USA elections

[Tannhauser]

Looks like a slightly modified version of the old 2000 election chart.

Then there is this.

Neither are paticularly trustworthy. I don't think the situation has changed for this chart either.

Edit: Bah! So you read my posts when you can point out an error!

 

[Montez]

You linked the same one twice.

Who says I don't read your posts?

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

Hardly.

That said, nearly half the country didn't vote for Bush. In my city, it was something like 75% Kerry but in a largely rural state. Go over the mountain to Malk's side of Virginia and the Republicans were out in force.

I love that arguement. Too bad the liberals like to bring that up forgetting about the majority that didn't vote for Clinton.

I love the spin on Bush, the more I hear the more I pity those that buy into the media. Lemmings...

I love the comparisons...responsible, intelligent...vote for Kerry? Please! Kerry is not about responsibility or intelligence. Let's vote for someone who never defined his positions on the majority of issues. Is that intelligence? No. That's a blind shot motivated by hatred.

The majority of the military feared the possibility that Kerry might get elected and we breathed a collective sigh of relief when Bush won.

This election shows me that America has hope. I voted for Bush and I am glad to see the Republicans make gains. The libs will start slinging their insults about the 50%+ who are a waste of oxygen or whatever. I think it is just called being a sore loser.

This election shows me that more Americans are in touch with reality than ever before. Bush won for a reason and I doubt that it had to do with the majority of Americans being uneducated, ignorant...whatever you want to call those of us who voted for Bush.

I also love the "referendum on homosexuals" part that gets slung out there. Because I think marriage is something that should be considered only between a man and a woman I'm a bigot??? No, I just think that marriage is something that should be recognized between a man and a woman. If a person wants to marry his pet that's his business but when you want to force me to recognize it as "legitimate" that's my business. Just because I don't agree with what you do doesn't mean I'm automatically bigoted against you.

I find it funny that the losers try to sling mud at the winners in such narrowminded ways. As it has been said: America has spoken and we've chosen Bush; additionally, we've chosen not to recognize 'gay' marriage.

 

[calculon000]

Well darn, turns out the 2000 chart is fake for the same reasons that the 2004 one must be.

 

[Montez]

The majority of the military feared the possibility that Kerry might get elected and we breathed a collective sigh of relief when Bush won.

That's a pretty bold claim. Care to elaborate? Also, how many soldiers do you represent, and what process did you use to determine that you all shared the same opinion?

I find it funny that the losers try to sling mud at the winners in such narrowminded ways. As it has been said: America has spoken and we've chosen Bush; additionally, we've chosen not to recognize 'gay' marriage.

I'm sure that you and other republicans would have been paragons of virtue and good sportsmanship if Kerry had won. Yep.

 

[The Commissar]

I can speak for the majority I know, which numbers in the hundreds. Including regular army, airforce, reserve and national guard most of whome have had at least one deployment overseas in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Of the ones I know the vast majority has expressed relief at Kerry's loss. Relief mind you, there was a genuine concern among many of what might happen were he the president. Argue with me all you want, but thats the general expression of feeling, at least here.

Thats not to say other feelings arn't elsewhere, I've heard plenty of railing against Bush, but its not the majority.

If we could raise Elissar from his drunken stupor we could get a third view.

 

[Montez]

Of the ones I know the vast majority has expressed relief at Kerry's loss. Relief mind you, there was a genuine concern among many of what might happen were he the president. Argue with me all you want, but thats the general expression of feeling, at least here.

Ok, but why? What was the concern about, exactly?

 

[4too]

What's Important

What's Important

tc.:

I also love the "referendum on homosexuals" part that gets slung out there. Because I think marriage is something that should be considered only between a man and a woman I'm a bigot??? No, I just think that marriage is something that should be recognized between a man and a woman. If a person wants to marry his pet that's his business but when you want to force me to recognize it as "legitimate" that's my business. Just because I don't agree with what you do doesn't mean I'm automatically bigoted against you.

No.

Inspite of my use of the flippant "Queer Fear", I am aware there is a latent "church and state" potential in this. Our cultural roots of the marriage definition is based on religion. 'Caesar' and his lawyers claim the need to license the "union", and - need - not waste their time, and money, on trying to rewrite anyone's Bible.


Good for you. You are advocating that intelligence and compassion includes broad mindedness. Some one has to.


