after earning minimum wage for more than a few years. In America, the top 5% earns 35% of all income, yet pays 56-1/2% of all taxes. So we're already getting screwed (5% of us supporting more than half the country, in disproportion to our incomes). But that's not enough? You don't think we're entitled to the fruits of our labors? You don't think that we have families, dreams, charitable institutions we support? No, of course we don't. We'd rather give our money to large, wasteful government bureaucracies that ostensibly work to create someone else's view of "paradise."

You guys who want socialism need to put your money where your mouth is and start voluntarily overpaying your taxes. If you're not in the upper tax brackets yet, that's no reason to be stingy! Start paying a third of your income to the Feds alone, like some of us do, and see how you like it... then see if you'd like to pay even more. If enough of you start overpaying, I'm sure Uncle Sam will take the hint -- and before you know it, we'll have "free" healthcare and gov't education and everyone will have ponies!

THere's a difference between "earning wealth" and "being born into it"

And that's all I really have to say.

That's right, everyone who earns a good income in this country was "born into it." If that's what you're implying, that's terribly naive. I worked for minimum wage plus tips for my first 6 years out of high school, and I never completed college because I couldn't afford it. My mother died when I was 12, my father is a starving author who will leave me nothing but debts when he dies, and I was estranged from my extended family until 2 years ago. Nobody was around to "pull any strings" for me. Hell, the most my dad ever did for me was give me a few bucks for groceries one winter when I couldn't afford to keep the heat turned on. There's ZERO inherited wealth in my family -- but I hope to create some for my son. I worked my way up from absolutely nothing, so I know from personal experience that anyone who truly wants to can do the same.

And trust me, the people who were "born into it" aren't nearly as appalled at the current tax code (and the thought of making it worse). Since they didn't "earn" their money, they have less respect for it (just as those given free gov't entitlements have less respect for the gift than if they'd earned it themselves). The real disgust comes from those of us who worked our way up from the bottom, and had too much pride to milk the system when we were encouraged to.

I've changed my mind (the new is much more shiny)

Kerry lost because he's a wanker.

Someone may have already said this. If so, my apologies.

I don't consider myself rich, yet statistically, my income is top 5% -- and I crawled there the hard way, after earning minimum wage for more than a few years. In America, the top 5% earns 35% of all income, yet pays 56-1/2% of all taxes. So we're already getting screwed (5% of us supporting more than half the country, in disproportion to our incomes). But that's not enough? You don't think we're entitled to the fruits of our labors? You don't think that we have families, dreams, charitable institutions we support? No, of course we don't. We'd rather give our money to large, wasteful government bureaucracies that ostensibly work to create someone else's view of "paradise."

You guys who want socialism need to put your money where your mouth is and start voluntarily overpaying your taxes. If you're not in the upper tax brackets yet, that's no reason to be stingy! Start paying a third of your income to the Feds alone, like some of us do, and see how you like it... then see if you'd like to pay even more. If enough of you start overpaying, I'm sure Uncle Sam will take the hint -- and before you know it, we'll have "free" healthcare and gov't education and everyone will have ponies!

I am from a "socialist state" I do pay about 40% of my income to the state. And when I earn more I will pay up to a maximum of about 48%. For that everyone gets subsidised medical care, subsidised education, accident cover and possibly eventually a pension (but am not betting on that - dodgy politicians). I cannot see how this prevents me from getting richer and why it would demotivate me.

You seem a successful guy. Americans tax goes to pay for interest on your national debt, an underperforming military, federal prison system and subsidy of farmers & boeing. As long as you prefer to pay for these things then good for you. May you continue to prosper and have fun.

There's ZERO inherited wealth in my family -- but I hope to create some for my son. I worked my way up from absolutely nothing, so I know from personal experience that anyone who truly wants to can do the same.


You admit you come from an 'intellectual' family (I'm assuming, as your father is a writer). I also assume you're not a member of any minority group (and therefore a white male) and not handicapped in any manner. Congratulations, you hit the jackpot!

I agree that someone in that position CAN make it to the top (with a lot of luck, not JUST hard work) on their own. Lots and lots of others don't. So you'd prefer to let them starve in their trailers. Real humane of you...

Meh. He just lost because he wasn't popular enough.

You admit you come from an 'intellectual' family (I'm assuming, as your father is a writer). I also assume you're not a member of any minority group (and therefore a white male) and not handicapped in any manner. Congratulations, you hit the jackpot!

I agree that someone in that position CAN make it to the top (with a lot of luck, not JUST hard work) on their own. Lots and lots of others don't. So you'd prefer to let them starve in their trailers. Real humane of you...

Well, partially correct. I happen to be mixed-race though -- from everyone's FAVORITE minority group right now: Syrian.

And, no. No luck, other than the "luck" that comes to anyone who's seeking out opportunity. You can't sit around waiting for opportunity to beat down your door, you have to get out there and hunt it down. Amazing how many "overnight successes" develop after years and years of hard work. But the media-fed masses only see the "instant" success, not everything that came before.

Also, to say that I'd "prefer to let others starve in their trailers" is typical liberal finger-pointing emotionalism. First of all, the choices are not "the top" and "starving in their trailers," as you present. There are many many levels in-between. But socialists want to bleed out all those levels, blend them so everyone is tied to the weakest link. Sorry, not interested in living in a commune. However, if you are, you're welcome to it. But why do you feel obligated to drag the rest of us along with you?

Second: Handicapped people shouldn't be out starving in the streets; I agree that a humane society has an obligation to care for those who CAN'T (and the operative word is "can't") care for themselves. However, able-bodied adults who are fully capable of supporting themselves should be out doing so, instead of demanding that the rest of us "save" them. And that attitude is exactly what keeps them at the bottom: no one gets very far in life playing the "victim." You get somewhere by taking responsibility for yourself.

Perpetuating the victim mentality is one of liberalism's greatest transgressions. A society that rewards people who play the victim is failing its members -- might as well reward people for stealing and lying, those things are equally damaging to an individual's self-respect.

I am from a "socialist state" I do pay about 40% of my income to the state. And when I earn more I will pay up to a maximum of about 48%. For that everyone gets subsidised medical care, subsidised education, accident cover and possibly eventually a pension (but am not betting on that - dodgy politicians). I cannot see how this prevents me from getting richer and why it would demotivate me.
Actually, some Americans end up paying 48% or more, once you factor in state income tax, social security tax, medicare tax, sales tax, etc. America is well on her way to becoming a socialist state.

As to the second part: of course 48% tax prevents you from getting richer! You waste half of your LIFE working for the government! So what you earn in 20 years actually takes you 40 years to get paid. Pretty simple math, really. Although, if you start really thinking about it, it only annoys you.


You seem a successful guy. Americans tax goes to pay for interest on your national debt, an underperforming military, federal prison system and subsidy of farmers & boeing. As long as you prefer to pay for these things then good for you. May you continue to prosper and have fun.
American tax goes to many other bloated, inefficient programs as well. I agree that the way our government spends our money is less than ideal. Unfortunately, I don't have the option to pay for what I "prefer."

Actually, some Americans end up paying 48% or more, once you factor in state income tax, social security tax, medicare tax, sales tax, etc. America is well on her way to becoming a socialist state.


American tax goes to many other bloated, inefficient programs as well. I agree that the way our government spends our money is less than ideal. Unfortunately, I don't have the option to pay for what I "prefer."

Americans pay similar tax? I had always thought it was lower. You good socialists all.

The USA has re-elected an administration that increases the rate at which it increases the rate it spends money faster than any other in history. More of your tax is going to pay for the interest on the foriegn debt, which seems a bugger of a thing to spend money on.

You need a government that actually reduces expenditure - Bush is not going to do this, Kerry would not have done it. Bush has promised tax cuts, so payment will be deferred to later. Understandable Kerry lost.

Americans pay similar tax? I had always thought it was lower. You good socialists all.

You need a government that actually reduces expenditure - Bush is not going to do this, Kerry would not have done it. Bush has promised tax cuts, so payment will be deferred to later. Understandable Kerry lost.

I agree. I'm a fiscal conservative, and I'm not at all happy with Bush's spending. Kerry would likely have been as bad or worse. The problem this country has is, you have all these powerful voting blocks that want entitlements and will only vote for the politician who promises them. You've got the farmers, the union workers, the defense industry, the welfare class, etc. They all want a bigger piece of everyone else's money. So it often seems like a race to see who can promise the bigger entitlements to their targeted voting blocks. The one hope I hold out with Bush is that maybe with his tax cuts, it will help starve the beast a little, and the government will be forced to reduce spending. Slim hope, I know, but seemingly better than no hope.

Kerry is an empty suit. That contributed as much to his losing as anything else.
Most of Kerry's support was from the "anybody but Bush" camp. Imagine if people had actually liked him.

He WAS centrist. Didnt work. =\
Correction: Kerry PRETENDED to be a centrist. More people saw through that than actually believed it.

Why does everyone assume the candidate was entirely responsible for his position? John Kerry and John Edwards were products being sold, and they picked a terrible advertising agency to sell their product.

Blame Mary Beth Cahill for a lot of it. She had her man run on platitudes and the "I'm not Bush" platform. I was hungry for issues, not character. I didn't get fed anything except empty rhetoric. Cahill allowed Ted Kennedy and Al Sharpton to get plenty of TV time - not the best strategy when you are demonstrating your party's move towards the center.

I have to agree, yet disagree.

True, giving any time in the convention to Al Sharpton and Swimmin' Ted Kennedy was a MAJOR error from Mary Beth Cahill. HOWEVER, the real mistake the Kerry campaign made was taking in so many Clintonistas (Carville, Begala, McMurray, McAuliffe, etc.) Does anyone really think that Hillary Clinton was going to wait until 2012 to run for president, so she could fight it out in primaries with a sitting vice-president?

Nope...she called her "husband," and called in all the favors he owed her for all his affairs. He sent in his henchmen (except for McAuliffe, who was already in place,) and their marching orders were clear: "make sure Kerry doesn't win." In all my years following presidential politics, I have seen only one campaign that was mismanaged in a more pathetic manner, Bob Dole's in 1996, although George HW Bush (41) in 1992 was not exactly well-managed either.

You liberals are exhibiting the exact reasons Kerry lost.

1) The liberal media let everyone know the moment any Bush statement or policy even might play poorly with voters, while they covered up all of Kerry's problems in their attempt to convince everyone that Kerry would win. As a result, most democrats viewed the entire election, right up through much of election night, as a democratic cakewalk.

2) democrats in general, and the media elites in particular, mostly live in a few large cities and urban areas like New York, California, and the New England states more generally. These areas are excessively democratic - so much so that many who live there never really get to know anyone who isn't a liberal, so they can't understand why anyone wouldn't be. They think that because they don't know any conservatives, the conservatives that do exist are caricatures who couldn't possibly be right about anything. They are narrowminded and bigoted in exactly the ways that they portray republicans as being.

3) For 50 years the democratic party's candidates and spokesmen have been explaining their views to the people of America. Ever since Lyndon Johnson was president the liberal view has been explained more and more clearly. A slow but steady trend has emerged: the American people REJECT liberalism in all its forms. Look at the differences between now and then: LBJ got 66% of the vote, and Kerry got 44%. LBJ's democrats controlled 2/3 of the Senate seats and had a majority of the House seats. You have 44 Senate seats and the Republicans have a significant majority in the House. LBJ had more than half of the governors of the states on his side; you have 17/51 (counting DC). Everywhere the American people have heard your views, and have slowly rejected them. To those of you who are saying "the voters are morons! that's why we lost! we just need to speak LOUDER AND S L O W E R!": I am laughing at you.

4) In case you hadn't noticed, terrorists have attacked the US, not just on Sept. 11, but a dozen times before that, and they have been caught in several attempts to attack us since then. Bush is doing exactly what most Americans want to see the president do: he's hunting down and killing terrorists. He isn't waiting for some cheese-eating surrender monkey in France to approve it, either. The American people want everyone who is trying to kill us and destroy democracy to be killed, and GWB is doing a great job of it too. Bin Laden is not even important anymore; we toppled his Afghanistan government, toppled his backers in Iraq, killed the vast majority of his Al qaeda troops, and captured or killed the 4 levels of management below him. In 20 years, whether or not we've caught him, everyone of importance will say, "Bin Laden? Who?" because he's completely helpless now, unless he already died in some Afghanistan cave.

