WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 07:46:41 +0000

A) The Supreme Court is a red herring. 56% of Americans support abortion rights. Row v. Wade is safe, if it gets overturned... I'll eat a fetus or something. B) People but SUVs b/c they like them. I don't see a connection with a Bush presidency, C) Bush 43's second term will almost certainly feature a scandal or two. Possibly impeachment? Not sure if H. Clinton is the answer in 2008 either way, she could even run if Kerry ends up winning 2004. D) I'd take McCain/Guiliani over Bush/Cheney any day. HOWEVER, McCain's getting a bit old, and has alienated the himself from the power brokers in the GOP. Pataki/Guiliani? E) Don't forget Ohio... or Iowa.... my peeps in Davenport, Muscatine and Walcott will be heard!

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-03 07:49:37 +0000

Hillary will not be on a ballot with Obama, the front runner in '08.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-03 13:26:40 +0000

We are neck deep in shit. If Bush were removed from office in this election, we would still have very little to stand upon with which to defend our way of government _and_ apologize to the international community for what we have done to them via Bush. With our people voting now to say, essentially, "Fuck you" to the rest of the world, this will take at least 30 years and possibly a major catastrophe (read: world war) with major American heroism (read: Leonard Part VI) for us to make amends for this presidency. Say what you want about the economy, which MFP has fucked up anyway, or you F-ing tax credits, our economy will be ruined if the international community is not on our side. Terrorists are vindicated by this election. Every reason that people have given to vote for MFP has been inherently violated by voting for him. Catch 22.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 13:30:45 +0000

Wow, 10D. I like the link between the international community and the economy, never thought about that. Kerry supportors are crushed b/c of the genuine moral outrage they have at Bush. Of course this isn't worth leaving the country! (The cloud of beer being lifted from my noggin'...) All the more reason to stay in the country. Bush supportors are so less emotionally involved in this election. One of the supporters I was with last night seemed genuinely nonplussed about either candidate. Can Bush govern effectively knowing that 55% of the American public thinks he's incompetent?

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 14:14:13 +0000

Re: C) Clinton might not be viable candidate in 2008 even if Kerry wins.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 14:19:00 +0000

(The cloud of caffeine starting to wind it's way into my veins...) Bush can't govern effectively, period. So what does it matter if a majority of people think he's doing the wrong thing? Nixon was re-elected, wasn't he?

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 14:19:58 +0000

Re: 9- Greater class division. Math _is_ a problem in our schools.

Posted by G lib on 2004-11-03 14:24:17 +0000

goddamn. I'm speechless. ________________ 100% Riot-Schtuffy!

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-03 16:41:17 +0000

I didn't make this up. If you listen (they're archived) to the 10/28 episode of Marketplace they discussed a lot of the economic implications of foreign policy. Essentially, they were saying that a lot of our international trade success stems from the fact that our friends in other countries trust us and thus like doing business with us. They don't trust us anymore. None of them. We just blew our chance to regain that trust. Now we have to compete on (at best) a level playing field in international markets, which we've grown comfortable accepting as pretty easy. This is not going to be good for our economy.

Posted by G lib on 2004-11-03 16:46:56 +0000

I absolutely agree with you 10<>. Get ready to have the EU sic us like a rabid dog. They understand the nuance of international politics, and will recognize an opportunity to attack, economically. Remember the bananna powerplay from a few years ago? Imagine this X 40. And they won't be the only one. They've been waiting in the wings in order to take the US down for years. Just like the south has been waiting quietly in order to resurrect the new confederacy. ________________ 100% Riot-Schtuffy!

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 16:54:46 +0000

Never underestimate Leonard.

