NationStates Jolt Archive

After a breif hiatus from NS I have returned.
As for Bush's landslide reelection, I believe I am just in saying:
I told you so.
:)
I had a week long party just to celebrate.

Welcome back then, though I do not know you. And may your gloating on this touchy subject not get you banned from NationStates :D .

A weeklong party sounds fun...how much sleep did you get in that time? 10 days deprived will kill you...but I have a strong feeling you were wasted and passed out 65% of those days, but your spirit kept you partying even while comatose. We need more people like you, hehe.

After a breif hiatus from NS I have returned.
As for Bush's landslide reelection, I believe I am just in saying:
I told you so.
:)
I had a week long party just to celebrate.
You must have damaged some brain cells in that party if you think he won a landslide. Make that a lot of brain cells.

Welcome back then, though I do not know you. And may your gloating on this touchy subject not get you banned from NationStates :D .

A weeklong party sounds fun...how much sleep did you get in that time? 10 days deprived will kill you...but I have a strong feeling you were wasted and passed out 65% of those days, but your spirit kept you partying even while comatose. We need more people like you, hehe.
Nah, I didn't stay awake the whole time. I don't drink.
touchy subject eh? Why is that? I was banned at the time, so I didn't see what happened. Could you fill me in? All I know is that a few months back I predicted that Bush would win in landslide and people here thought I was loony.

I think both you and I know why it is touchy (sorry, moderator! :D).

About your temporary (I hope you are not here announcing yourself 'illegally') banning, I cannot fill you in, for only recently have I joined and am not familiar with your name. Welcome though...

I think both you and I know why it is touchy (sorry, moderator! :D).

About your temporary (I hope you are not here announcing yourself 'illegally') banning, I cannot fill you in, for only recently have I joined and am not familiar with your name. Welcome though...
nah, I waited the whole 30 days. Was occupied with the NWO and World War something sites. And updating my nation page on NS wiki.

After a breif hiatus from NS I have returned.
As for Bush's landslide reelection, I believe I am just in saying:
I told you so.
:)
I had a week long party just to celebrate.

Uh, no. Let's compare Bush to Reagan.

1980

# Ronald Reagan (Republican) 43,899,248 (489 electoral votes)
# Jimmy Carter (Democrat) 35,481,435 (49 electoral votes)

1984

# Ronald Reagan (Republican) 54,455,075 (525 electoral votes)
# Walter Mondale (Democrat) 37,577,185 (13 electoral votes)

2000

# George W. Bush (Republican) 50,456,002 47.87% (271 electoral votes)
# Al Gore (Democrat) 50,999,897 48.38% (266 electoral votes)

Clicky (http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/elections.htm#2004)

2004

BUSH
286
Electoral Votes
VOTE % 51%
VOTE 60,608,582

KERRY
252
Electoral Votes
48% VOTE %
57,288,974 VOTE

Clicky (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/)

Ok, so the only reason why Bush got more votes than Reagan is because more people voted. Also note that Kerry exceeded Reagan's popular vote totals in both 1980 and 1984. Also, Bush won the popular vote by far fewer votes than Reagan (in 1980 and 1984). Whereas Reagan got 489 and 525 EV's in 1980 and 1984, respectively, Bush only got 271 and 286 EV's in 2000 and 2004, respectively.

Bush's mandate is really thin. The only reason why it looks like he has one on a map is because the 'red' states collectively have a far lower population density than 'blue' states. So it looks like the land is voting for Bush (which, because of the Electoral College, it kinda does).

OK, so Bush won. But it was an extremely narrow victory for an incumbent, the closest since 1916, IIRC. So go ahead and enjoy that 'mandate,' because I can't wait for the Republicans to overreach and destroy their last remaining credibility. Also, the election means the Republicans have to take responsibility for their own mess and clean it up, instead of blaming Clinton. I'll grab some popcorn and watch the Republican party implode within the next four years.

I wouldn't be surprised if a year from now, we find out that Bush pulled a Watergate with the election. But I don't think the media would have the courage to report it.

Bah, don't people know how to have civilized arguments anymore?
What ever happened to the good ole days?
When you were only my enemy between the hours of 7am and 4pm (basically normal work hours)
or we can't be enemies on weekends
or we are only opponents for the sake of electoral debate but once the election is over, we go back to being friends.
Now the partisans have taken it to such extremes and families, friends and couples are breaking up over it.
Our founding father's would be rolling over in their graves.

But even you must admit that bush won the popular vote cause people care more about moral issues than economic issues.
But his mandate comes not just from the people, but from God Almighty himself.