When the allegedly "intelligent" class have their mean spirited retorts labeled "hate",it conveys the EMOTIONAL reflexes are dominant. All that intellect, a slave to fears, just like everybody else.

Maybe the revelation will motivate pseudo intellectuals to broaden their educations with real life experience.

Always more homework to be done.


4too

 

[4too]

Guessing

Guessing

M:

Ok, but why? What was the concern about, exactly?

Maybe apprehension over a new crop of 'civilian experts'.


And.

What's all this buzz (on NPR) about Rumsfield leaving and Condi Rice becoming Secretary of Defense?


4too

 

[The Commissar]

Ok, but why? What was the concern about, exactly?

Its a good question. I can't answer it for alot of them as the most they have expressed to me is "Thank God" or general passing remarks of that nature. Of those who I have discussed it at length, (which is far, far less in number) the main problem is they have little to no respect for Kerry. Some like Bush, others don't, but most are sure they don't respect Kerry or have confidence in him to do "the job". They have more confidence in Bush and his policies and his leadership. This is caused by many many issues that are usually not the same for each individual, but the result is the same. Lack of confidence. Don't get me wrong though, I've heard others express an equal lack of confidence in Bush, but I havn't seen it as the majority.

Keep in mind I'm not saying I share the same beliefs or reasons, but it is theirs, and I respect it, especially since it is their continued sacrifices which promise me those same rights.



EDIT

Maybe apprehension over a new crop of 'civilian experts'.

Forgive me 4too, but I am entirely unable to grasp the obviously valid point you are making here. Would you mind expanding on it for the benefit of a simple bolshevik?

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

The majority of the military feared the possibility that Kerry might get elected and we breathed a collective sigh of relief when Bush won.

That's a pretty bold claim. Care to elaborate? Also, how many soldiers do you represent, and what process did you use to determine that you all shared the same opinion?

I find it funny that the losers try to sling mud at the winners in such narrowminded ways. As it has been said: America has spoken and we've chosen Bush; additionally, we've chosen not to recognize 'gay' marriage.

I'm sure that you and other republicans would have been paragons of virtue and good sportsmanship if Kerry had won. Yep.

There were several polls done of military folks and they found that around 3 to 1 preferred Bush over Kerry. When they polled people returning from Iraq they found almost no change. Now, I'll admit that families of those in Iraq seemed to prefer Kerry over Bush, but the men and women fighting the battle still preferred Bush.

When Clinton went up for reelection I voted for Dole. When he lost, I didn't go out and complain about the people who didn't vote for Clinton. I accepted it. Had Kerry won, I would have expressed that I was concerned for the country but the fact is whether 30% or 80% of the people voted for him he would have been president (had we won the electoral majority).

Stay tuned to the news...I'm not sure if it has been released yet, but UBL recently made two tapes available contingent on the elections-and one was to congratulate Kerry on victory. Read that as you may (that comes from unlcassified intel the military has been provided).

 

[4too]

Civilian Experts

Civilian Experts

C.L.:

Forgive me 4too, but I am entirely unable to grasp the obviously valid point you are making here. Would you mind expanding on it for the benefit of a simple bolshevik?

Civilian experts? Managerial experts that are more accountants and politicians than military leaders.

Usually political appointee's with little or no actual military experience.
Usually lurk in the DoD or the State Department.

Responsible for 'cost engineering' destroyers so they can't be modified or modernized. Throw away ships that are obsolete on launch.

I think the archetype is McNamara in the Johnson-Vietnam Era.

In his biography, McNamara admitted that for political reasons the U.S. mission in Vietnam was hindered by insufficient forces, from the start and to the end. 'Winning" in any sense was compromised from the beginning to the end.

When the present idealist experts jumped into Iraq, they might have forgot to bring along a few career military pragmatists to 'win the peace'.


4too

 

[The Commissar]

Ah. Indeed 4too, that is a more then educated guess, in fact its one of the primary reasons I've heard. My goodness, as usual your thesis is so well made and to the point it flew right over my head.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Bradylama]

If a person wants to marry his pet that's his business but when you want to force me to recognize it as "legitimate" that's my business.

Incidentally, you're not forced to recognize heterosexual unions as legitimate either. The government is.

 

[Ashmo]

Hm... is the USA backwater enough to have no difference between a religious marriage (y'know, church, rings, priests, that kind of stuff) and legal marriage (involves signing a contract and a governmental employee)?

If they are not, there is no reason legal marriage should not be permitted between adult homosexuals. After all, they are humans and adults, so they are both qualified to sign a contract.