Posted by bizquig3000 on 2004-11-03 17:10:28 +0000

I'm not going to propose we actually have religion in schools, but let's be completely honest here: we're living in a generation where (unlike most of us here in this group) the kids are raising themselves from broken homes. A little more rules (you know just to have some freaking responsibility) might make things a little more copacetic. How do the Democrats win in '08? By pushing issues instead of attacking Republicans.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 17:15:38 +0000

How do the Republicans win in '04? By inflaming the anti-gay vote. OK, so you're against rules in the marketplace b/c making rules doesn't mean people will follow them. However, a greater emphasis on moral, "religious" values by public leaders will make the public more responsible for their actions? You're on man: if the divorce rate and single motherhood is down in four years, I'll buy you a beer.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 17:30:05 +0000

Family strife is more closely related with jobs. More jobs, happier families. Less jobs, less happier families. So far, we've seen the economy regain some of the jobs lost in the '01 recession. However, the current rate is not enough to cover those people added to the workforce each month, let alone the currently unemployed. Additionally, the jobs being added are primarily lower-paying service sector jobs. The outlook isn't quite cheery at the moment.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-03 17:35:36 +0000

How did Republicans win '04? By attacking Democrats instead of pushing issues. Why do you propose Dems do the opposite in '08? Curious...

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 17:45:44 +0000

I can't defend the Kerry campaign, they did lose this election. I hope you're not implying that Bush won because he was pushing issues. Bush has been attacking Kerry since March. This is what I've heard from Bush during the debates about why we should be in Iraq: "It's hard work, worth doing." Huh? There may be some interesting reasons why $120 billion (plus the expect $75 billion appropration coming up) and the thousands of lives make the invasion of Iraq seem like a good one. Bush never articulated them.

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-03 17:51:40 +0000

Regarding BQ's post: Here here. Have a freakin platform instead of a conspiracy theory. _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-03 17:54:40 +0000

Here here. Too bad it didn't work. Looks like the Dems will have to get Rove on the GOP's ass.

Posted by bizquig3000 on 2004-11-03 19:24:27 +0000

Unless I'm misreading something here, Ned, all I was saying is that whether or not the Republicans use bashing as a technique to win votes, doesn't mean the Democrats had to bash Bush for 11 months (check that, four years, rather) and expect to win support from moderates that way. Two "wrongs" don't make a right. Kerry/Edwards could have offered in clear concise English what they would do to better the country. We'll assume for arguments sake that there was smearing on both sides (happens every election, nothing new here). By not offering anything any more than what boiled down to an anybody-but-Bush platform, the Democrats must have been fooling themselves that that would have been enough. Bush doesn't have to say anything about what he'd do as President of the country, he's already got four years experience to show for it (like the guy's policies or not, he's got history, you decide). Got me?

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 19:25:18 +0000

Did Ohio have a ballot question on whether to ammend it's State Constitution to ban gay marriage? The platform of: "Bush is incompetent" was enough for me...

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 19:27:54 +0000

Thanks for clearing the air, bq3k. Kerry/Edwards could have done a better job explaining what they'd do differently. Still not clear to me they would not have invaded Iraq. Seems like Bush & Kerry had the same plan for Iraq, seeing as we are there now. The K/E health care plan seemed pretty definite if you took the time to read their website.

Posted by bizquig3000 on 2004-11-03 19:28:33 +0000

But Terry, you're not a moderate, as much as you've fooled yourself into thinking you are, you're not what pollsters define as a moderate.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 19:33:52 +0000

I'm so moderate and middle-class! Don't tell me I'm not! Even if I'm not, that's what everyone thinks (not of me, but of themselves).

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-03 19:41:22 +0000

Plain and simple: Republicans bashed more from the Conventions till Nov. 2nd and won. The rest is opinion. I think it was made clear in the Kerry platform that he would lead in Iraq better, the economy, terrorism, health care, etc. Bush's 4 years showed him as a complete failure, but the fear driven America voted for him anyway.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 19:49:35 +0000

Is it an attack to say the President was wrong to start planning for an invastion of Iraq on Sept. 12, 2001. Then, come to find out, the planning was done without the help of government agencies with expertise in nation-building, and the plan completed over the objections of military officials who thought the force levels were too low? I say it's a valid criticism.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 20:09:45 +0000

Back to morals: Bill Bennet seems to think the election is a ringing endorsement for more "virtues" in public policy. I'd have to say, I knew Kerry might not win yesterday when I heard around ~8pm that exit polls had 22% of the electorate listing "morals" as their number one issue. ...and we all know people who are concerned about morality in public life aren't voting (D).