5) Over the past few decades, Europeans, led by the French and the Germans, have consistently and outrageously proclaimed their anti-Americanism. Hardly a day goes by without Jaques "I'm immune from prosecution for the bribes I was caught taking because I'm president" Chiraq calling Bush evil or (ignoring Bush's degree at Yale and MBA from Harvard) calling him a moron. The American people hear this stuff more than most liberals realize, and there is a lot of anti-European sentiment in America, especially among immigrants from 3rd world countries who know what evil really is. You may laugh at "freedom fries" but the democratic party has essentially aligned itself with the America-haters, and the voters know it. Bush is far nicer than the French and Germans deserve, but at least he isn't a craven multilateralist like Kerry would be.

6) the democratic party is the party of special interests, and their alliance of special interests is collapsing. Blacks and Hispanics in particular don't like gays and gay marriage, don't like feminism, and don't like trial lawyers. Women don't like what the feminist movements have become, and no group likes abortion or gun control. The dems are losing their monolithic control of these groups, without which they cannot win the election. Most damaging of all, a new generation of youth voters has arrived at the polls in this election, and they vote as much for Bush as the electorate in general. Since each generation grows more conservative as they grow older and wiser, you dems are in for some serious trouble over the next few decades. You don't have to be a Christian (I'm not religous at all) to understand what moral values are and how important they are for a president to have. You just have to be in a party that doesn't accept the scum of the earth in return for money and votes.

The reason you liberals don't understand these things is that you don't know and hear many conservatives, only the liberal caricatures of them. We, on the other hand, hear the liberal view every time we turn on the TV and see CBS's forged documents, or friends' promiscuous single women, or any of the multitude of hippie losers that inhabit Hollywood. Don't even get me started on the socialists in the BBC and other foreign news. Almost every conservative (myself included) knows exactly what the liberal talking points are on every issue; you often don't seem to know that we even have logical points to make. We do, on every major issue.

I wish to congratulate you, for explaining it so well. You have done a great job.

The War on Terrorism was the main thing that promoted this election I beleive. My idea on the War on Terrorism is, that neither of the candidates mentioned, is to get rid of the gas guzzling SUVs and trucks from the people that dont need them. That is maybe an 90% decrease in the amount of oil we use. The terrorist dont like us using all of their oil, and we don't like using are money to pay for the ridiculous gas prices. This is my whole view on the election of 2004 and I am glad it is over.

Kerry's strategy centered on the swing states, and as you'll notice, he did better than Gore in many important swing states, including Oregon, Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, New Hampshire, Nevada, Washington, and Colorado. Bush on the other hand did MUCH better in the non-battleground states. He got his biggest vote increase NOT from the South, but from the cities, surprisingly. From New York, and California, he pulled millions of extra votes than in 2000. This gave him the illusion of a mandate with a 3.3 million vote lead on Kerry. I understand Kerry's strategy, but it was risky, because if they couldn't secure the electoral vote, they were throwing Bush a large popular vote. We NEED the GOTV efforts in the cities, in California, Illinois, New York...we need those huge votes to give the illusion of our own mandate.

Kerry's campaign was also just generally run terribly. He seemed constantly on the defensive, or just inactive. They waited too damn long to even respond to the Swifties. Kerry didn't even start attacking the president until a month or so before the election.


But, we did not lose Gore voters any moreso than Bush lost his 2000 voters. The exit polls showed that 10% of Gore voters defected to Bush this year, but 9% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry this year. As well, the vote percentages by ideology were unchanged.

What changed was who turned out to vote. 17% were new voters, 37% were Gore voters, 43% were Bush 2000 voters, and 3% were others.

In 2000, Gore beat Bush by 0.5%. This year, Bush 2000 voters turned out by 6% more.

THAT is why we lost. We got beat on turnout.

The registered Democrats were EXACTLY as loyal as they were in 2000, 89%. The registered Republicans increased their loyalty from 91 to 93%. The independant vote largely went from Nader to Kerry. Basically, not much change in these percentages.

HOWEVER, this year 37% of voters were Democrat, 37% were Republican, and 26% were independant.

In 2000, I believe the registered Democrats had a 4% advantage on registered Republicans.

The Republicans won this year because more of them turned out than expected. That's why the polls were so wrong, that explains the surprising issue of morality being the number one issue, that explains the popular vote change from a half million Bush loss to a 3.3 million Bush win.

Bush may have won the most popular votes by any candidate, but Kerry holds second place (Reagan 1984 is in 3rd and Gore is 4th).

In 2008, we need to focus on the swing states, which are trending our way, but we can't forsake the solid states either, or we'll lose the popular vote again and look illegitimate if we take the electoral vote.

We just barely lost this election, the Democrat Party is not dying or fading or whatever other turn of phrase Sean Hannity likes to use. We came back from MUCH bigger losses in the 80s.

The losses in Congress? The entire 4 seat gain in the House can be attributed to Tom DeLay's gerrymandering that threw 5 Texas Democrats into Republican districts, or even competing against other incumbents. Without that, we might have actually picked up a seat! In the Senate, 5 Southern Democrats decided this year was a good time to retire. A 4 seat loss was fairly decent, given that. If 5 Northeastern Republicans had suddenly retired, WE would be the ones anticipating the magic 60.

The solution is not trying to be like Republicans. We have our wedge issues too (healthcare, social security, JOBS, etc). We need to push them. And for godsake we need a better candidate in 2008 (sorry Kerry). I say Evan Bayh, someone from the upper midwest. Cause that's where the election of 2008 is going to be decided.

Is it possible that Bush won because he was more trustable thanKerry?

Speculation is good and all, espcially if you are IN a position of power to control strategy for either Dem or Rep party in the US, but for the rest of us NationStates is the only place we get to actually work out our stragies.

On the other hand... Now you know who to lobby and how you feel about their views.
Lobbying is a system and need not be done in person.

Some reps count responses by weight and issue stance (ie this many lbs of mail equal this many concerned citizens) and others do it by a ratio (ie hand written/typed letters count as 100 concerned citizens, calls count a 10 and emails as one or something similar)

Write your elected officials and let them know how you think they are doing or which proposed policies you are for/against.

Many interest groups have action network that you can sign up to get info and actually DO the email sending in your name and sometimes let you save and print out a copy of the letter. (For example, Greenpeace, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc. I'm sure there is one for every issue under the sun.)

In the US your VOICE DOESN'T (have to) STOP WITH YOUR VOTE!

So you don't think the fact that Kerry was a lying, amoral opportunist had anything to do with his getting his ass kicked, eh?

And this would make Bush, what, honest, moral and poor? I think not.

What is this illusion you are talking about? There is no illusion of a mandate. Bush recieved more popular votes and more electoral votes than Kerry. Bush is the first President since 1988 to be elected with a MAJORITY of the popular vote. The GOP increased its lead in the Senate, House of Reps, and with state governors.

There is no illusion of a mandate, there is one. The reason why you think there is an "illusion" is because you are living in your own little world and do not see the truth that the USA is pretty much covered in red.

Well 51% of it is. That doesn't sound like a "mandate" or a crushing victory to me.

95,000,000 morons in thois country that would rather live on the streets then i a two story houes

Why did John Kerry lose. Becuase he was a horrible candidate, he was up against a great president. and Kerry lied, Lied, Lied, Lied, and when that didn't work, he had Edwards lie.

Riiight, and to what address do I send hate mail to the rock you've been living under? Bush a good president?! Name one good thing Bush did for the US, and one thing Kerry lied about, and I will leave you alone.

Admittedly, it is difficult to convey emotion on a forum like this. I have heard that something like 20% of communication between two people is the actual words used. The rest is body language and tone, which are obviously missing in this format. I do see your point. At the same time there is that caveat that there are those who will dismiss you for that particular approach.



In this, you and I are kindred spirits. I get choked up whenever I watch a Shuttle launch because to me, it symbolizes our progress toward that. One of the greates things the President tried to do was motivate the country to turn its goal to Martian exploration. Sadly, it appears that this vision has failed unless someone picks up the ball and runs with it.



I agree, but I think the pendulum is beginning to swing back the other way. People are getting tired of this sort of thing.

What needs to be made clear, is the fact that while historically it has been the Republican party that has been associated with big business and elitism, it is becoming more and more apparent to the population at large that at best, BOTH parties are elitist, and in my opinion, the Democratic party is moreso.

For the record, I am a registered Independent.

I have heard Republican supporters describes as knuckle draggers, homophobes, bigots, nut-jobs and a host of other names, all for disagreeing with the left. Do Conservatives speak unkindly of liberals? Of course they do, but when celebrities from Hollywood rub pictures of the President on their crotch or refer to Bush supporters as unwashed masses, that is not only elitist but frighteningly un-American. If all of us are equal, why then do these folks seem to be trying to take it upon themselves to do our thinking for us?

The people are aware of this. They see it, and they resent it. That is why Bush won.

Hey you two, take it outside!! By the way, we ALL read with filters in our head. Everything you've ever experienced in life shapes you, and causes how you perceive what you read, hear and see. Secondly, the filters in this forum are magnified. Judging from the multitude of posts I've read, I can see that there aren't really any real moderates. And by moderate I mean even-hearted or unconcerned. Most people here either wanted to see Bush win or Kerry win. There's no one (or if so, you're wretchedly unrepresented) on here that was impartial about the turnout. So that causes some polarity, and whatever side you disagree with to be WRONG, and the side you agree with to be RIGHT.

I just love how every bleeding heart liberal likes to call conservatives dumb.

Well, here's the truth: just because somebody disagrees with you politically doesn't make them dumb.

Actually, it's stupid to even think you're better than anybody else. Does your poop not stink? Do you not make decisions of which you feel are right? Does that mean somebody else can call you dumb for making it?

To me it is stupid to sit there and drink $5 crapafrapachino (aka expensive sub-standard coffee) and claim how smart you are, considering you have no earthly idea how even your food gets to market, or how your car works, or how to keep yourself out of immense credit debt. Most "redneck retards" (as I myself have once been called) knows such information. (Those cars out front of our houses are not junk, they're learning tools. ;-))

So before liberals go about spouting their rhetoric, consider the fact that they themselves may be substandard to those that that believe to be superior to.

As far as the whole Swift boat thing, I digress to my previous statement. Actually, I'd consider the weight of their testimony over anybody else's in that respect; they are a primary source that chose to let the truth be known. Kerry spent 4 short months in Vietnam, had some questionable metals, and in the end bashed his fellow Americans by making up false accusations. If Dan Rather can make up stories about Bush's guard record, then why can't the truth be told about Kerry?

If you'd taken the time and researched the topic, you would have found that out of the Newsweek picture of his fellow swift-boaters, only 3 supported him. http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/index.php

I'd agree that in the end the Presidency has become a figure-head position.

Wikipedia.com:

"A government by aristocracy is generally held to be incompatible with the notion of political egalitarianism and with democracy itself.
Nonetheless, it is clear that the concept of human rights itself has roots in agreements that were originally between aristocrats and monarchs."

We live in a representative democracy. To a certain extent, we will always have a hint of aristocracy within us. People like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and every president hence have all been white men. To many, they were the aristocrats. Do we really consider Washington or Lincoln's adminstration based on an Aristocracy? No. Why? The people (save women and minorities) had the right to chose who they wanted. We called it a representative democracy, even though they were electing the aristocratic white males. Even now, with equal rights and protection under the law, we continue to elect these types of people. Why? That's for you to decide. However, we are still given the choice, and therefore it can never be a full aristocracy.

We are capitalists. It's not exactly a perfect system, however it beats socialism and communism every day.

"consider the fact that they themselves may be substandard to those that that believe to be superior to."

So someone is still better than someone else... interesting!

Riiight, and to what address do I send hate mail to the rock you've been living under? Bush a good president?! Name one good thing Bush did for the US, and one thing Kerry lied about, and I will leave you alone.

Ha, not even my post originally, but I'll respond to it.

One good thing Bush did for the US: across the board tax cuts. He lowered every single tax bracket in the US tax code; the DNC talking points about "targeted tax cuts for the rich" are BS. Look it up.