Bah, don't people know how to have civilized arguments anymore?
What ever happened to the good ole days?
When you were only my enemy between the hours of 7am and 4pm (basically normal work hours)
or we can't be enemies on weekends
or we are only opponents for the sake of electoral debate but once the election is over, we go back to being friends.
Now the partisans have taken it to such extremes and families, friends and couples are breaking up over it.
Our founding father's would be rolling over in their graves.
I don't know--why don't you ask conservative activist Grover "Bipartisanship is date rape" Norquist what he thinks? :rolleyes:

who the heck is norquist?

Sure we can be friends in four years.

Hmm all this healing talk.

Is it because the Repubs failed to get enough sets on the Senate?

Ahhh well. Time to sit back and watch the shrub trying to acomplish something.

Uh, no. Let's compare Bush to Reagan.

1980

# Ronald Reagan (Republican) 43,899,248 (489 electoral votes)
# Jimmy Carter (Democrat) 35,481,435 (49 electoral votes)

1984

# Ronald Reagan (Republican) 54,455,075 (525 electoral votes)
# Walter Mondale (Democrat) 37,577,185 (13 electoral votes)

2000

# George W. Bush (Republican) 50,456,002 47.87% (271 electoral votes)
# Al Gore (Democrat) 50,999,897 48.38% (266 electoral votes)

Clicky (http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/elections.htm#2004)

2004

BUSH
286
Electoral Votes
VOTE % 51%
VOTE 60,608,582

KERRY
252
Electoral Votes
48% VOTE %
57,288,974 VOTE

Clicky (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/)

Ok, so the only reason why Bush got more votes than Reagan is because more people voted. Also note that Kerry exceeded Reagan's popular vote totals in both 1980 and 1984. Also, Bush won the popular vote by far fewer votes than Reagan (in 1980 and 1984). Whereas Reagan got 489 and 525 EV's in 1980 and 1984, respectively, Bush only got 271 and 286 EV's in 2000 and 2004, respectively.

Bush's mandate is really thin. The only reason why it looks like he has one on a map is because the 'red' states collectively have a far lower population density than 'blue' states. So it looks like the land is voting for Bush (which, because of the Electoral College, it kinda does).

OK, so Bush won. But it was an extremely narrow victory for an incumbent, the closest since 1916, IIRC. So go ahead and enjoy that 'mandate,' because I can't wait for the Republicans to overreach and destroy their last remaining credibility. Also, the election means the Republicans have to take responsibility for their own mess and clean it up, instead of blaming Clinton. I'll grab some popcorn and watch the Republican party implode within the next four years.

I wouldn't be surprised if a year from now, we find out that Bush pulled a Watergate with the election. But I don't think the media would have the courage to report it.

Don't know where this came from...I think that it's pretty clear that Bush only got more popular votes than Reagan because more people voted, seeing as how Reagan got 59% and Bush got 51%...

You can always pull up a recount to check if the voting machines were hacked or not. HA! Perhaps Kerry will win then...

But really...Kerry is an empty vessel...notice how he disappeared when the election was over...nobody wanted to be around him anymore, because he was under the motive of "anybody but Bush." Brilliant strategy I must add :D .

But even you must admit that bush won the popular vote cause people care more about moral issues than economic issues.
But his mandate comes not just from the people, but from God Almighty himself.

sureeee!

As my relatives in Kentucky and a work associates wife did say!

I voted for him because of the faggots wanting to get married.

I have to give Karl Rove credit. That was a brilliant non-issue to get the evanglistas out in mass....

Bush's lead is down to 2.6%, and a 3.2 million vote lead.

That's a fall from about 3% on election day, and a 3.5 million votes lead.

Bush may slip below 2.5%, and then we can round down. :p

OI ENUFF OF ITS BEEN DONE YER FOR LIKE THE SECOND AND BUSH AND KERRY ARE WIN BECUZ OF THE STUFF

"Brilliant strategy" indeed!

I still have no idea what the hell the leadership of the Democratic party was thinking, but I'm guessing the Daily Show had it close. (Note: The following is heavily paraphrased, since my recollection of the episode is dim.)

"Well, John, the Democrats vowed at the beginning that there would be no controversy surrounding this election, and thanks to a campaign of mixed messages, "anybody-but-Bush"isms, and a habit of spinelessness (again, heavily paraphrased), they've made good on that vow."

I'd post the actual text, but I can't seem to find it, and it's too late for creative thought.

But even you must admit that bush won the popular vote cause people care more about moral issues than economic issues.
But his mandate comes not just from the people, but from God Almighty himself.

OK, time to whip out the Bible (I have NIV)...