Posted by G lib on 2004-11-03 20:11:42 +0000

"The Middle" (of the US)'s FEAR of terrorism: Is concentrated in those parts of the US that the actual terrorists don't even know about, care about, or would ever want to attack. I think that the 'guns, god, truck, and proud to be a neo-redneck' culture that voted for Bush's "fear of terrorism" is actually a veiled form of fascism. ________________ 100% Riot-Schtuffy!

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 20:16:49 +0000

If Clinton had simply stepped down, maybe we wouldn't be haggling over morals in public life right now. We'd be bemoaning the 2nd Gore term right now.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-03 20:21:27 +0000

How big is Florida '00 right now? Oi...

Posted by bizquig3000 on 2004-11-03 20:37:25 +0000

How big? In the eyes of Democrats, exactly the same. See the following two articles about the results of the actual Florida recount: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html Oops, my bad for believing the clearly Republican-biased media.

Posted by bizquig3000 on 2004-11-03 20:42:12 +0000

Yep, clearly the New York Times and Washington post are Republican-biased: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57584-2004Oct23.html Indisputable evidence.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 20:54:45 +0000

Yeah, that's old news. The recounts requested would have gone for Bush. I knew that. dawnbixtler is up in arms over those in the electorate allegedly disenfranchised in Florida in '00. Their votes were never available for recount. (The disenfranchisment is argueable too, it would seem, although not sure if I buy any of the WSJ's opinions on that matter... hey... what was the black vote in FL this time around...) I'm so sick of arguing over bias. I see your sarcasm, but your larger point about popular cultural leaning left isn't buttressed by two pieces of "bad news for Dems" in the Post and NYT. But back to me! me!: My point had nothing to do with alleged misconduct in voting in '00 though. Clinton is a sleazeball that turned off a vast majority of the American public with his actions. Instead of stepping down and possibly giving Gore and future Democrats the chance to run on their records, we are still talking about "returning morals" to the Oval Office in 2004.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-03 20:57:55 +0000

"Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots... Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush." -NYTimes "An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins." -Washington Post. Good posts. Thank you BQ. Sad we didn't get to count all the votes in Florida in '00 thanks to Supreme Court intervention. But the recount catastrophe aside, I was speaking more about the State wide voter disenfranchisement of blacks, reported so strongly in the US Commision on Civil Right's [url=http://www.usccr.gov]report[/url] in June '01. We've gone over this a bunch. I will not discuss the Republican bias in the Times and Post, but it is fairly evident in my unhumble opinion, making my case even stronger...

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-03 22:00:34 +0000

Hey Dawn / TGL and everyone who frequents POLITIK ---Rich here just wanted to address a few things: - The spreadsheet I promised with Pros and Cons never materialized, I apologize for that... I think this leads into my next point, but I will be the first to admit I often did a cruddy job of backing my shit up - I have been using IMHO as a copout. I think maybe my strategy will be to post less and have citations ready for the (hopefully)less frequent comments I will make in Politik from now on... - I never finished out the Florida thread from a few weeks back where we were talking about the civil rights commision Dawn brought up mainly due to being angry, frustrated, overwhelmed and tired as hell. If anyone here does have the time and patience to read the entire report, be sure not to miss the very important and poignant 41 page dissent statement attached to the document (this, you guys will find, is where the WSJ cited most of their info in that last much discussed 'journalistic hack' op-ed piece. - just like in little league or after a long argument or misunderstanding, I would like to extend a handshake / peace offering / thank you for all that I have learned and observed about politics through this board to everyone. I have little interest in being divided and / or antagonistic regarding things we've discussed in this politik forum. I had honestly prepared to write a"best wishes with absolutely no malice" bit for Kerry as I said I would in past posts. One thing I remember Bill Weld saying 10/12/2004 WSJ Oped was how much credit BOTH of these candidates deserve: "My complaint is that every four years, we are asked by virtually everyone involved in national politics to believe that one of the two major party candidates for president--but only one--is an idiot, or untrustworthy. This is nonsense. Neither John Kerry nor George Bush is either stupid or untrustworthy. Nor was Al Gore, or Bob Dole, or Bill Clinton, or the senior George Bush, or Mike Dukakis. You simply cannot rise to the highest levels of U.S. politics if your word is not good, or if you are a dim bulb. So let's give the Bush-bashing and Kerry-bashing a rest." I would like to try to extend my hand in making the country a better place to all my friends. not amongst political party lines but me as a person to you as a person. I am interested in all of us working together for a better America. Thanks for yr time. Much respect, RL _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by frame609 on 2004-11-03 22:05:39 +0000