One thing Kerry lied about: Claiming he met with "every single member" of the UN Security Council regarding Iraq. He made this claim during the debates. Of the five UN security members reached for comment afterwards, four said they had absolutely never spoken with Kerry.

Two things Kerry lied about: When prompted by a reporter as to whether he would vote for the $87 billion supplemental for Iraq (the second time this bill went through), Kerry replied, "I don't think any member of the congress is going to not fund our troops, not provide our troops with the weapons that they need... that's irresponsible!" He then proceeded to vote against the $87 billion. (Needless to say, this interview was AFTER the first time the bill had come up, when Kerry had voted for it -- leading to his famous quote, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.")

Three things Kerry lied about: He claimed he threw away his war medals on national TV; he also claimed he NEVER threw away his war medals on national TV (but instead threw away "the ribbons"). Doesn't take a genius to figure out that ONE of his contradictory statements is a lie.

Four things Kerry lied about: Claimed he was at the 1986 Red Sox world-series game, sitting 40 feet away from Bill Buckner when he blew the ground ball that cost the Sox the series. Kerry was actually at a public function hundreds of miles away, speaking to a crowd at the time.

Five things Kerry lied about: When asked by a reporter if he had an SUV, Kerry replied "No." When the reporter called him on it, Kerry backtracked and said, "Oh, that's the FAMILY'S SUV, not mine!" I guess Kerry isn't a part of his own family.

Six things Kerry lied about: He claimed an honorable discharge from the military, yet refused to the end to release all his military records. The discharge posted on his website was granted YEARS after he left the service, and was most likely granted to him by Carter (the date fits) during Carter's amnesty for Vietnam dodgers and protesters and the like. If his service was so stellar, why has he (to this day) never released his full record?

I could go on, but I'm getting tired of typing.

Ha, not even my post originally, but I'll respond to it.

One good thing Bush did for the US: across the board tax cuts. He lowered every single tax bracket in the US tax code; the DNC talking points about "targeted tax cuts for the rich" are BS. Look it up.

One thing Kerry lied about: Claiming he met with "every single member" of the UN Security Council regarding Iraq. He made this claim during the debates. Of the five UN members reached for comment afterwards, four said they had absolutely never spoken with Kerry.

Two things Kerry lied about: When prompted by a reporter as to whether he would vote for the $87 billion supplemental for Iraq (the second time this bill went through), Kerry replied, "I don't think any member of the congress is going to not fund our troops, not provide our troops with the weapons that they need... that's irresponsible!" He then proceeded to vote against the $87 billion. (Needless to say, this interview was AFTER the first time the bill had come up, when Kerry had voted for it -- leading to his famous quote, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.")

Three things Kerry lied about: He claimed he threw away his war medals on national TV; he also claimed he NEVER threw away his war medals on national TV (but instead threw away "the ribbons"). Doesn't take a genius to figure out that ONE of his contradictory statements is a lie.

Four things Kerry lied about: Claimed he was at the 1986 Red Sox world-series game, sitting 40 feet away from Bill Buckner when he blew the ground ball that cost the Sox the series. Kerry was actually at a public function hundreds of miles away, speaking to a crowd at the time.

Five things Kerry lied about: When asked by a reporter if he had an SUV, Kerry replied "No." When the reporter called him on it, Kerry backtracked and said, "Oh, that's the FAMILY'S SUV, not mine!" I guess Kerry isn't a part of his own family.

Six things Kerry lied about: He claimed an honorable discharge from the military, yet refused to the end to release all his military records. The discharge posted on his website was granted YEARS after he left the service, and was most likely granted to him by Carter (the date fits) during Carter's amnesty for Vietnam dodgers and protesters and the like. If his service was so stellar, why has he (to this day) never released his full record?

I could go on, but I'm getting tired of typing.

And the tax cuts are GOOD? He's spending more and taxing less, that will inevitably leave this debt to be paid by future generations and that's good? The tax cuts did benefit the wealthy. More so than any other group.

First off i would like to say, "MAN THERE ARE A LOT OF POSTS AND OPINIONS IN HERE!!" When you come right down to it neither side won because they had a better position or a better ideal. I am now going to do something that is against my ethics because they are so easily manipulated and controlled, I am going to use statistics.

First off i would like to adress this "mandate" opinion that some people have in here. Sorry but 51% to 49% is not a crushing defeat by any means. Ohh yeah the comment on 3 million voters more? Yeah what is it like 180 million registered voters? Correct me if I am wrong I'm not quite too sure on the exact numbers, but lets assume that is a rough figure, you go do the math genius.

Second thing I would like to address is the lack of the real reason why Kerry lost. He did not lose because his position was bad or that most people disagree with him. In fact if you were to sit down with him, anyone, you would more than likely find out that you have more in common than you do differance. To say that Americans have rejected the liberalism, well that is comming from the mouth of a moron. Statistically Americans are central. If you were to take a test to determine your party lines you would find that about 80% would score between 45 and 55 on a scale from 1 to 75. That is central. The real reason that Kerry lost is the way he presented his ads and what his ads were. I have to hand it to the republican party, they did a far better job of manipulating the public than did the Democrats. Anyone who thinks that there is no manipulation lives under a rock, or is so manipulated themselves that they do not see it.

Considering that majority of the campaing was spent on ads, and very little was actually spent on spreading issues and the real facts, I dont' see how anyone can say that Bush won because he was the better president. The fact remains that you cannot know exactly everything. You do not know what happens behind the closed doors of the presidency, so how can you say that Bush is a lier? You are basing you facts on mass media.

If you look at the statistic for the number of voters who actually watched all three debates, you will realize that it was about 5%. How can anyone make a claim about the voter population knowing anything about the "issues" when they didn't even take the time to sit down and watch this drastically important event? Now anyone who says that Bush did well obviously has never been in a debate themselves. In some he did better than others but Kerry basically beat him at every turn. Now it is plausable to assume that this is because of Bush having poor public speaking skill, I think.

Now here comes the real hard hitting stuff. I have not read one solid peice of evidence that was not manipulated by media in some way. To who ever posted about filters, absolutly right. Everyone is filtered. Both sides filtered to make their point more promident and clearly falsified the facts. Not to mention the personal filters that you have because of your ethnic/social background.

The post about the manipulation of votes greatly worries me. The fact that someone could do that is unforgivable. But we all know that those people who count the ballots cannot be corrupted in anyway... no of course not(for those of you who can't tell im being sarcastic).

Now the argument about socialism verses capitalism quite intrests me. Now reading some of the posts here, to all of the "WOO YEAH AMERICA IS THE GREATEST" people in here, all i have to say is, "Those who cannot see their faults cannot see the trueth". Ohh yes and I DARE you to go live in a true capitalistic society and try to live. And for those who can't catch on I will state my point, this is not a true capitalistic nation. Just as this is not a democracy and who ever thinks that really need to learn what a dictionary is and needs to look up the definition of a democracy and seriouly think about it for a minute.

Now to say that the socialist form of economies is better than a capitalistic society.... ehhh thats opinion based. Obviously nations such as Sweden and Fineland obviously are doing something correct because there isn't a mass exodus of their people to the United States. Now that must tell you something about their form of government.

If you sit down and consider how old Europe is compared to the United States, and the amount of history they have, and how less arrogant they are(probably because of lessons learned in the past) has to tell you something when they HATE Americans. Well I take that back, hate would be a bad word. There are obviously people in Europe who do hate Americans, but their population probably takes a more of a mild dissapproval of American actions and then goes on with their lives. Now for Americans, I cannot say the same. My last name is French, LaFleur, and i cannot tell you how much slander has been thrown at it because it is French. Now to say that Europeans are blind and ignorant? Please grow up. To have my own people curse me because my name is French? Is that no better than the blind hate we hear so much about on the media emminating from the terrorists?

Ohh yes the "war on terror." For those of you who lack any sence of history what so ever and only live by what you hear on the news everyday, the "war on terror" has been going since the dawn of time. By definition terrorism is just acts that cause fear. So the public executions held in Hamurabi's court to subdue and enforce his laws are techniqually terrorism. Now if we look at the common definition, then "the war on terror" started when Isreal was formed. I would have applaud the Isrealies for their perserverance with fighting a war that is nearly 60 years old. Common people please open your eyes. Most of what I have read here has been a load of crap. Most of you are so caught up in your own self rightous opinions that you cannot even see the flaws that someone can so easily point out and exploit. Ohh yes and the last post to someone being central... yeah that would be me. I saw both canidates as being equal and not a big concernt considering that more power is centered in congress, and considering that my state now hold the senate minority leader, yeah I would say that things turned out decent.

And the tax cuts are GOOD? He's spending more and taxing less, that will inevitably leave this debt to be paid by future generations and that's good? The tax cuts did benefit the wealthy. More so than any other group.

I agree that his spending is a problem.

However, your belief that his tax cuts benefitted the rich moreso than other groups is just flat wrong. You're getting your info from the DNC. In reality, the rich got a SMALLER tax cut, percentage-wise, than the less-fortunate did -- the exact opposite of what the DNC would have you believe. Here are some actual facts to peruse, not just DNC "Dick Cheney got a $360,000 tax cut!" crap:

If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut.

Pre-Bush, the $1 million a year couple paid 33 times as much as the $60,000 couple; today they pay more than 38 times as much.

Read the rest of the article here (http://slate.msn.com/id/2108201/) and learn the real facts. The DNC has you duped.

And, worth noting, the guy who wrote the article is CONDEMNING Bush's tax cut.

I agree that his spending is a problem.

However, your belief that his tax cuts benefitted the rich moreso than other groups is just flat wrong. You're getting your info from the DNC. In reality, the rich got a SMALLER tax cut, percentage-wise, than the less-fortunate did -- the exact opposite of what the DNC would have you believe. Here are some actual facts to peruse, not just DNC "Dick Cheney got a $360,000 tax cut!" crap:

If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you've had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut.

Pre-Bush, the $1 million a year couple paid 33 times as much as the $60,000 couple; today they pay more than 38 times as much.

Read the rest of the article here (http://slate.msn.com/id/2108201/) and learn the real facts. The DNC has you duped.

And, worth noting, the guy who wrote the article is CONDEMNING Bush's tax cut.

Nope, not getting my info from the DNC. I am a democrat yes, but not that keen on the DNC, not too organized. They don't know up from down, those that I've met anyway.

My knowledge comes from a book. 4 out of 5 tax payers earning less than $73,000 a year in 2001 got back on average $350. Over the next ten years, that figure won't rise much. It will stay below $500. Consequently, by 2010, the plan would allow the richest 1% to keep, on average, another $45,000. By that year, 52% of the total tax cuts will go to the richest 1%

Nope, not getting my info from the DNC. I am a democrat yes, but not that keen on the DNC, not too organized. They don't know up from down, those that I've met anyway.

My knowledge comes from a book. 4 out of 5 tax payers earning less than $73,000 a year in 2001 got back on average $350. Over the next ten years, that figure won't rise much. It will stay below $500. Consequently, by 2010, the plan would allow the richest 1% to keep, on average, another $45,000. By that year, 52% of the total tax cuts will go to the richest 1%

and if perhaps, you were referring to the 2003 tax plan, here's the deal on that, quoted directly from my handy book.
" The 2003 tax cut also gives the greatest benefits to the rich. In 2005, a married couple with two children earning $41,001 a year will be paying $323 less in taxes than they would have if the 2003 tax cut had not been passed. A similar couple earning $530,000 will save $12,772. So, the richer couple, earning more than twelve times the amount as the couple on a lower income, saves nearly forty times as much in taxes. For most taxpayers, the cut will mean a rise in after tax income of less than 1%; but for those earning over a million dollars a year, the rise will be 4.4%.

and if perhaps, you were referring to the 2003 tax plan, here's the deal on that, quoted directly from my handy book.
" The 2003 tax cut also gives the greatest benefits to the rich. In 2005, a married couple with two children earning $41,001 a year will be paying $323 less in taxes than they would have if the 2003 tax cut had not been passed. A similar couple earning $530,000 will save $12,772. So, the richer couple, earning more than twelve times the amount as the couple on a lower income, saves nearly forty times as much in taxes. For most taxpayers, the cut will mean a rise in after tax income of less than 1%; but for those earning over a million dollars a year, the rise will be 4.4%.

