Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush is back!
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 298 (156552)
11-06-2004 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by crashfrog
11-06-2004 12:31 AM


You Asked For It, You Got It!
crashfrog writes:
maybe in your next post, you could actually rebut my points.
Well, if you insist.....
Bush Wins Re-Election, Seeks Broad Support
Wed Nov 3, 6:22 PM ET Politics - AP
By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush claimed a re-election mandate Wednesday after a record 59 million Americans chose him over Democrat John Kerry and voted to expand Republican control of Congress as well. "
You might want to look up the definition of the term "record" in order to get a better understanding of just how out of step with the reality of this election you truly are. See you in four years!

The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by crashfrog, posted 11-06-2004 12:31 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by crashfrog, posted 11-06-2004 1:44 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2004 8:17 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 236 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2004 8:45 AM DarkStar has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 227 of 298 (156557)
11-06-2004 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by DarkStar
11-06-2004 1:26 AM


Like I said, the record voter turnout means that Bush faced record opposition, as well. Nobody's ever had more votes against him than Bush.
All in all, he won by a margin of about 3 million votes. If you think that's "winning big" then it's you who needs to be looking up words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by DarkStar, posted 11-06-2004 1:26 AM DarkStar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by DBlevins, posted 11-06-2004 12:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 228 of 298 (156558)
11-06-2004 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Morte
11-05-2004 11:59 PM


Re: Requiem for the Democratic Party?
No way, is that where "Don't mess with texas" came from?
Go figure. Outside of the lonstar state it has become a sterotype of redneck texans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Morte, posted 11-05-2004 11:59 PM Morte has not replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 229 of 298 (156576)
11-06-2004 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Hangdawg13
11-05-2004 7:37 PM


Re: Yea!
Cheers for your reply. By the way, I was getting a bit excited yesterday; hope it wasn't percieved as rudeness. I'm just interested in your perspective on this.
Clinton was militarily soft? This is actually news to me. The Shifa Pharmaceuticals plant was a bit harsh. Also, there was the small matter of the Balkan conflict. So I'd dispute the fact that Clinton WAS that soft. But maybe I'm ill informed. What were there other conflicts that he didn't get involved in that you think that he should have?
But lets bring this up to date. You think that Kerry was going to return to Clinton's percieved "softness"? Its interesting. You think that Kerry was somehow back down in the War on TERROR(sorry, I really don't like that phrase)? I know this is pretty speculative, but what kinds of things do you think that he might have done? Personally, I don't think he would have been a million miles away from Bush, had he been elected.
As for the radical Islamists, I agree that they are a trfle peeved that we aren't all in beards and burkahs. However, one of your paragraphs is packed with goodies, and I'd like to draw attention to it:
Because propoganda tells those people that America is the reason everyone is poor and suffering.
Sure, America is the Great Satan; but if you look at the pretty horrible history of a country like Iran, which had a leader unceromoniously and undemocratically foisted on it because it was in the interests of the UK and USA, you can maybe understand their annoyance with the questionable rhetoric of "freedom". Same thing applies to Saudi. Islamic fundamentalists aren't the only ones who present things in ways that suit their own interests, as Colin Powell's scandalous presentation to the UN demonstrates.
Because they are jealous of us.
I think its a mistake to think they are jealous of you. They are repulsed by you (and me too!). They want power, but they don't want anything like what you have. We are utterly corrupt and undesirable.
Because they can get more power if they incite hatred in order to gain followers.
This is very true; but it cuts the other way too, doesn't it? I don't think Bush's popularity was hindered any by calling Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein naughty men.
Does that make sense?
PS Yeah, sorry about the random Wolves advert PS... didn't belong there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-05-2004 7:37 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by zephyr, posted 11-06-2004 6:33 AM Tusko has replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 230 of 298 (156578)
11-06-2004 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Hangdawg13
11-05-2004 8:59 AM


Re: My, my...
I doubt there would be a lot of gloating around here if the outcome had been reversed. You would mostly be hearing sighs of relief.
I have literally put my life at risk to serve the whims of this administration and have developed a deep sense of betrayal as I grew to see how disingenuously they have exploited the public. I also feel betrayed all the mindless people who, based on their mental complacency and resulting false understanding of established facts about 9/11, terrorism, WMD, etc, have chosen to reward liars and murderers with another 4 years of power over our lives. People will continue to die for the ambitions of these politicians.
That you can backpedal and try to turn this into a casual fun-poking festival only highlights the petty and immature nature of your previous slights. Is this a serious issue or not? Make your choice and act accordingly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-05-2004 8:59 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 231 of 298 (156579)
11-06-2004 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by DarkStar
11-05-2004 10:53 PM