Matthew 7:15-20
Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear bad fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Matthew 6:5-8
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Hmm, did Bush constantly "babble" about God simply to get more votes? Doesn't seem very Christian to me... :rolleyes:

Luke 11:33-36
No one lights a lamp and puts it in a place where it will be hidden, or under a bowl. Instead he puts it on its stand, so that those who come in may see the light. Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are good, your whole body is full of light. But when they are bad, your body also is full of darkness. See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness. Therefore, if your whole body is full of light, and no part of it dark, it will be completely lighted, as when the light of a lamp shines on you.

OK, so why is Bush so secretive? Why won't he disclose who met with Dick Cheney when the administration was formulating energy policy? Why won't he disclose the names of those at Gitmo? Does he have darkness he is trying to hide?

Luke 19:45-46
Then he [Jesus] entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. "It is written," he said to them, "My house will be a house of prayer, but you have made it 'a den of robbers.' "

Clicky (http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00008072)

OK, on this one, I'll grant that Democrats are really corrupt, too, but they aren't the ones constantly talking about Biblical morality. So at least they aren't being hypocrites about it. And, I'm assuming you're a Christian from your previous posts in this thread, so I think we both know what Jesus had to say about hypocrites.

So I think the White House has become a den of robbers. Ken Lay, anyone? OK, so Bush had to cut him loose when he became a political liability, but before the Enron scandal broke, Lay and Bush were a bit too cozy for my tastes.

I find it difficult to believe that God is a Republican (or a Democrat, for that matter). There are planks in both the parties' platforms that He would probably disagree with.

OI AND WHY U IGNORE ME IS BECUZ OF THE BUSH BEAT THE KERRY IN THE BERRY OR WHAA????? I MEEN IS NOT LIK3 1 ARE OUT TO BEEEEE3333 IGNOR3D

Don't know where this came from...I think that it's pretty clear that Bush only got more popular votes than Reagan because more people voted, seeing as how Reagan got 59% and Bush got 51%...

You can always pull up a recount to check if the voting machines were hacked or not. HA! Perhaps Kerry will win then...

But really...Kerry is an empty vessel...notice how he disappeared when the election was over...nobody wanted to be around him anymore, because he was under the motive of "anybody but Bush." Brilliant strategy I must add :D .

I noted that more people voted in bold in my original post.

Regarding touchscreen voting machines, most can't be recounted because they don't produce a paper trail to recount. Which might be a problem if you're trying to do a hand recount.

Do I believe there was fraud? Well, let's just say I have my suspicions, but I'll be patient.

Lets Bump - Bump - Bump It Upppppp!

OI AND WHY U IGNORE ME IS BECUZ OF THE BUSH BEAT THE KERRY IN THE BERRY OR WHAA????? I MEEN IS NOT LIK3 1 ARE OUT TO BEEEEE3333 IGNOR3D

That hurts my eyes

Please don't make me suffer more

That hurts my eyes

Please don't make me suffer more

SUFFFFFFAAAAAAHHHH!!!!! IN THE JOOOOOOOOCKKKKSS!!!

"Well, John, the Democrats vowed at the beginning that there would be no controversy surrounding this election, and thanks to a campaign of mixed messages, "anybody-but-Bush"isms, and a habit of spinelessness (again, heavily paraphrased), they've made good on that vow."

I'd post the actual text, but I can't seem to find it, and it's too late for creative thought.

Won't even try to defend it.

It's one thing for the average voter to think anybody but the shrub. But to base your campaign on that? Stupid.....

Won't even try to defend it.

It's one thing for the average voter to think anybody but the shrub. But to base your campaign on that? Stupid.....

JUST PLAIN STUPID

The Dems lost cause they had very poor strategy. Simple as that.
The Bushies proved they were adept at strategic thinking, planning, and organizing.

OK, time to whip out the Bible (I have NIV)...

Matthew 7:15-20


Matthew 6:5-8


Hmm, did Bush constantly "babble" about God simply to get more votes? Doesn't seem very Christian to me... :rolleyes:

Luke 11:33-36


OK, so why is Bush so secretive? Why won't he disclose who met with Dick Cheney when the administration was formulating energy policy? Why won't he disclose the names of those at Gitmo? Does he have darkness he is trying to hide?

Luke 19:45-46


Clicky (http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00008072)

OK, on this one, I'll grant that Democrats are really corrupt, too, but they aren't the ones constantly talking about Biblical morality. So at least they aren't being hypocrites about it. And, I'm assuming you're a Christian from your previous posts in this thread, so I think we both know what Jesus had to say about hypocrites.

So I think the White House has become a den of robbers. Ken Lay, anyone? OK, so Bush had to cut him loose when he became a political liability, but before the Enron scandal broke, Lay and Bush were a bit too cozy for my tastes.

I find it difficult to believe that God is a Republican (or a Democrat, for that matter). There are planks in both the parties' platforms that He would probably disagree with.