And for anyone interested in what book this comes from its "The President of Good & Evil Questioning The Ethics of George W. Bush" by Peter Singer.

Kerry's strategy centered on the swing states, and as you'll notice, he did better than Gore in many important swing states, including Oregon, Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, New Hampshire, Nevada, Washington, and Colorado. Bush on the other hand did MUCH better in the non-battleground states. He got his biggest vote increase NOT from the South, but from the cities, surprisingly. From New York, and California, he pulled millions of extra votes than in 2000. This gave him the illusion of a mandate with a 3.3 million vote lead on Kerry. I understand Kerry's strategy, but it was risky, because if they couldn't secure the electoral vote, they were throwing Bush a large popular vote. We NEED the GOTV efforts in the cities, in California, Illinois, New York...we need those huge votes to give the illusion of our own mandate.

Kerry's campaign was also just generally run terribly. He seemed constantly on the defensive, or just inactive. They waited too damn long to even respond to the Swifties. Kerry didn't even start attacking the president until a month or so before the election.


But, we did not lose Gore voters any moreso than Bush lost his 2000 voters. The exit polls showed that 10% of Gore voters defected to Bush this year, but 9% of Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry this year. As well, the vote percentages by ideology were unchanged.

What changed was who turned out to vote. 17% were new voters, 37% were Gore voters, 43% were Bush 2000 voters, and 3% were others.

In 2000, Gore beat Bush by 0.5%. This year, Bush 2000 voters turned out by 6% more.

THAT is why we lost. We got beat on turnout.

The registered Democrats were EXACTLY as loyal as they were in 2000, 89%. The registered Republicans increased their loyalty from 91 to 93%. The independant vote largely went from Nader to Kerry. Basically, not much change in these percentages.

HOWEVER, this year 37% of voters were Democrat, 37% were Republican, and 26% were independant.

In 2000, I believe the registered Democrats had a 4% advantage on registered Republicans.

The Republicans won this year because more of them turned out than expected. That's why the polls were so wrong, that explains the surprising issue of morality being the number one issue, that explains the popular vote change from a half million Bush loss to a 3.3 million Bush win.

Bush may have won the most popular votes by any candidate, but Kerry holds second place (Reagan 1984 is in 3rd and Gore is 4th).

In 2008, we need to focus on the swing states, which are trending our way, but we can't forsake the solid states either, or we'll lose the popular vote again and look illegitimate if we take the electoral vote.

We just barely lost this election, the Democrat Party is not dying or fading or whatever other turn of phrase Sean Hannity likes to use. We came back from MUCH bigger losses in the 80s.

The losses in Congress? The entire 4 seat gain in the House can be attributed to Tom DeLay's gerrymandering that threw 5 Texas Democrats into Republican districts, or even competing against other incumbents. Without that, we might have actually picked up a seat! In the Senate, 5 Southern Democrats decided this year was a good time to retire. A 4 seat loss was fairly decent, given that. If 5 Northeastern Republicans had suddenly retired, WE would be the ones anticipating the magic 60.

The solution is not trying to be like Republicans. We have our wedge issues too (healthcare, social security, JOBS, etc). We need to push them. And for godsake we need a better candidate in 2008 (sorry Kerry). I say Evan Bayh, someone from the upper midwest. Cause that's where the election of 2008 is going to be decided.

The real reason why Kerry lost, was (as is the case for most democrats) he was trying to hide his anti-American record. We will help hillary rotten clinton run (and lose) in 2008.

And for anyone interested in what book this comes from its "The President of Good & Evil Questioning The Ethics of George W. Bush" by Peter Singer.

Peter Singer is not exactly an unbiased source; he has a pretty clear extremist agenda. Look, the numbers speak for themselves -- don't take my word for it OR Peter Singer's. Do the math yourself:

Tax Brackets in 2000 (for SINGLE filers):

Income: Bracket:

0-26,250 15%
26,250-63,550 28%
63,550-132,600 31%
132,600-288,350 36%
288,350 and above 39.6%


Tax Brackets in 2004 (single):

Income: Bracket:

0-7,150 10%
7,150-29,050 15%
29,050-70,350 25%
70,350-146,750 28%
146,750-319,100 33%
319,100 and above 35%

Let's do an example problem, just to show how Pete Singer obviously has difficulty with math.

In our example problem, we have our hypothetical newly-nationalized Australian -- we'll call him "Pete Singer" -- having a taxable income of $65,000 a year from being a controversial author.

In 2000, Pete would have paid $14,787.50 (first 26,250 x 15% = 3937.50; next 37,300 x 28% = 10,444; last 1,450 x 28% = 406).

In 2004, however, Pete's tax bill on the same income drops down to $12,987.50 (first 7150 x 10% = 715; next 21,900 x 15% = 3285; next 35,950 x 25% = 8987.50).

That a savings of exactly $1800.00 (or a 12.2% reduction) in Pete's tax bill.

The benefits are even better if you're married and/or have kids. You can compare the brackets here (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm).

Guess Pete must be one of the "rich elite," saving over 12% a year since Bush's tax cuts went into effect! Jeez man, just because somebody writes a book doesn't make them RIGHT. The numbers are out there. Do the research yourself.

Nope, not getting my info from the DNC. I am a democrat yes, but not that keen on the DNC, not too organized. They don't know up from down, those that I've met anyway.

My knowledge comes from a book. 4 out of 5 tax payers earning less than $73,000 a year in 2001 got back on average $350. Over the next ten years, that figure won't rise much. It will stay below $500. Consequently, by 2010, the plan would allow the richest 1% to keep, on average, another $45,000. By that year, 52% of the total tax cuts will go to the richest 1%

In 2001 Bush's tax plan was already starting to phase-in. It didn't take effect all at once, it was a staged plan designed to phase-in over a several year period. See above post for comparison of 2000 (pre Bush) and 2004 (post Bush).

The real reason why Kerry lost, was (as is the case for most democrats) he was trying to hide his anti-American record. We will help hillary rotten clinton run (and lose) in 2008.

BL, do you have stupid fucking names for every democrat?

Are you still arguing about this?

The following is a synopsis of the US tax structure put into layman's terms by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D, Distinguished Professor of Economics,536 Brooks Hall, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. http://www.uga.edu/.
For anyone out there who thinks that the wealthiest of Americans are benefiting from tax cuts at the expense of the rest of America, please read this extremely well-put analogy.

Top 1% earn 21% of all income; pay 37-1/2% of all taxes Top 5% earn 35% of all income; pay 56-1/2% of all taxes Top 10% earn 46% of all income; pay 67% of all taxes Top 25% pay 84% of all taxes Top 50% pay 96-1/2% of all taxes Bottom 50% pay 3-1/2% of all taxes

Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, here is an old story that we hope will help explain our US Tax System.......

Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics. This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten people go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four people (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh $7. The eighth $12. The ninth $18. The tenth person (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten people ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So, now dinner for the ten will only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four people were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The six people realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth person and the sixth person would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth person, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings.) The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the people began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth person. He pointed to the tenth person "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth person. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh person. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four people in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine people surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth person didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

The following is a synopsis of the US tax structure put into layman's terms by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D, Distinguished Professor of Economics,536 Brooks Hall, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. http://www.uga.edu/.
For anyone out there who thinks that the wealthiest of Americans are benefiting from tax cuts at the expense of the rest of America, please read this extremely well-put analogy.

Top 1% earn 21% of all income; pay 37-1/2% of all taxes Top 5% earn 35% of all income; pay 56-1/2% of all taxes Top 10% earn 46% of all income; pay 67% of all taxes Top 25% pay 84% of all taxes Top 50% pay 96-1/2% of all taxes Bottom 50% pay 3-1/2% of all taxes

Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, here is an old story that we hope will help explain our US Tax System.......

Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics. This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten people go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four people (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh $7. The eighth $12. The ninth $18. The tenth person (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten people ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So, now dinner for the ten will only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four people were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The six people realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth person and the sixth person would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth person, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings.) The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the people began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth person. He pointed to the tenth person "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth person. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh person. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four people in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine people surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth person didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Whatever, you still lost the (Phoney) election.

Whatever, you still lost the (Phoney) election.

And we can do it again, just like we did it before.

Kerry is an empty suit. That contributed as much to his losing as anything else.
Kerry was not the best choice for the nomination (that was Wesley Clark), but I don't think it would have mattered anyhow because the electronic voting machines are rigged! Companies like Diebold and ES&S, who own the machines, are connected to Christian Dominionist groups who seek to bring the U.S. under a fundamentalist, Old Testament-style theocracy. The machines were rigged for Bush.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/4/83856/1543

Kerry was not the best choice for the nomination (that was Wesley Clark), but I don't think it would have mattered anyhow because the electronic voting machines are rigged! Companies like Diebold and ES&S, who own the machines, are connected to Christian Dominionist groups who seek to bring the U.S. under a fundamentalist, Old Testament-style theocracy. The machines were rigged for Bush.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/4/83856/1543

So, (even though Kerry was your last choice) Wesley Clark should have won. We send friends like you to CaNERDia.

Whatever, you still lost the (Phoney) election.

What on earth are you talking about, and how does it relate to my post about the tax code in this country punishing the most productive people? Try a different English translator next time. Babblefish has a pretty good one.

The following is a synopsis of the US tax structure put into layman's terms by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D, Distinguished Professor of Economics,536 Brooks Hall, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. http://www.uga.edu/.
For anyone out there who thinks that the wealthiest of Americans are benefiting from tax cuts at the expense of the rest of America, please read this extremely well-put analogy.

Top 1% earn 21% of all income; pay 37-1/2% of all taxes Top 5% earn 35% of all income; pay 56-1/2% of all taxes Top 10% earn 46% of all income; pay 67% of all taxes Top 25% pay 84% of all taxes Top 50% pay 96-1/2% of all taxes Bottom 50% pay 3-1/2% of all taxes

Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, here is an old story that we hope will help explain our US Tax System.......

Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics. This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten people go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four people (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh $7. The eighth $12. The ninth $18. The tenth person (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten people ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So, now dinner for the ten will only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four people were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The six people realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth person and the sixth person would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth person, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings.) The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the people began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth person. He pointed to the tenth person "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth person. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh person. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four people in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine people surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth person didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

I was referring to this dribble. If YOU have a point, SAY IT, in 10 words or less. No one believes (or bothers to read) you plagerisms.

I was referring to this dribble. If YOU have a point, SAY IT, in 10 words or less. No one believes (or bothers to read) you plagerisms.


BL, do you insult everyone ? Or is there anyone you actually like. I'm just curious.

BL, do you insult everyone ? Or is there anyone you actually like. I'm just curious.

Liking is not my objective. But I abhor potificators, who quote other unknowns, waste everyones time, and when the quote is proven meaningless, they claim "Well, I didn't say it. It was just an example (of whatever)". If you want to say something, SAY IT YOURSELF, and take responsibility for your own stupidity. AND SAY IT IN 10 WORDS OR LESS (WHICH I JUST DIDN'T).

Liking is not my objective. But I abhor potificators, who quote other unknowns, waste everyones time, and when the quote is proven meaningless, they claim "Well, I didn't say it. It was just an example (of whatever)". If you want to say something, SAY IT YOURSELF, and take responsibility for your own stupidity. AND SAY IT IN 10 WORDS OR LESS (WHICH I JUST DIDN'T).

You are a shitty person, and I don't like you.

10 words.

You are a shitty person, and I don't like you.

10 words.

I think he's funny really. No I do, very much.

(10 words :) )

You are a shitty person, and I don't like you.

10 words.

"Don't" is a contraction of 2 words. You Lose.

I think he's funny really. No I do, very much.

(10 words :) )

I thank you very, very much. And reserve zero words.

"Don't" is a contraction of 2 words. You Lose.

A contraction of two words makes it one. You see?

"Don't" is a contraction of 2 words. You Lose.
con•trac•tion P Pronunciation Key (k n-tr k sh n)
n.
1. The act of contracting or the state of being contracted.
2.
a. A word, as won't from will not, or phrase, as o'clock from of the clock, formed by omitting or combining some of the sounds of a longer phrase.
b. The formation of such a word.
Formatting sucha word

A contracted word is just that a word made out of two … ONE word made out of TWO … you say it as don’t even though it means Do Not

One word

I think he's funny really. No I do, very much.