IRe: Requiem for the Democratic Party?
quote:
"IT'S THE MORAL DECLINE OF AMERICA, STUPID!"
I agree with you that the moral decline of America is a huge problem. Especially the moral decline that has placed power-obsessed kilers in the highest seats of power, whence they may embark on agendas of destruction based on transparent lies. The morality espoused by today's Republican party is horrendous. It cares more about condemning the actions of those who are different from you than it does about needlessly inflicting suffering across entire nations. This morality is complete and utter bullshit. Kill in the name of freedom and democracy, but fight gay rights. Win on a an anti-abortion platform while your initiatives kill women and children by the tens of thousands, and continue to claim that you have liberated a suffering people - despite their drastically increased level of poverty and rates of violent death. It is a completely indefensible worldview.
I'm not a Democrat, by the way. I supported Bush when he was first elected, but he has lost every shred of my trust and respect in the last two years. He kept his office his team successfully ran a campaign of fear, and scared people choose emotion and conviction over sensibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by DarkStar, posted 11-05-2004 10:53 PM DarkStar has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 232 of 298 (156580)
11-06-2004 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Tusko
11-06-2004 5:44 AM


Re: Yea!
quote:
....as Colin Powell's scandalous presentation to the UN demonstrates.
Can you give me a reference? I've been (somewhat) under a rock for a while. I try to stay current with the duplicities of my employers but it's hard, what with the hours they have me working out here....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Tusko, posted 11-06-2004 5:44 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Tusko, posted 11-06-2004 6:43 AM zephyr has replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 233 of 298 (156582)
11-06-2004 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by zephyr
11-06-2004 6:33 AM


Re: Yea!
This was the big speech:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Full text of Powell speech (pt I)
Well, here's the "sort-of" admission after the event:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Powell admits Iraq evidence mistake
I hope you are doing okay at the moment, best wishes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by zephyr, posted 11-06-2004 6:33 AM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by zephyr, posted 11-06-2004 10:40 AM Tusko has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 234 of 298 (156584)
11-06-2004 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by paisano
11-05-2004 9:16 PM


Well, you... won't want to hear this
Actually it is you who not only won't want to hear this, but are likely to dismiss it as you have with all the other facts and logic that have been handed to you...
I have already said, though perhaps this was before you were part of EvC, that it is clear that the American public is not interested in gay "marriage". Personally I don't care, but many people do and whether it sounds ridiculous or not it all seems to hinge on protecting the word "marriage". Most are willing to give the same rights to gay legal unions just not the same name.
It was my argument that gays ought to give up campaigning for use of the term "marriage" and focus on getting the specific rights they actually need. In my mind the gay movement believes getting that name will somehow grant their unions social acceptability, but it won't. So why try? You see I'm pragmatic, not ideological.
And this is the funny thing, remember how you called all those people voting for Kerry or against Bush as somehow out of center? Well in actual fact, as your own demographics show, they are onboard with that opinion regarding marriage.
Heck, Kerry and Edwards were both against gay marriage. Weren't you awake during the debates, this was made quite clear. The only difference between them and Bush is that Bush was willing to tamper with the constitution in order to prevent states from deciding whether to allow it. Of course you then had Cheney saying don't mind Bush that wasn't actually going to happen, but you know how it goes...
So according to your own assessment the Democrats had fielded candidates well within the norm on the gay marriage issue. The actual differences were fiscal responsibility and how to use the military and diplomacy to achieve security objectives. The Democrats were for responsibility and focusing on immediate security objectives rather than beginning giant social engineering programs for other nations that are projected to payoff, when?
I know I know, It sure sounded like if you voted against Bush gays would be marrying in your churches right after inauguration. That was of course part of the big scare. Picture that future as opposed to carefully examining the incredibly failed performance of the President over the last 4 years.
Remember your centrist claim, you say you even have problems with all the YEC stuff in classrooms? Take a look at who you voted for (he installed a proreligion-in-class education secretary), and the actual agenda of the group the Republicans had to reach out to to get the deciding votes on their side. When religious extremists expect to get a payoff from the Reps, what are you going to say? If they get them, what are you going to say?
Good luck with all that.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by paisano, posted 11-05-2004 9:16 PM paisano has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 235 of 298 (156599)
11-06-2004 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by DarkStar
11-06-2004 1:26 AM