Rich, you rule.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-03 22:10:14 +0000

Consider your hand shaken. Last on WSJ. To reference (not cite) a report as the WSJ did and then claim the dissenting opinion was the report's factual findings, and NOT STATE SUCH, is hack journalism, not matter how you slice it.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-03 22:11:06 +0000

A) Clinton is not a sleazeball, all sorts of people stray maritally. B) Who cares if he diddled his ugly intern, (see second part of A) C) Republicans pounced on that and spun themselves a nice puppet prez (answer to B) D) Republican Spin Machine even makes you, tgl, a normally reasonable person, fail to remember Clinton as he was, a great man and president, who happened to diddle his ugly intern E) 30 years from now, when the world is recovering from the globally catastrophic world war that our current socio-politico-economo-path is taking us on, history books will be written that remember Clinton as the last great president the former United States had, before it was torn apart by selfish money-grubbing heathens wearing moralistic masks.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 22:18:04 +0000

He's a sleazeball. He's strayed multiple times over many years. To top it off, he got a blowjob from an intern at his office. Personally, I think that doesn't reflect on his record as a President. There are enough hung-up people in this country that think the two are correlated: sex and decision making. It was a bad political decision to fight the impeach and not resign. You can talk about voting the lesser of to evils instead of your ideal candidate (Nader '00 for instance...), it's the same deal. Ideally, Clinton should not have faced impeachment or become a touchstone for the Right to lament the moral collapse of our country. Realistically, Clinton hurt the Democratic party.

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-03 22:18:26 +0000

kinda cool how the WSJ NEVER endorses a candidate... _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-03 22:19:41 +0000

that's a fair statement. _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-03 22:22:21 +0000

Neither does the Weekly Dig, but we know their agenda anyway....

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 22:26:10 +0000

*tap the black*

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-03 22:26:37 +0000

Clinton did not hurt the Democratic Party. The Republicans hurt the Dems using Clinton. Saying Clinton should have resigned for a reason unrelated to his presidency, while he was in the midst of unprecedented peace talks in the Middle East as well as other tasks I don't remember, is fighting a wrong with a wrong. I'm sorry, I've been drunk all afternoon, and just woke up, let me say it all more clearly: The Republican attacks on Clinton were far more sleazy than anything he ever did. Those Republicans, not Clinton, should be held responsible for the demise of the Democratic Party.

Posted by frame609 on 2004-11-03 22:27:46 +0000

If you don't tap the black, you can't snap the crack.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 22:39:44 +0000

Agreed.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 22:43:23 +0000

This is the same guy who criticized my vote for Nader as being too idealist? I *completely* agree with your characterization of the Republican Party, but, politics is a game and Clinton's strategy seems to have been a deterimental one. Republicans responsible for demise of Democrats? Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-03 22:44:21 +0000

Rich, I may have disagreed with you on most of what you've posted to this board. I may have wondered how an intelligent person such as yourself could be so naive politically. I may have wondered how an intelligent person such as myself can end up just being speechless and angry. Nevertheless, this board would be, stupid without you, the rational voice of opposition, so much better than the poor devil's advocates any of the regular posters could have been. So I shake your hand, and I thank you for your opinions, and I respect you so strongly... If I may quote Dumbledore: "It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but a great deal more to stand up to your friends." Respect. -=>J (I still think anyone who voted for Bush should be in jail, but respectfully so)

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-03 22:49:12 +0000

brilliant. fucking brilliant.