(10 words :) )

"He's" is also a contraction of 2 words. Loser.

"He's" is also a contraction of 2 words. Loser.
Read above posts ... contraction MAKES ONE WORD OUT OF TWO

Incorrect correction

silly

con•trac•tion P Pronunciation Key (k n-tr k sh n)
n.
1. The act of contracting or the state of being contracted.
2.
a. A word, as won't from will not, or phrase, as o'clock from of the clock, formed by omitting or combining some of the sounds of a longer phrase.
b. The formation of such a word.
Formatting sucha word

A contracted word is just that a word made out of two … ONE word made out of TWO … you say it as don’t even though it means Do Not

One word

What part of 10 do you not Understand?

What part of 10 do you not Understand?
What part of a contracted word is one word don't you understand?

Blindliberals. Are you ever right about anything? Anything at all?

Blindliberals. Are you ever right about anything? Anything at all?
I vote no

Blindliberals. Are you ever right about anything? Anything at all?

I am sure he perpetually talks out of his ass.

I am sure he perpetually talks out of his ass.
He should sell himself to a sideshow … that would be a hell of a site … ass talking boy

I vote no

You have seven more words, I would suggest using them.

Once again, the democrats don't get it. Yes, Kerry ran a terrible campaign. Yes, Kerry was, as others point out, an amoral empty suit. Some of the liberal posters in this thread do get it. The Republicans won on voter turn-out. More Republicans showed up at the polls because they reject liberal ideology, not because Kerry was a bad candidate. Some posters have correctly identified the ideas as the reason Kerry lost, but they have the wrong solution. They say the democrats need to move farther left, to not be "Republican-lite." This will be disastrous for the democrats. Clinton won by running from the center. If a party wants to gain popular votes, it needs to move closer to the values of the majority of voters, not away from them. (And they need to stop their arrogant and demeaning stereotyping of the majority.) The majority of voters clearly have conservative values, as evidenced by the madate given to the Repulicans on November 2. Yes, it IS a mandate.

Blindliberals. Are you ever right about anything? Anything at all?

Kerry lost. Regardless of divisive "let's heal" recounts.

You have seven more words, I would suggest using them.
ummm (and um don’t count vocalized pause)
There once was a girl from Venus …

What part of a contracted word is one word don't you understand?

Don't you get it?

I didn't read everything before this but in many states they were voting on gay marrages... and that caused more christians to go out and vote and as you all know Bush won the christian vote big time.

I am sure he perpetually talks out of his ass.

Your are still in, but meaningfullness counts.

Don't you get it?
Was it just me or did that make surprisingly little sense?

Was it just me or did that make surprisingly little sense?

Just you. I reserve 4 words.

Once again, the democrats don't get it. Yes, Kerry ran a terrible campaign. Yes, Kerry was, as others point out, an amoral empty suit. Some of the liberal posters in this thread do get it. The Republicans won on voter turn-out. More Republicans showed up at the polls because they reject liberal ideology, not because Kerry was a bad candidate. Some posters have correctly identified the ideas as the reason Kerry lost, but they have the wrong solution. They say the democrats need to move farther left, to not be "Republican-lite." This will be disastrous for the democrats. Clinton won by running from the center. If a party wants to gain popular votes, it needs to move closer to the values of the majority of voters, not away from them. (And they need to stop their arrogant and demeaning stereotyping of the majority.) The majority of voters clearly have conservative values, as evidenced by the madate given to the Repulicans on November 2. Yes, it IS a mandate.

With the Republican party taking a rapid shift to the right I think there are a massive amount of conservative moderates that would be very receptive to the democratic party if it wasn't represented horribly.

Another thing that would be wise, and I saw a thread on it here, would be a much more palatable platform. The republicans did an amazing job (thanks to Rove) of making their platform all about ideology and not about issues, while the democratic party toiled away arguing about gay marriage and abortion.

Edit: Sorry BL, this post was more than ten words.

I didn't read everything before this but in many states they were voting on gay marrages... and that caused more christians to go out and vote and as you all know Bush won the christian vote big time.
Yes, I guess Bush won the "Christian vote", whatever that is. But polls have shown that the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and the economy were more important issues to voters than gay marriage.

With the Republican party taking a rapid shift to the right I think there are a massive amount of conservative moderates that would be very receptive to the democratic party if it wasn't represented horribly.

Another thing that would be wise, and I saw a thread on it here, would be a much more palatable platform. The republicans did an amazing job (thanks to Rove) of making their platform all about ideology and not about issues, while the democratic party toiled away arguing about gay marriage and abortion.

Edit: Sorry BL, this post was more than ten words.

Kerry could not hide his lies and ineffectualness.

Kerry could not hide his lies and ineffectualness.

Ten words or less is way way more effective.

Kerry could not hide his lies and ineffectualness.

You always make such wonderful points.

I must say that Bush couldn't hide his lies or ineffectualness, either. But republicans just didn't care.

You always make such wonderful points.

I must say that Bush couldn't hide his lies or ineffectualness, either. But republicans just didn't care.

He won. You lost. Multi-nanny-nannys.

You always make such wonderful points.

I must say that Bush couldn't hide his lies or ineffectualness, either. But republicans just didn't care.
This is the arrogant and demeaning stereotyping that I referred to above. Liberals need to get over it and stop doing this, if they ever want to win another election. You don't get people to vote for your ideas or your candidate by insulting them.

With the Republican party taking a rapid shift to the right I think there are a massive amount of conservative moderates that would be very receptive to the democratic party if it wasn't represented horribly.

Another thing that would be wise, and I saw a thread on it here, would be a much more palatable platform. The republicans did an amazing job (thanks to Rove) of making their platform all about ideology and not about issues, while the democratic party toiled away arguing about gay marriage and abortion.

Edit: Sorry BL, this post was more than ten words.

1. A hint for pontificators.
2. Make ALL points in 10 words or less.
3. If you cannot, break them into separate points.
4. That way, even morons will think that they understand.
5. Except that guy above.

1. A hint for pontificators.
2. Make ALL points in 10 words or less.
3. If you cannot, break them into separate points.
4. That way, even morons will think that they understand.
5. Except that guy above.
Silly way to break your statement into points

Traditionally they are separate thoughts … not something that in a sentence would use a comma

Like between your four and five … more like adding a line in-between one thought (almost)
Horrible logical flow

(not that I am not bothering to break mine into points … hope you can still understand, I must have faith that you can)

This is the arrogant and demeaning stereotyping that I referred to above. Liberals need to get over it and stop doing this, if they ever want to win another election. You don't get people to vote for your ideas or your candidate by insulting them.

You forgot to tell Kerry. (Oops, you's us.)

1. A hint for pontificators.
2. Make ALL points in 10 words or less.
3. If you cannot, break them into separate points.
4. That way, even morons will think that they understand.
5. Except that guy above.


1. You never fail to amuse BL.

2. Keep up the good work.

Silly way to break your statement into points

Traditionally they are separate thoughts … not something that in a sentence would use a comma

Like between your four and five … more like adding a line in-between one thought (almost)
Horrible logical flow

(not that I am not bothering to break mine into points … hope you can still understand, I must have faith that you can)

You are trying to not get it. No fooling.

This is the arrogant and demeaning stereotyping that I referred to above. Liberals need to get over it and stop doing this, if they ever want to win another election. You don't get people to vote for your ideas or your candidate by insulting them.

I was only responding to the idiotic post that Kerry lost because he couldn't hide his lies. That was an asinine statement from someone who specializes in them, and I treated it as such.

You would notice that I responded to your well thought out statement respectfully and actually agreed with a great deal of it.

And liberals don't have a monopoly in arrogance, just read some of BlindLiberals posts. Hell, just look at his name.

1. You never fail to amuse BL.

2. Keep up the good work.

Thank you X 5.

You are trying to not get it. No fooling.
Nope you were trying to explain how to improve the impact of your statements … and I am saying that breaking up one thought into two “points” is much worse and less logical then keeping it into one longer then 10 word point or statement

I was only responding to the idiotic post that Kerry lost because he couldn't hide his lies. That was an asinine statement from someone who specializes in them, and I treated it as such.

You would notice that I responded to your well thought out statement respectfully and actually agreed with a great deal of it.

And liberals don't have a monopoly in arrogance, just read some of BlindLiberals posts. Hell, just look at his name.

In 10 words or less, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?

In 10 words or less, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?I know that you can play this game.

I know that you can play this game.

I am serious. Short, but sweet, or you lose interest.

I am serious. Short, but sweet, or you lose interest.

I was taught this when I had to brief Generals.

I am serious. Short, but sweet, or you lose interest.
You lost my interest, must be your intelligence

I was taught this when I had to brief Generals.

I bet that I am remembered. And you are forgotten.

The main reason that Kerry lost was that he did little more than take an "anti-Bush" stance, and hoped that this, with the liberal press's backing, would be enough - he did not push strongly enough the Democratic take on things and came across as just plain negative. He preached to the converted, and had little to offer the swing voter. Agree with Bush or not, you at least knew what it was he stood for.

You lost my interest, must be your intelligence

I was not talking to you. Good-night, Dick.

I was only responding to the idiotic post that Kerry lost because he couldn't hide his lies. That was an asinine statement from someone who specializes in them, and I treated it as such.

You would notice that I responded to your well thought out statement respectfully and actually agreed with a great deal of it.

And liberals don't have a monopoly in arrogance, just read some of BlindLiberals posts. Hell, just look at his name.
If you were only speaking of BL, that would be fine. But your post ended with "republicans didn't care" (about Bush's "lies" and "ineffectualness"). That would indicate you were speaking about Republicans in general.

Back on topic, Rove is a genius. You are correct in that he diverted the democrats' focus onto issues that don't matter much or are winning issues for Republicans. He also manuevered them into vitriolic and hateful rhetoric. Apparently, Rove has studied Sun Tzu. "Entice your enemy with baits. If he is easily angered, irritate [or 'provoke'] him."

Yes, the Republicans won on ideology. That's what I keep trying to tell democrats. If you could have brought back Kennedy or Roosevelt in their prime, even they would have lost running on the democratic agenda. THAT'S what the American electorate rejected, NOT Kerry's empty suit.

Unadulterated bull-shit. If this were true, don't you think Kerry and Kompany would have raised holy hell about it? But no, he conceded the election. That alone should tell you these people are so far around the bend that the rest of us can't even see their asses anymore. And exit polls have been shown to be completely unreliable as a means of predicting elections. Give it up.

Kerry protest it!!!!!! Yah, and commit sucide while he's at it. Look at how much shit gore got for exercising his rights. It hurt us this election because uneducated people kept the sterotype: Democrats are sore losers. If Kerry protested it the Democratic party would be totally swept in 2008. Use some common sense. Kerry resigned early this year just to try to erase that sterotype.

He won. You lost. Multi-nanny-nannys.
10 words or less only works if you say something of importantance.... or anything at all. You have offered absoutly no evidence for anything you say.

I am concluding that evidense is not important to you. After all, It doesn't help your case.

I bet that I am remembered. And you are forgotten.

It doesn't matter if you are remembered, It matters how you are remebered. Hitler was remembered....

Your right in a sense, you will be remembered.... as a jackass

In 10 words or less, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?

1. Saying a politician lost because he lied is asinine.

2. My statement was an asinine retort.

3. I respected INT's post and responded in a respectful manner.

4. Arrogance knows no political ideology.

It doesn't matter if you are remembered, It matters how you are remebered. Hitler was remembered....

Your right in a sense, you will be remembered.... as a jackass

In the method of BlindLiberals:

1. He is referring to his talking points being remembered.

2. He is correct that concise points are better remembered.

3. BlindLiberals will still be remembered as a jackass.

4. BlindLiberals does not care how he is remembered.

Hows that suit you BL

SLAM!!!!!!