Re: You Asked For It, You Got It!
Kerry also got more votes than any previous president, so having a slightly bigger number does not a major victory make. Stating otherwise is another example of being information challenged.
But hey: enjoy the victory, go ahead and think of it as massive.
For any failure in the next two years can no longer be blamed on liberals. That's right: you can quit whining and actually start doing something.
Enjoy it.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by DarkStar, posted 11-06-2004 1:26 AM DarkStar has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 236 of 298 (156603)
11-06-2004 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by DarkStar
11-06-2004 1:26 AM


Re: You Asked For It, You Got It!
here's another morsel for you to chew on
President Bush is entering his second term facing an escalating casualty rate in Iraq, a record trade deficit, a staggering budget deficit, sky-high oil prices, and a deeply divided nation. As the Republicans face likely failure, progressives need to start preparing for regime change in 2008 or sooner. Remember that Nixon was re-elected with a bigger margin than Bush, but faced impeachment within a year.
AxisofLogic - Commentaries
Yes, YOU asked for it. Enjoy it.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by DarkStar, posted 11-06-2004 1:26 AM DarkStar has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 237 of 298 (156609)
11-06-2004 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by nator
11-05-2004 7:53 AM


Re: I think the war will start with abortion
Hee hee. I thought that the blatantly anti-gay stance of the GOP platform was going to do that. When the Log Cabin Republicans refused to endorse (only temporarily, unfortunately) Bush, I said to myself "Yeah, that's it. That's the beginning of the end. Just like 1824." Of course, I was wrong - it came down to partisanship and "vote Republican right or wrong" again. I even emailed Patrick Guerriero to congratulate him on the LCR's decision before they more or less reversed themselves. The problem now is even folks like McCain and Schwarzenegger aren't willing or able to openly oppose the neocon majority in the party. It's going to take something really major, and I don't know what that would be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by nator, posted 11-05-2004 7:53 AM nator has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 238 of 298 (156615)
11-06-2004 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Tusko
11-06-2004 6:43 AM


Re: Yea!
Ahhh. Okay. I was thinking more recent. Wasn't familiar with this speech, regardless. Thanks for the link.
Things are going pretty well. Ramadan's nearly over, there hasn't been much noise in the last couple of weeks, and I'll be stateside next month, buying myself more Xmas presents than I've ever seen before.
I finally saw Fahrenheit 9/11 a few nights ago. Heh... interesting. I think if he hadn't overstated some of the more tenuous connections, it would have been even more damning. Decent flick, anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Tusko, posted 11-06-2004 6:43 AM Tusko has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 239 of 298 (156647)
11-06-2004 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by crashfrog
11-06-2004 1:44 AM


'Big" might not be as "Big" as it seems...
Though I am wary of even mentioning voter fraud, I don't think I would put it past Karl Rove to set something up or well-placed right-wing nutjobs with access to votes. (Wasn't there a voting machine CEO who mentioned he would try to give Bush votes?)
It seems that the e-voting machines have some irregularities in them. Several Florida voters complaining that the touch-screen machines didn't record their vote properly. I wonder how many people didn't even notice their votes were not recorded properly. The maker of the machines said "the poll workers may not have calibrated them properly." There also seemed to be irregularities in Louisiana, where machines wouldn't even boot up. (Largely Democratic or minority areas I wonder?)
In suburban Columbus, OH, Bush received about 3893 votes due to an error in e-voting machines giving him the majority in Franklin County, 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes. That is just in one precinct! Bush was supposed to receive only 365! No word from officials about errors in other parts of the state, go figure...
The point is that his margin might not be as wide as even 3.5 million voters with almost 1/3 of voters in America using some form of those machines. I seriously doubt there will be any deep investigation into how many precincts were effected by e-machine irregularities.
(most info from Cnn/Politics and Cnn/Politics)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by crashfrog, posted 11-06-2004 1:44 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2004 3:39 PM DBlevins has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 240 of 298 (156671)
11-06-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by paisano
11-05-2004 9:16 PM


quote:
Many would see some sort of civil union arrangement, on a state basis, as a reasonable compromise
...except that here in Michigan, the ammendment was written so poorly and broadly that it denies all benefits and marriage to all civil unions, domestic partners, etc.
In my county, the amendment was rejected 30%/70%. It's no surprise that my county is a magnet for gay couples because they already grant them domestic partner benefits, including the right to adopt children.
Tell me, what are these "deep concerns" people have about gay people?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by paisano, posted 11-05-2004 9:16 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by paisano, posted 11-06-2004 6:40 PM nator has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024