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-03 23:53:32 +0000

If I get jailed, will someone bake me a cake with a file in it :) (I might need some epsom salt too...) _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-04 09:44:44 +0000

Not to break up the love fest, but this election was not won by the issues. It was not won by bashing. It was won by the religious right, left over Reagan images and fear. Kerry did not fail to win over the moderates, he failed to win over the bible belt. He lost Ohio because the back woods southern counties that are essentially part of the confederacy got out and voted. That's it. Reagan succesfully turned the word "Liberal" into a weapon. It seems that the US has forgotten that two of its favorite presidents were liberals- FDR, JFK and that they were about to elect RFK. It is becoming clearer and clearer that only someone that appeals to the middle states can win the presidency- either by being a southerner or by being heavily religious. They were coming out of the polls sighting moral values as their reason for voting. MORAL VALUES! This presidency has been riddled with scandal after scandal that somehow seems to blow away in the wind. And how can anyone look at the situation in Iraq and not realize that it is a moral abhoration. I have made the 'immoral war' case on this borad before, which has not been rebutted by anyone yet. Let me know if you want me to make it again. In short, the challenger runs on his plans, the incumbant runs on his record: Plans: Kerry's fault with regards to expressing his thoughts, was that he actually had some. America wants a sound bite, Kerry actually had more in his head than that- and from what I saw, he gave more numbers and stats than any candidate I can remember asside from Perot. If you took the time to go to his website and read his plans you would find that most of them were quite well laid out. You can't express real plans on the evening news or in 90 seconds at a debate. 96.985% of what is said in those forums is worthless. Record: Bush on the other hand has NO record. He's got a failing war, both poorly and dishonestly concieved- failing economic policies- greater class division- fewer people with health care- a terrible job market- terrible foreign relations- rapant anti Americanism- an emboldened and idologically empowered terrorist world. Once again I beg our conservative consituents on this board to provide some issues based reason to believe that this re-election is not a complete dissaster- I'm dying here!

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-04 13:39:41 +0000

I Love You Uncle :) _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-04 14:51:38 +0000

I was thinking about this last night. bizquig3000 said the Dems had to push the issues, the Republican analysts on Greater Boston last night said the Dems needed to push the issues... Should the Dems follow strategies given them by Republicans? By all accounts, Kerry beat Bush in each debate. While some partisans might disagree, looking at undecided voters, they gave it up for Kerry each time. That points to an ability to articulate the issues. It's that 22% voting on moral values as their number one concern. I've heard this a couple times now: Democrats lack the moral language to describe their objectives. Families who work full time and are still below the poverty level is morally wrong. People who are working should be able to earn a wage that provides the basics for their family. It's morally wrong to wage a war in Iraq operating under the assumption that there would be no casualties. It's unconscionable to send our troops to war without fully preparing them for the task ahead. It's morally wrong to oppose fair treatment of people based on sexual orientation (OK, that one may be a bit harder to convince people on...) Kerry et al. have not been able to describe their agenda in the moralistic language that comes naturally to Bush et al. (My apologies to Jack Beatty). A large voting bloc sees Democrats as baby-killing faggots. Now that both Dems and the GOP are basically on the same page fiscally, these values issues are rightly or wrongly seen as the difference between the parties. Then again: 130,000 votes in Ohio changes the outcome. It's about the margins...

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-04 15:32:50 +0000

I rescind, tgl, you're correct. I'm also now figuring out my next move. I think I'm going to run for state office on the separation of church and state platform, can I get a campaign manager?

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-04 15:47:56 +0000

Your preliminary slogan: "It's called separation of Church & State, motherfucker!" That's a keeper.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-04 15:51:03 +0000

Again, tgl, you're right, and I would like to revise my "Separation of Church and State" policy (I plan to flip flop on this issue) I would like to _ban_ the church. The tendancy of religious zealousy to destroy empires (see: Rome, Britain, etc) is starting to claw its way into our empire. I like our empire, except for the religion. I don't know what it is about the natural path of power, that drives a nation, once it becomes the "worlds only super-power" to become overly religious, and to want to spread that around the world. So join with me, save our country. Save the world from our country. Renounce your religion as I have mine. Put me into state office where I can spread my zero-tolerance of religion policy! (anyone know anything about our state government? or should I go straight for governor?)

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-04 15:52:31 +0000

I love you as well Rich, please help me to believe that the world is not going to light on fire.

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-04 15:57:05 +0000

10d I am asking myself the same question. How can I become elected as a religion hating, fag loving, fetus stomping atheist?

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-04 16:07:15 +0000

I can't agree that dems and 'pubs are the same on economics. Last time we had a dem congress and dem pres the budget got balanced, there was more job creation and economic growth then ever before. Wealth grew accross all classes. The dude was 'cigaring' his intern, but it seems to me that he was working for an economic plan that helped everyone.