1. Excellent work VO.

2. Keep it up.

1. Alansysism has gone.

2. We need a replacement.

3. BL could be the man for the job.

4. If he works at it.

1. Alansysism has gone.

2. We need a replacement.

3. BL could be the man for the job.

4. If he works at it.


1. Alansyism vs. BlindLiberals

2. One on One Combat

3. To the death

4. Lunatic Radical Slugfest 2004

Information requested from US posters :

I just read a interview with a investigation journalist, named Greg Pallast in a Dutch magazine. I'll try to translate (a part of) it. Tittle was "Kerry Won":

Intro:
With the elections 4 years ago, invetigation journalist Greg Pallast pointed the attention on the figured out fraude of the Republicans in Florida (wrote a book about it "Democracy at sale"). While everybody speaks about the "large majority" and the "mandate" of GW Bush, Pallast says as only one that these alections to are a organised fraude.

Interviewer: You must be the only one that continues to say that Kerry won the election.

Greg Pallast: "In anny way, Kerry had the most votes in Ohio and New Mexico, that is why he actually won. There is no doubt that those elections are stolen, just like the ones before.
I was on the watch, because I am probably the most specialised expert on electionfraude. Well, what I expected happened: two million votes were just trown away. That's a lot. A million of them came from black voters, that mostly vote Democrat. The problem is that it is not the federal state that pays for the elections but the local governments-so poorer regions have less money for voting machines. And bad voting machines eat votes . Only in Ohio, 93.000 votes were trown away, almost all Democrat votes. Besides that are comming the provisional ballots. Those are votes of people that can't vote according Republicans or or for any reason so. The Republicans fought hundreds of thousands black votes (note VF, does he mean in those 2 states or what?). Those votes to weren't counted.

If you count all those votes, then you have another president. Only we don't count them all. Everything is tolerated in war, love and elections, that is the idea in the US-if you can get away with it, better for you. BTW you can't speak about elections in the US, it is more a kind of auction: the Bush team spend more then one billion dollar.

Interviewer: The Democrats told that they would fight for each vote this time. Why thus Kerry then admited his loose so fast?

Pallast: John Edwards wanted to fight-I know him personally, he is a fighter. He comes from the South, his vote is the black vote and he wants to be sure about that one in four years. Kerry admited so fast because the situation was hopeless: if he wanted a complete count in Ohio, then he had to go to court over each provisional ballot: about 250.000. That was a impossible task-Ken Blackwell , wholed the counting in Ohio is like Katherine Harris (the women that "delivered" Bushes election in Florida in 2000, redaction). There was no chance that Kerry could win.

Interviewer: The Independent describes the next 4 years as a "radical right beanfest".

I expect that everything in the US will be privatised. Alltough, most Americans are against the privatisation of pensions, electricity and water. Historicly, the US allways had a regulated capitalistic economy, but Bush is determined to change that. His goal is a kind of Tatcherisation of the US: a cut-price selling. Above that we will have a further globalisation. Free trade über alles .

Besides that, I think that- and most Europeans won't expect that-that there will come a end of the millitary adventures. On this moment, there is a hard struggle between in the Bush government between the rightwing neocons and the business establishment: the oilcompanies, the Saudi's and the financial forces. In the oilsector, people are verry unhappy with the current situation in Iraq: they don't agree with the policy of the neocons, they are against the cut-price selling of the oilfields of Iraq. The oilsector sees more in a big state company that follows Opec-quota's. Big Oil fears new conflicts-with Iran, but specially with Venezuela. After a failed attempt to get rid of Hugo Chavez with a coup, the Oil industry made peace with him. They don't wan't anymore trouble, the failed coup has hit them financially to hard.

This government is the facto run by Cheney and he changed sides. The neocon-cowboys have done for him, because Cheney realises that they where almost beaten by Kerry. Now, he joined the oil companies and the circle of Henry Kissinger and Bush senior. It is quite ironic that we have to thank Cheney and the oilcompanies that there won't be next wars (laugher). Not that we will have a nice, safer world, far from that.


Interviewer: How about Cuba? Do you expect a invasion?

Palast: " I don't think so, I believe more in a coup with local puppets-that is the kind of monkey business you allways can expect. (Iraqs Allawi was a former CIA agent and a terrorist in the past, redaction) Slowly, US companies are preparing to negociate contracts in Cuba, and they don't wan't a second Venezuela.

Interviewer: Do you believe in a moderate Bush for the inside US policies?

Pallast: No, Bush does not play that he is a evangelic Christian, he is one.He believes in all that Jezus stuff and he will continue to push that agenda. He will be tempered a bit by the moderate Republicans in congres, they can't afford to help spread a ultra right , fundamentalist program because that will cost a lot of them their seat. Most come from moderate districts, and outside the Bibble Belt, you don't come far with fundamentalisme. Fundamentalist candidates selden perform well in elections: Joh Ashcroft himself lost ones his seat in he Senat and he lost a Governor election.

On this moment, the Republican party is taken hostage by a ultra right minority, that abuses the machine of the Republicans to falsify the elections and fight their own private cultural war. The average American does not like that kind of radicalisme. The big danger is that Bush and that circle succeed to influence the public opinion so that fundamentalisme becomes mainstream.


So far the extacts of the interview. I read that he is a publisher for The Guardian and BBC to and lives as a American in the US.


Your reaction please.
What do Americans think about the interview? I read a lot of things in wich he counterspeaks himself in, this interview with numbers aso. But I got his message and understood what he wanted to say. Is he a younger Chomsky?

Thank you for your reaction and please remember, it is a translation (for the ones that have a orgasm when they find a non English native speaker making typo's or mistakes and want to correct me, we can continue in Dutch, French, German and Romanian ;) )
Your reaction please. Is he a knowed journalist in the US? (I never heared of him before).

Thank you in advance.
Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff, what a long time of typing, forget Babble Fish, I tried it, you would not understand anything from theirs Dutch-->English translation and vice versa, I tested it.

This seems more like a bunch of questionable speculation than anything else.

The election was not "stolen." Kerry lost. Deal with it, get over it, move on. These conspiracy theories are the work of left-wing whack-jobs.

I apologize for bursting into this debate without reading it, but I wanted to make this point. On the cover of what I believe was the New York Times was an article about how 2/3rds of Americans were "concerned" about Bush's agenda, and that 51% of Republicans had "concerns" as well. Why, then, did Bush win? Because his campaign was powerfully adept at lying and deception. For instance, in North Carolina, ads were run claiming that Kerry would "take away your bibles," while elsewhere ads were being run claiming that Kerry would allow his Catholicism to guide his decision-making. Very few Bush voters really knew what they were voting for.

This seems more like a bunch of questionable speculation than anything else.

Wow, that is a answer on his questions... :rolleyes:

I apologize for bursting into this debate without reading it, but I wanted to make this point. On the cover of what I believe was the New York Times was an article about how 2/3rds of Americans were "concerned" about Bush's agenda, and that 51% of Republicans had "concerns" as well. Why, then, did Bush win? Because his campaign was powerfully adept at lying and deception. For instance, in North Carolina, ads were run claiming that Kerry would "take away your bibles," while elsewhere ads were being run claiming that Kerry would allow his Catholicism to guide his decision-making. Very few Bush voters really knew what they were voting for.
Here it is again. More arrogance and insults from left-wing idealogues. The only reason Bush won is because 51% of American voters are too stupid to know what they are doing. Why are they stupid? Because they don't agree with left-wingers' obviously superior ideas, of course!

You're absolutely right. An Associated Press poll is entirely left-wing "idealogues." THIS IS HOW PEOPLE RESPONDED TO A POLL, not my personal opinions, you numbskull. The advertisements thing is also true, just ask people who live in North Carolina and the Mid-West.

Wow, that is a answer on his questions... :rolleyes:

That is what I thought of the interview. He asked what Americans thought of it, and there you have it, so you just put that :rolleyes: right back in your pocket. :)

Here it is again. More arrogance and insults from left-wing idealogues. The only reason Bush won is because 51% of American voters are too stupid to know what they are doing. Why are they stupid? Because they don't agree with left-wingers' obviously superior ideas, of course!

First, I am neither right or left, just wanted to know a serious opinion on what the (unkown journalist for me) says. I think he was not anti republican regarding his opinion about the republicans and business. Can you give me some insight about your opinions towards his interview? Please?

These conspiracy theories are the work of left-wing whack-jobs. Not really the "debate" that I was looking for, I just wan't some info. Who is the guy? Where is he right/wrong in facts?

You're absolutely right. An Associated Press poll is entirely left-wing "idealogues." THIS IS HOW PEOPLE RESPONDED TO A POLL, not my personal opinions, you numbskull. The advertisements thing is also true, just ask people who live in North Carolina and the Mid-West.

I was talking about this statement: "Very few Bush voters really knew what they were voting for." The idealogue I was referring to is you. YOU made the statement I was addressing, not some poll.

First, I am neither right or left, just wanted to know a serious opinion on what the (unkown journalist for me) says. I think he was not anti republican regarding his opinion about the republicans and business. Can you give me some insight about your opinions towards his interview? Please?

Not really the "debate" that I was looking for, I just wan't some info. Who is the guy? Where is he right/wrong in facts?
I don't know who the "journalist" is, but anyone who spouts these conspiracy theories is a politically-motivated whack-job. Not much more to say about it, really. Where is he wrong "in facts"? Everywhere.

That was the logical extension of the proof, little one. You see, if about 66.6% of people are worried about Bush being president, and 51% of people voted for him, that means that at least a quarter of Bush supporters voted against their own concerns. It's simple.

Still waiting for a answer and information on the article and the author.Furiet allready gave a reasonable opinion. but I WANT MORE from republicans and democrats.

The interview asserted an excellent point that the Republicans have been conquered by "right wing nutjobs" to quote the comic song everybody watched. Honestly, it frightens me. I was a Republican before this movement, and it began back with Reagan. The Republicans began trying to convince people that they held certain values, among them that it mattered whether or not our President had an affair. John F. Kennedy, a president loved and revered by so many, had countless affairs. The only difference between Kennedy and Clinton's affairs is the attractiveness of the mistress. (Personally, given the opportunity, I'd have sex with Marilyn Monroe at the expense of ANYTHING, whereas vast quantities of alcohol and money would have to be involved for me to even get head from Monica) And we need only look back to the Kennedy years to see when we were afraid of religion interfering with government.
The Bush campaign targeted the dormant Episcopalian voting block, a constituency made up of an estimated four million voters. How much did Bush win by, folks? He won by a minute margin of falsified beliefs.

Thank you verry much for your kind reaction furiet. I hope more people will debate the interview. You (and other US posters here) give me a better insight of the US and the opinions there. BTW, ever heared of that journalist before. I don't but the way he is described in the article shows me a verry well informed and nuanced journalist.

Bump

Information requested from US posters :

I just read a interview with a investigation journalist, named Greg Pallast in a Dutch magazine. I'll try to translate (a part of) it. Tittle was "Kerry Won":

Intro:
With the elections 4 years ago, invetigation journalist Greg Pallast pointed the attention on the figured out fraude of the Republicans in Florida (wrote a book about it "Democracy at sale"). While everybody speaks about the "large majority" and the "mandate" of GW Bush, Pallast says as only one that these alections to are a organised fraude.

Interviewer: You must be the only one that continues to say that Kerry won the election.

Greg Pallast: "In anny way, Kerry had the most votes in Ohio and New Mexico, that is why he actually won. There is no doubt that those elections are stolen, just like the ones before.
I was on the watch, because I am probably the most specialised expert on electionfraude. Well, what I expected happened: two million votes were just trown away. That's a lot. A million of them came from black voters, that mostly vote Democrat. The problem is that it is not the federal state that pays for the elections but the local governments-so poorer regions have less money for voting machines. And bad voting machines eat votes . Only in Ohio, 93.000 votes were trown away, almost all Democrat votes. Besides that are comming the provisional ballots. Those are votes of people that can't vote according Republicans or or for any reason so. The Republicans fought hundreds of thousands black votes (note VF, does he mean in those 2 states or what?). Those votes to weren't counted.

If you count all those votes, then you have another president. Only we don't count them all. Everything is tolerated in war, love and elections, that is the idea in the US-if you can get away with it, better for you. BTW you can't speak about elections in the US, it is more a kind of auction: the Bush team spend more then one billion dollar.

Interviewer: The Democrats told that they would fight for each vote this time. Why thus Kerry then admited his loose so fast?