1. Are you certain that Bush was just babbling? Can you see into his heart? Are you God?
2. Doesn't apply to politics. Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and unto God that which is God's.
3. Even nonpartisans who don't vote are hypocritical about moral values. The reps claim no monopoly there.
4. The scripture you cited applies only to the church and to the physical body of the christian. The White House is not church. Indeed, it is not even a religious site.
5. I agree with that.

What we have here is pretty simple. The democrats are sore losers, two elections in a row. More people are waking up to the total idiocy of their ways. The better man is in office and the party of America controls the house and senate. Just ignore the whining and be glad America knows right from wrong... the ones who voted for Bush at any rate.

Kerry lost. Quit whining. Or whine all you want. It's bedtime for us Republicans. We have a job to go to :P

1. Are you certain that Bush was just babbling? Can you see into his heart? Are you God?
2. Doesn't apply to politics. Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and unto God that which is God's.
3. Even nonpartisans who don't vote are hypocritical about moral values. The reps claim no monopoly there.
4. The scripture you cited applies only to the church and to the physical body of the christian. The White House is not church. Indeed, it is not even a religious site.
5. I agree with that.

1. I make no claim to be God. But Bush doesn't have a great track record of telling the truth, either, which makes me suspicious of his claims. God will ultimately judge him. I posed it as a question, and not a declarative statement, for a reason.

2. Jesus was referring to paying taxes to the Romans when he uttered those words. Yes, I pay my taxes, even though I object to certain budget items. (The Iraq war, for example)

If you want to argue your point further, I suggest you keep in mind things like the Freedom of Information Act. I am merely seeking to hold the government accountable to its own laws here, as is a citizen's responsibility in a republic. I do not seek to rebel against the government at all.

3. No one can claim a monopoly on hypocrisy. I'll agree with you there.

4. I am aware that the White House is not a temple. The "My house will be a house of prayer" part of the verse doesn't apply here. However, I see the Bush administration as a collection of corrupt moneychangers. Quoting this was supposed to illustrate that, and how Jesus reacts to moneychangers in general.

1. I make no claim to be God. But Bush doesn't have a great track record of telling the truth, either, which makes me suspicious of his claims. God will ultimately judge him. I posed it as a question, and not a declarative statement, for a reason.

2. Jesus was referring to paying taxes to the Romans when he uttered those words. Yes, I pay my taxes, even though I object to certain budget items. (The Iraq war, for example)

3. No one can claim a monopoly on hypocrisy. I'll agree with you there.

4. I am aware that the White House is not a temple. The "My house will be a house of prayer" part of the verse doesn't apply here. However, I see the Bush administration as a collection of corrupt moneychangers. Quoting this was supposed to illustrate that, and how Jesus reacts to moneychangers in general.


1. No one has a great track record of truth telling. Bush has no monopoly here.Even priests have been known to tell half truths.

4. Jesus was referring to them committing sacrilige on holy ground by doing their business. This was not a condemnation of moneychangers in general. Otherwise, it would be immoral to hold stocks or have bank accounts or credit cards.

We have a job to go to :P

Oh you're in India?

1. No one has a great track record of truth telling. Bush has no monopoly here.Even priests have been known to tell half truths.

1. Bush doesn't have a monopoly on lying, but that doesn't necessarily excuse it, either.

4. Jesus was referring to them committing sacrilige on holy ground by doing their business. This was not a condemnation of moneychangers in general. Otherwise, it would be immoral to hold stocks or have bank accounts or credit cards.

Actually, for a very long time, it was considered immoral to hold stocks or have bank accounts or charge interest on loans (the nearest medieval equivalent to credit cards).

That said, even if Jesus was not referring to moneychangers at large in this case, He had high expectations for the rich. Like selling everything and giving the money to the poor. Neither Bush nor Kerry even comes close, but as a whole, Democratic policies are more favorable to the poor than Republican policies are.

Edit: No response to #2? :D

Hi whit. Hows things?



btw, the pres candidate with the second most votes of all time? John Kerry. Population=rising you see...

Hi whit. Hows things?



btw, the pres candidate with the second most votes of all time? John Kerry. Population=rising you see...

I mentioned something to that effect on the first page... :D

Hi whit. Hows things?



btw, the pres candidate with the second most votes of all time? John Kerry. Population=rising you see...

Wait, you mean there are more people in America than there used to be?

But even you must admit that bush won the popular vote cause people care more about moral issues than economic issues.
But his mandate comes not just from the people, but from God Almighty himself.
If someone votes because they want to deprive their fellow citizens of happiness while screwing themselves economically, I'm sorry but I think they're an idiot.

Bush has tried the whole "God endorses me" thing before. It's arrogant and few of us believe it.