Posted by bizquig3000 on 2004-11-04 16:35:45 +0000

The Democrats approach to just about everything this year boiled down to their own "intellectual superiority" -- least of all, they were certainly smarter than the dumbest man who ever walked the face of the Earth (George W. Bush). Voters don't like being talked down to. Any Democrat candidate that will succeed cannot come from the blue states. Clinton was no question smart guy, but he didn't talk down to anybody.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-04 16:38:26 +0000

Thought there was a 'Pub Congress during much of Clinton's run. The parties aren't exactly equivalent on economic policy, they've definitely moved together though. The "fiscal distinction" is growing less and less, especially considering Bush's tendency to allow Congress to spend willy-nilly.

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-04 16:51:02 +0000

Obviously, just like T. Heinz kerry, I have no crystal ball. However, Seeing as how our constitution has lasted over 200 years, I think declaring that the sky is falling at this point is a little premature.... _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-04 16:56:45 +0000

I give you Warren Buffet (GIOAT, greatest investor of all time) again: "We think America will do pretty well over time."

Posted by G lib on 2004-11-04 17:01:25 +0000

I'm sure that the German constitution lasted WAY longer than 200 years before Hitler came into power. I'm not ready to concede that the sky is not going to fall. ________________ 100% Riot-Schtuffy!

Posted by G lib on 2004-11-04 17:01:25 +0000

I'm sure that the German constitution lasted WAY longer than 200 years before Hitler came into power. I'm not ready to concede that the sky is not going to fall. ________________ 100% Riot-Schtuffy!

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-04 17:02:42 +0000

How do you justify that? I don't see it, unless you think that actually speaking in complete sentences constitutes talking down to people. Are you suggesting that we reward blantent stupidity? You are right, Clinton won because he came from the red states. And he also won because he could communicate well from top to bottom. We are just lucky that he had a brain on his shoulders. Keep in mind that Adams was considered anoying, Jefferson preffered to spend time alone and critics at the time said that Lincoln was a poor orator- they cut the Gettysburg addy to shreds. So what. In this case we have an idiot with poor ethical standards running the show because his is religious, he is from the red states, and the country is scared. Dems should have elected Edwards in the primary I guess. Perhaps we can get Edwards and Obama on a ticket. Of course with Obama's oratory style, he may get accused of talking down to people. And those red state would likely never elect a black man or a woman of any sort.

Posted by rladew on 2004-11-04 17:03:47 +0000

I still really like my Ferris Bueller argument: Jennifer Grey should take Charlie Sheen's advice and spend less time worrying about Ferris and spend more time focusing on herself. _______________________________ “When you’re creating your own shit, man, even the sky ain’t the limit.” Miles Davis

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-04 17:56:32 +0000

I said it before and I'll say it again, we lost the Civil War. I get so annoyed with the South during every election. People from my country, Bluestatia, vote for a candidate based on that candidates actual qualities, as opposed to the people from Redstatia that only vote for their own. I'm tired of having Southern presidents. I'm tired of hearing the pundits say we need to have a Southerner on the ticket to get any votes from that region. Seriously, will we never have a president from the Northeast again? If not, I don't think anyone should take secession as a joke, it's a straight up good idea.

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-04 18:40:52 +0000

Damn straight. WTF else are we going to do? Lets make it a horseshoe then. Dems will take the coasts, down as far as Mason Dixon, connected across the top along the Canadian border, and 'pubs can have the rest. That means the 'pubs will get the great places like Houston, Dallas, Raleigh, Jacksonville and Miami. I'll miss New Orleans, but will be comforted by Chicago, Boston, New York, Seatle, San Francisco and DC. Can we move Latrobe 700 miles south somehow?

Posted by tendiamonds on 2004-11-04 18:48:50 +0000

Don't knock Rock City. It's not so bad, and we get so much more by keeping Michigan (Ann Arbor, Dearborn, UP) than we detract by getting Detroit... Maybe we should move Grand Rapids, though... I'll miss Nashville more than New Orleans.

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-04 19:00:50 +0000

Note, I ammeded Detroit for Latrobe