Pallast: John Edwards wanted to fight-I know him personally, he is a fighter. He comes from the South, his vote is the black vote and he wants to be sure about that one in four years. Kerry admited so fast because the situation was hopeless: if he wanted a complete count in Ohio, then he had to go to court over each provisional ballot: about 250.000. That was a impossible task-Ken Blackwell , wholed the counting in Ohio is like Katherine Harris (the women that "delivered" Bushes election in Florida in 2000, redaction). There was no chance that Kerry could win.

Interviewer: The Independent describes the next 4 years as a "radical right beanfest".

I expect that everything in the US will be privatised. Alltough, most Americans are against the privatisation of pensions, electricity and water. Historicly, the US allways had a regulated capitalistic economy, but Bush is determined to change that. His goal is a kind of Tatcherisation of the US: a cut-price selling. Above that we will have a further globalisation. Free trade über alles .

Besides that, I think that- and most Europeans won't expect that-that there will come a end of the millitary adventures. On this moment, there is a hard struggle between in the Bush government between the rightwing neocons and the business establishment: the oilcompanies, the Saudi's and the financial forces. In the oilsector, people are verry unhappy with the current situation in Iraq: they don't agree with the policy of the neocons, they are against the cut-price selling of the oilfields of Iraq. The oilsector sees more in a big state company that follows Opec-quota's. Big Oil fears new conflicts-with Iran, but specially with Venezuela. After a failed attempt to get rid of Hugo Chavez with a coup, the Oil industry made peace with him. They don't wan't anymore trouble, the failed coup has hit them financially to hard.

This government is the facto run by Cheney and he changed sides. The neocon-cowboys have done for him, because Cheney realises that they where almost beaten by Kerry. Now, he joined the oil companies and the circle of Henry Kissinger and Bush senior. It is quite ironic that we have to thank Cheney and the oilcompanies that there won't be next wars (laugher). Not that we will have a nice, safer world, far from that.


Interviewer: How about Cuba? Do you expect a invasion?

Palast: " I don't think so, I believe more in a coup with local puppets-that is the kind of monkey business you allways can expect. (Iraqs Allawi was a former CIA agent and a terrorist in the past, redaction) Slowly, US companies are preparing to negociate contracts in Cuba, and they don't wan't a second Venezuela.

Interviewer: Do you believe in a moderate Bush for the inside US policies?

Pallast: No, Bush does not play that he is a evangelic Christian, he is one.He believes in all that Jezus stuff and he will continue to push that agenda. He will be tempered a bit by the moderate Republicans in congres, they can't afford to help spread a ultra right , fundamentalist program because that will cost a lot of them their seat. Most come from moderate districts, and outside the Bibble Belt, you don't come far with fundamentalisme. Fundamentalist candidates selden perform well in elections: Joh Ashcroft himself lost ones his seat in he Senat and he lost a Governor election.

On this moment, the Republican party is taken hostage by a ultra right minority, that abuses the machine of the Republicans to falsify the elections and fight their own private cultural war. The average American does not like that kind of radicalisme. The big danger is that Bush and that circle succeed to influence the public opinion so that fundamentalisme becomes mainstream.


So far the extacts of the interview. I read that he is a publisher for The Guardian and BBC to and lives as a American in the US.


Your reaction please.
What do Americans think about the interview? I read a lot of things in wich he counterspeaks himself in, this interview with numbers aso. But I got his message and understood what he wanted to say. Is he a younger Chomsky?

Thank you for your reaction and please remember, it is a translation (for the ones that have a orgasm when they find a non English native speaker making typo's or mistakes and want to correct me, we can continue in Dutch, French, German and Romanian )
Your reaction please. Is he a knowed journalist in the US? (I never heared of him before).

Thank you in advance.
Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff, what a long time of typing, forget Babble Fish, I tried it, you would not understand anything from theirs Dutch-->English translation and vice versa, I tested it.

Let's finally put this damned issue to rest, shall we? Kerry lost because he was a liar, an idiot, a no-show Senator, a far left-winger, a Boston brahmin, an elitist pig, and totally out of touch with the American people.

Wake up! Hellooo! Bush got more votes ... end of story!

Hahahahahhaha
*Rolls around*
I'm afraid I have to let you in a fact of life.
Socialist Countries (Even only partial ones) Have higher standards of living than America. Even Canada (with a Budget ever so much smaller) has a higher standard of living than you.
Sweden has (I believe) Free and Very Excellent Education and Healthcare.
It is almost a paradise.

Capitalism is the worst system, and communism would technically be the best. It'd be the perfect system if the world were perfect. Socialism is more like Communism for the real world.
Capitalism and Socialism are bad. The best system is a mix of the two, like Sweden.

Greg Pallast

ROFLMAO!!! Aahahahahahahahaha! Greg Pallast! ROFLMAO!!!!

I was referring to this dribble. If YOU have a point, SAY IT, in 10 words or less. No one believes (or bothers to read) you plagerisms.

First off, here's 10 words for you: take your 10 words and blow 'em out your ass.

If you're incapable of communicating in complete paragraphs, that's unfortunate, but the rest of us will tolerate it. What are ya, a liberal? "Oh, BlindLiberals can only communicate in ten word sentences, so EVERYONE should have to communicate in ten words, lest we hurt his feelings by making him feel inadequate!"

Second, my "plagurized" post wasn't plagurized, because I listed the original author at the top. If you're going to limit yourself to 10 words, perhaps you should learn some definitions. The rest of my posts were written as I typed them.

Sorry my posts weren't A.D.D.-friendly. I'll try to be more sensitive to your disability in the future!

</sarcasm>

Let's finally put this damned issue to rest, shall we? Kerry lost because he was a liar, an idiot, a no-show Senator, a far left-winger, a Boston brahmin, an elitist pig, and totally out of touch with the American people.

Wake up! Hellooo! Bush got more votes ... end of story!

Another asshole that did not answer or read the questions. That is easy. I wan't some answers and opinions here, not propaganda of a (wether it be left or right) wing nuts. Go back to momma, she made fish for ya.

Some serious and not underage Republicans or Democrats that can help me a bit with my questions related to the interview (took me a while typing) are requested here.

Please Etrusca, stay out, you really aren't a help here. Calm down a bit and discuss the matter. What I saw now is rather stupid and you know it. Read the topic or article first, then (try to) give a decent answer instead of this shit.

Must say that the other reactions where way better, I think that it must be a question of age or frustration.If not, why don't you read and answer the pollite questions? (perhaps you can proove that you are not some underage monkey and post something decent, then I'll say :) ).

Let's finally put this damned issue to rest, shall we? Kerry lost because he was a liar, an idiot, a no-show Senator, a far left-winger, a Boston brahmin, an elitist pig, and totally out of touch with the American people.
Bush is also all of those things, except being a senator, a lefty, or from Boston.

(Am I the only one who thinks it's racist [or "statist" or something] to not vote for someone for being from Massachusetts?)

Above that we will have a further globalisation. Free trade über alles .
Bush doesn't actually believe in free trade.

Information requested from US posters :

I just read a interview with a investigation journalist, named Greg Pallast in a Dutch magazine. I'll try to translate (a part of) it. Tittle was "Kerry Won":

Intro:
With the elections 4 years ago, invetigation journalist Greg Pallast pointed the attention on the figured out fraude of the Republicans in Florida (wrote a book about it "Democracy at sale"). While everybody speaks about the "large majority" and the "mandate" of GW Bush, Pallast says as only one that these alections to are a organised fraude.

Interviewer: You must be the only one that continues to say that Kerry won the election.

Greg Pallast: "In anny way, Kerry had the most votes in Ohio and New Mexico, that is why he actually won. There is no doubt that those elections are stolen, just like the ones before.
I was on the watch, because I am probably the most specialised expert on electionfraude. Well, what I expected happened: two million votes were just trown away. That's a lot. A million of them came from black voters, that mostly vote Democrat. The problem is that it is not the federal state that pays for the elections but the local governments-so poorer regions have less money for voting machines. And bad voting machines eat votes . Only in Ohio, 93.000 votes were trown away, almost all Democrat votes. Besides that are comming the provisional ballots. Those are votes of people that can't vote according Republicans or or for any reason so. The Republicans fought hundreds of thousands black votes (note VF, does he mean in those 2 states or what?). Those votes to weren't counted.

If you count all those votes, then you have another president. Only we don't count them all. Everything is tolerated in war, love and elections, that is the idea in the US-if you can get away with it, better for you. BTW you can't speak about elections in the US, it is more a kind of auction: the Bush team spend more then one billion dollar.

This is the part I was referring to as speculation. He offers up reasons why the election might have gone the wrong way, but no real evidence of it. The count had Bush winning by over 130,000 votes in Ohio, so I don't think 93,000 votes would make a difference.


Interviewer: The Democrats told that they would fight for each vote this time. Why thus Kerry then admited his loose so fast?

Pallast: John Edwards wanted to fight-I know him personally, he is a fighter. He comes from the South, his vote is the black vote and he wants to be sure about that one in four years. Kerry admited so fast because the situation was hopeless: if he wanted a complete count in Ohio, then he had to go to court over each provisional ballot: about 250.000. That was a impossible task-Ken Blackwell , wholed the counting in Ohio is like Katherine Harris (the women that "delivered" Bushes election in Florida in 2000, redaction). There was no chance that Kerry could win.

This is true, Kerry would have come off looking like an ass if he demanded another recount. It would have seriously damaged any democrat's chances in 2008.

Interviewer: The Independent describes the next 4 years as a "radical right beanfest".

I expect that everything in the US will be privatised. Alltough, most Americans are against the privatisation of pensions, electricity and water. Historicly, the US allways had a regulated capitalistic economy, but Bush is determined to change that. His goal is a kind of Tatcherisation of the US: a cut-price selling. Above that we will have a further globalisation. Free trade über alles .

Besides that, I think that- and most Europeans won't expect that-that there will come a end of the millitary adventures. On this moment, there is a hard struggle between in the Bush government between the rightwing neocons and the business establishment: the oilcompanies, the Saudi's and the financial forces. In the oilsector, people are verry unhappy with the current situation in Iraq: they don't agree with the policy of the neocons, they are against the cut-price selling of the oilfields of Iraq. The oilsector sees more in a big state company that follows Opec-quota's. Big Oil fears new conflicts-with Iran, but specially with Venezuela. After a failed attempt to get rid of Hugo Chavez with a coup, the Oil industry made peace with him. They don't wan't anymore trouble, the failed coup has hit them financially to hard.

This government is the facto run by Cheney and he changed sides. The neocon-cowboys have done for him, because Cheney realises that they where almost beaten by Kerry. Now, he joined the oil companies and the circle of Henry Kissinger and Bush senior. It is quite ironic that we have to thank Cheney and the oilcompanies that there won't be next wars (laugher). Not that we will have a nice, safer world, far from that.

We have the over expansion of our military and the fear of the draft to thank for any avoidance of future wars. I don't believe that the Neocons and the big business republicans are mutually exclusive, however. And I think that Cheney is much more tied to the unilateral ideology of the Neocons than he is to big business.


Interviewer: How about Cuba? Do you expect a invasion?

Palast: " I don't think so, I believe more in a coup with local puppets-that is the kind of monkey business you allways can expect. (Iraqs Allawi was a former CIA agent and a terrorist in the past, redaction) Slowly, US companies are preparing to negociate contracts in Cuba, and they don't wan't a second Venezuela.

I didn't even know that Cuba was still a factor. With the death of Castro, I think the US will quickly dominate the power vacuum, and it shouldn't be hard to gather the populace behind us.


Interviewer: Do you believe in a moderate Bush for the inside US policies?

Pallast: No, Bush does not play that he is a evangelic Christian, he is one.He believes in all that Jezus stuff and he will continue to push that agenda. He will be tempered a bit by the moderate Republicans in congres, they can't afford to help spread a ultra right , fundamentalist program because that will cost a lot of them their seat. Most come from moderate districts, and outside the Bibble Belt, you don't come far with fundamentalisme. Fundamentalist candidates selden perform well in elections: Joh Ashcroft himself lost ones his seat in he Senat and he lost a Governor election.

On this moment, the Republican party is taken hostage by a ultra right minority, that abuses the machine of the Republicans to falsify the elections and fight their own private cultural war. The average American does not like that kind of radicalisme. The big danger is that Bush and that circle succeed to influence the public opinion so that fundamentalisme becomes mainstream.