But, oh, maybe I'm just perverted because I don't believe that religion is the right entity to define sex, love or partnership.

(No, I'm not gay -- although I don't believe sexuality can be described with a few catchy labels)

 

[MadDog]

religion should not play a part of the US government, but Bush has been using religion to base all his ideas. That's why he doesnt support stem cell research, which doesn't HAVE to involve embryos, and its not even regular embryos, they are left over.

Besides, we have the entire south, which is VERY rellgious and follows what they feel right. Those are the same people who felt blacks were inferior, and STILL cause problems. Only the north seems to have a sense of correctness.
That's what Mass was the first state to allow gay marriage.

What is better? 2 loving fathers adopting a boy and raising him right, or a drunk father and uncaring mother who abuse their children? A union should be between people who love, not between a man and a woman.

 

[Bradylama]

-]religion should not play a part of the US government, but Bush has been using religion to base all his ideas. That's why he doesnt support stem cell research, which doesn't HAVE to involve embryos, and its not even regular embryos, they are left over.

You don't need religion to think that Stem Cell Research is wrong, or that homosexuality is wrong. Would you rather people pretend not to be religious, like Kerry?

Besides, we have the entire south, which is VERY rellgious and follows what they feel right. Those are the same people who felt blacks were inferior, and STILL cause problems. Only the north seems to have a sense of correctness.
That's what Mass was the first state to allow gay marriage.

More Yankee elitism. I think I've touched on why people who have never lived in the South shouldn't rag on it, before. So I'm not going to bother now.

 

[Big T]

-]religion should not play a part of the US government, but Bush has been using religion to base all his ideas. That's why he doesnt support stem cell research, which doesn't HAVE to involve embryos, and its not even regular embryos, they are left over.

You don't need religion to think that Stem Cell Research is wrong, or that homosexuality is wrong.

You are correct, people do not need religion to decide what is right and wrong. This is exactly why the president of the US should not be basing his policies on his religious sentiments.
I would expect that from a theocratic nation, not from a democratic one.

 

[welsh]

Well Brady, I actually live in the South and it is very religious down here. Go about two hours and you can go to Jerry Falwell U. in his home town of Roanoke.

But there is the question on the demographics. They just had a bit on C-Span, and when it's released on line I will post the link, where they looked at the population, and generally Bush supporters were highly religious and blue collar whites, whereas college educated whites were more prone to Kerry. Sorry guys.

And Bradylama- Kerry is religious, he just doesn't wear it on his sleeve and is willing to vote what he thinks is right for the country rather than what his religion espouses. I am not sure, as a Catholic, he could have done anything else.

Tone, while I sympathize with the military vote on this, lets be honest here. We haven't had this kind of voter turn out since 1968, and 52% of a 60% turn-out still means that Bush won support from 31% of the voting public. So it's not a majority at all, though better than Kerry does.

But I agree, he won the popular vote and has the Congress now. Let's see what happens. I am glad you think this means good things for the country, and I hope your expectations are justified. But I see the next four years as a repeat or expansion of the last four years- and I don't think it's good for the country.

What's ironic is that the republicans seem to be coming out and announcing their victory in droves when before the election they were so quiet. Now it's like San Francisco and the queers are coming out for Gay Pride Week.

 

[Bradylama]

You are correct, people do not need religion to decide what is right and wrong. This is exactly why the president of the US should not be basing his policies on his religious sentiments.
I would expect that from a theocratic nation, not from a democratic one.

What's the point in claiming to believe in a religion if you don't practice what it preaches? Bush's religion is a part of who he is, if he doesn't hold true to his own beliefs then what is his value as a leader? Leaders are supposed to do what they believe to be right, and if Bush does it because he believes in his religion, then so be it.

That's what you get.

If you don't like religion in government then try fielding an atheist candidate, but claiming that religion should have no place in government is an infringement on the freedom of speech, and quite frankly, it disgusts me.


Also, Welsh, I mentioned Kerry because while he may not wear his religion on his sleeve, he still may make legislation based on his religious beliefs. He does, after all, have the same position as Bush in regards to gay marriage. At least Bush is open about his source of inspiration.

EDIT: Further also, Welsh. MadDog gives the impression that all Southerners are still racists, and then claims that Northerners are the only people with a sense of correctness. If this isn't Yankee elitism, I don't know what is.

The 1960's were 40 years ago, people.