I believe that Bush is very religious. I don't believe that he is as much as his naysayers want to propose.

I do fear the fundamentalist change that the republican party has taken. I do believe that the Iraq war will eventually bring the moderates back around as it shows little progress. 9/11 shocked us into militarism but the American people have very short emotional memories when it comes to stuff like that.

So far the extacts of the interview. I read that he is a publisher for The Guardian and BBC to and lives as a American in the US.


Your reaction please.
What do Americans think about the interview? I read a lot of things in wich he counterspeaks himself in, this interview with numbers aso. But I got his message and understood what he wanted to say. Is he a younger Chomsky?

Thank you for your reaction and please remember, it is a translation (for the ones that have a orgasm when they find a non English native speaker making typo's or mistakes and want to correct me, we can continue in Dutch, French, German and Romanian ;) )
Your reaction please. Is he a knowed journalist in the US? (I never heared of him before).

Thank you in advance.
Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff, what a long time of typing, forget Babble Fish, I tried it, you would not understand anything from theirs Dutch-->English translation and vice versa, I tested it.

I have heard of Palast before, just in passing though. Probably read a article by him. He strikes me as a little too talking-pointish to truly take seriously. There are a lot more opinions that I would hold in higher regard than his.

Bush doesn't actually believe in free trade.

Please Siljouhettes, when you quote do it properly. It is not "Via Ferrata" that says this but you took it out of my article and quoted "Greg Pallast". The way you act it looks like it was me that said this. Just a question of being honnest in debates, OK :)

Let's finally put this damned issue to rest, shall we? Kerry lost because he was a liar, an idiot, a no-show Senator, a far left-winger, a Boston brahmin, an elitist pig, and totally out of touch with the American people.

Wake up! Hellooo! Bush got more votes ... end of story!

That first part was sarcasm, right? Not just pointless talking-point drivel?

The second part I agree with, and I would like to see an end to the "Why Kerry Won/Lost" threads.

To be fair to Eutrusca, he is a vietnam vet. So I think he's hated kerry since the early seventies.

To be fair to Eutrusca, he is a vietnam vet. So I think he's hated kerry since the early seventies.

Whatever, he was still way over the top with that, he sounded just like all of the people on here who have a blind hatred of Bush.

I have more respect for him than that.

Whatever, he was still way over the top with that, he sounded just like all of the people on here who have a blind hatred of Bush.

I have more respect for him than that.

Well yeah, I'm just trying to put in in context. It's not that he is a rabid republican, (actually I don't think he's that keen on Bush, but he should speak to that), it's more of a sort of long festering dislike of Kerry.

I'm not a vietnam vet, so I don't know how I'd feel.

Well yeah, I'm just trying to put in in context. It's not that he is a rabid republican, (actually I don't think he's that keen on Bush, but he should speak to that), it's more of a sort of long festering dislike of Kerry.

I'm not a vietnam vet, so I don't know how I'd feel.

I found out that I have been way to nice to him lately, anyway. So I stand by my sentiments. :)

I found out that I have been way to nice to him lately, anyway. So I stand by my sentiments. :)

that's fine.

personally, I make it a point to never take anything posted that seriously anyway.

and nor should anyone take anything I post seriously either. especially as i sometimes just feel like arguing.

(which is why BL and Alan bring so much to our community for me.)

This is the part I was referring to as speculation. He offers up reasons why the election might have gone the wrong way, but no real evidence of it. The count had Bush winning by over 130,000 votes in Ohio, so I don't think 93,000 votes would make a difference.

That is what I tought to. He counterspeaks himself. And further in the article he speaks about 100.000's of votes while here he gives a specific number of 93.000. I also know the number of 130.000 votes that made the difference. You see, that is what some decent papers give us without regarding the numbers. I knew that or the interviewer made a bad translation or Mr Pallast gave us wrong numbers in it.




This is true, Kerry would have come off looking like an ass if he demanded another recount. It would have seriously damaged any democrat's chances in 2008.

I think so. BTW is Edwards really more popular over all? Or a better candidate next time for the dems? Your opinion?
In EU we mostly hear that a real candidate (Rep or Dem) must come from the south since Californian Reagan.




We have the over expansion of our military and the fear of the draft to thank for any avoidance of future wars. I don't believe that the Neocons and the big business republicans are mutually exclusive, however. And I think that Cheney is much more tied to the unilateral ideology of the Neocons than he is to big business..
Is Pallast opinion about the differences between reps then a Hoax? Or is he a bit right about the different opinions in the part (y) (ies)?








I believe that Bush is very religious. I don't believe that he is as much as his naysayers want to propose.

I do fear the fundamentalist change that the republican party has taken. I do believe that the Iraq war will eventually bring the moderates back around as it shows little progress. 9/11 shocked us into militarism but the American people have very short emotional memories when it comes to stuff like that.
.
Thank you for sharing your opinion and taking your time for it, it is most apprecieted. That is the kind of answer that I was waiting for, it helped a lot for my views regarding US policies and latest election.
You know, we need a counterbalance for that kind of articles to and your post is the first one that gives a argumented opinion here. Thank you for that, I see that there are other posters here now that take the time to discuss something in a decent way instead of trolls like Etrusca (his troll posts did not effect and neither helped me).




I have heard of Palast before, just in passing though. Probably read a article by him. He strikes me as a little too talking-pointish to truly take seriously. There are a lot more opinions that I would hold in higher regard than his.

So I understand that he has not the esteem like a Chomsky in the US. Is he just a beginner or does not he has the tallent of the old "rebbel". Anyway, thanks, now I can write to that magazine and say that he is not that well knowed in the US and give some counterballance.

Thank's :) and again, sorry for the English, I am not a native English speaker.

Kerry lost because of groups like MoveOn.org and people like Michael Moore. People in the US have hated the Left since September of 2001, when they openly sided with the terrorists against the US.
(Not actually true.)

Impunia can't be serious on that. It just can't be true.Hard to believe.

ROFLMAO!!! Aahahahahahahahaha! Greg Pallast! ROFLMAO!!!!

Wow, you are so intelligent. That is the discussion he is looking for. :rolleyes:

Kerry lost because he could not put across one or two concise ideas on how to win the war or right the economy.

His method of delivering ideas was weak, long winded and left you with the feeling he wasn't really sure about what he wanted to say.

To win he should have put forth simple straight forward ideas.

That is what I tought to. He counterspeaks himself. And further in the article he speaks about 100.000's of votes while here he gives a specific number of 93.000. I also know the number of 130.000 votes that made the difference. You see, that is what some decent papers give us without regarding the numbers. I knew that or the interviewer made a bad translation or Mr Pallast gave us wrong numbers in it.

Judging from his strong political leanings I would say that Palast manipulated the numbers a bit. A little selective with the truth.

I think so. BTW is Edwards really more popular over all? Or a better candidate next time for the dems? Your opinion?
In EU we mostly hear that a real candidate (Rep or Dem) must come from the south since Californian Reagan.

During the primary, I thought Edwards might win the democratic ticket. He definitely is a much more likeable candidate than Kerry.

As for the South, yes a democrat almost has to be from the south to win, and even that doesn't guarantee it, as even Clinton was unable to carry the south.

Is Pallast opinion about the differences between reps then a Hoax? Or is he a bit right about the different opinions in the part (y) (ies)?

I think he is very right about a splitting of the republican party. I am actually slightly conservative and from the midwest. I was a registered republican in 2000, and voted for McCain in the republican primary.

I voted for Kerry, and supported him intensely due to the fact that I cannot accept the neoconservative movement of militarism or the evangelical movement. I think that if we see a continued shift to the right we will either see a great deal more bipartisan work from moderate republicans or a complete splintering of the party.

Thank you for sharing your opinion and taking your time for it, it is most apprecieted. That is the kind of answer that I was waiting for, it helped a lot for my views regarding US policies and latest election.
You know, we need a counterbalance for that kind of articles to and your post is the first one that gives a argumented opinion here. Thank you for that, I see that there are other posters here now that take the time to discuss something in a decent way instead of trolls like Etrusca (his troll posts did not effect and neither helped me).

The problem you have in this thread is that all of the reasonable posters have either been drowned out by the trolls and given up or have responded with rediculous posts. Take Etrusca for example, I'm sure he is more than a little jaded by all of the idiots who come on here saying that people who voted for Bush are stupid and really didn't know what they were doing. It gets very tiring after awhile.

So I understand that he has not the esteem like a Chomsky in the US. Is he just a beginner or does not he has the tallent of the old "rebbel". Anyway, thanks, now I can write to that magazine and say that he is not that well knowed in the US and give some counterballance.

Thank's :) and again, sorry for the English, I am not a native English speaker.

I wouldn't say that Palast is little known in America. People who follow politics know who he is, but I don't think he is taken as seriously as others, such as Chomsky.

And I would say that your English is better than a few of the native tongues on here.

(My little brother wants me to post these so ignore them)

:headbang: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :fluffle:

In the method of BlindLiberals:

1. He is referring to his talking points being remembered.

2. He is correct that concise points are better remembered.

3. BlindLiberals will still be remembered as a jackass.

4. BlindLiberals does not care how he is remembered.

Hows that suit you BL

1. If the shoes fit, wear them.
2. Shoes 1 + 2 are mine. And, thanks.
3. Shoes 3 + 4 are Figments.
4. Figments only fit the manufacturer.
5. Do not buy their stock. You will lose.

1. If the shoes fit, wear them.
2. Shoes 1 + 2 are mine. And, thanks.
3. Shoes 3 + 4 are Figments.
4. Figments only fit the manufacturer.
5. Do not buy their stock. You will lose.

BL, your name was referred to me.

You are needed in another thread full of pinko commies.

Please go to the UK are wimps thread, you will enjoy it sir.

In my opinion, the fact that they were able to see past the propaganda and coverups is an indicator that they're smarter than they're given credit for. But then again, that's the issue, isn't it?
Actually, they weren't able to see past the "vote for me because I hate gays" propaganda. That's the issue.

I wouldn't say that Palast is little known in America. People who follow politics know who he is, but I don't think he is taken as seriously as others, such as Chomsky.
Palast is closer to Michael Moore than Noam Chomsky.

Palast is closer to Michael Moore than Noam Chomsky.

Exactly, just not as popular or reviled as either of them.

Kerry lost because he could not put across one or two concise ideas on how to win the war or right the economy.

His method of delivering ideas was weak, long winded and left you with the feeling he wasn't really sure about what he wanted to say.

To win he should have put forth simple straight forward ideas.

In other words "he needed to dumb it down for the people who only like one-liners so that they could understand."

Although, in truth, I would rather have long-winded ideas than short, completely undeducated ones like the ones Bush is still spouting.

We can go around in circles about issues this, issues that, personality, world events, and so on...who knows exactly how much each thing contributed to the final 50.9%-48.2% Bush win?

However, as I pointed out in the first post, the clearest difference between 2000 and 2004 is that a hell of a lot more Republicans voted this year. Party loyalty was roughly the same. Thus, in very simple terms, a tiny Gore win became a small Kerry loss.

The Democrats got beat on turnout. Far more important than appealing to the wingers or the centrists (either of which turns off the other group) is getting out the damn vote. And to do that, the Democrats need a rallying issue (like homosexuality for Republicans). Healthcare, the economy, and jobs were supposed to be the rallying issue, but it didn't cut it this time. Something new is needed...what that may be, I do not yet know.

We can go around in circles about issues this, issues that, personality, world events, and so on...who knows exactly how much each thing contributed to the final 50.9%-48.2% Bush win?

However, as I pointed out in the first post, the clearest difference between 2000 and 2004 is that a hell of a lot more Republicans voted this year. Party loyalty was roughly the same. Thus, in very simple terms, a tiny Gore win became a small Kerry loss.

The Democrats got beat on turnout. Far more important than appealing to the wingers or the centrists (either of which turns off the other group) is getting out the damn vote. And to do that, the Democrats need a rallying issue (like homosexuality for Republicans). Healthcare, the economy, and jobs were supposed to be the rallying issue, but it didn't cut it this time. Something new is needed...what that may be, I do not yet know.

I figured that the failing "War on Terror" would be a very sufficient rallying issue. The candidate the democratic party chose was the worst one to actually build support on this, though.