|
Post by Roughneck on Nov 8, 2004 0:21:27 GMT -5
Amen brother! And even if we can rely on "only four more years," look at what he did in the first four years.
|
|
snizz
Full Member
I'm sure I'd be more upset if I weren't quite so heavily sedated
Posts: 322
|
Post by snizz on Nov 8, 2004 3:35:18 GMT -5
I don't think Jesus is interested in the job. If he was though, would a longhaired, liberal Jew stand any real chance? ;D Not exactly. I'd be way out of line so let's just leave it at-- something like that.
|
|
snizz
Full Member
I'm sure I'd be more upset if I weren't quite so heavily sedated
Posts: 322
|
Post by snizz on Nov 8, 2004 3:43:30 GMT -5
Mr. Shooter, I'm sure not looking to pick any fights, BUT ;D I'm having a hard time here understanding. When a bunch of grown men getting paid way too much frigging money to play a kids game go and lose some games, even though whether they win or lose means nothing because it effects nothing, you consider that a devastating blow? Like the loss of a pet? But you view the outcome of an election that has a big impact on the lives of everyone, everywhere, not just in this country, as a casual oh well thems the breaks? I have some bones to pick with a lot you said, but since that one's between you and Roland, I'll just shut up. For now But your Democrat-Republican party line crap don't sit well here. What about the other third of us that make up the population that have no party affiliation? If what you meant by you being in some majority is because you're a conservative Republican, well your not in any majority except at government level in DC. You're one of only roughly one third of your fellow Americans. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I don't belong to any party. But I consider myself a liberal. I looked up liberal in the dictionary and this is the definition. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.I looked up conservative and this is the definition. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.Looking at both definitions, I'm damn happy I'm a liberal. If things never changed, we'd still have slavery, only white male landowners would be allowed to vote and have a say in our government, employers would still be screwing their employees for little or no pay, there'd be no equal rights for women and minorities, 18 year old men would still be sent off to fight and die in wars without being allowed to vote for the people sending them, there'd be no safety net for people who've fallen on bad times to help them get through until they got back on their feet. That's just for starters. All those things were "traditional views and values" at one time. It's been new ideas, reform and change that's strengthened the Constitution and made this country a better place. So I'm failing to see why "liberal" has become a dirty word. If you'd like to explain that one, I'm all eyes. ;D
|
|
snizz
Full Member
I'm sure I'd be more upset if I weren't quite so heavily sedated
Posts: 322
|
Post by snizz on Nov 8, 2004 3:44:57 GMT -5
Maybe the answer isn't surviving, but winning. Take This Country Back. You say you want a revolution? ;D Sounds like it could be fun. Doubt I could get into the old cammies anymore though. ;D Eh, honestly I don't know if it's even worth it anymore, man. Over the last decade these extremist whackjobs have put this place right in the frigging toilet and it's just waiting for someone to flush. How many times can you pull yourself up by the bootstraps before you just say fu-ck it, you know?
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Nov 8, 2004 7:58:08 GMT -5
employers would still be screwing their employees for little or no pay, What do you mean would still be? Seriously yeah, I'm still gloating over the Yankee collapse because it's about all there is to smile about right now for this Met fan. BUT, if given the choice to pick, I'd take the next ten years of Yankee Champs and Mets in last to have gotten Bush out of office. Which is more important? I had my fun needling the Yankee fans over it, but this one, I wouldn't have made fun of the Bush voters (well, maybe some of them ) because I knew that both sides truly viewed the other as flat out wrong and bad for this country, but clearly the election was FAR more important.
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Nov 8, 2004 15:25:28 GMT -5
If he was though, would a longhaired, liberal Jew stand any real chance? ;D Interesting point, I hadn't thought of that. It's ok, I understand perfectly Snizz. She was so full of passion about all this, I thought it was strange that she hadn't piped up. I hope whatever it may be is temporary and she'll be back here. If you're in touch with her, please give her my best.
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Nov 8, 2004 15:38:11 GMT -5
Roland, I know more than a few "intelligent" people who voted for Bush (including bright partners at my law firm and a number of sophisticated clients)... So do I Mr. Shooter, but it doesn't make them any less "dumb" in my eyes. If you put your hand over a hot flame and get burned, are you going to do it again? If you do, is it not dumb? One woman I know holds a doctorate in child pyschology and she voted for Bush. Her reason? She didn't want Kerry to win so Hillary could run and win in '08. I would venture a guess that the majority of this slim majority who voted Bush back in are the very same people who've attacked anyone who's dared to disagree with the way Bush has run this country for the past 4 years as being unpatriotic and un-American, demanding they shut up or get out. Since the Constitution protects their right to voice that opinion, I'm sure it protects my right to return the favor and call it as I see them, "dumb". A large portion of the Patriot Act has already undermined America as we know it. Court after court has ruled that those portions are unconstitutional, yet the Bush administration has repeatedly chosen to disregard those rulings. No one is stopping him and he's is planning on broadening it.You don't see a threat in this? You also haven't commented on any of the other things I noted on his agenda that he's planning to do. If he accomplishes any or all of them, how can you say America as we know it, or knew it, will still exist? You have the liberty to decide for yourself. We still have freedom of thought. And why do "we have so many outsiders who have great fun denigrating this country and its people"? When you were a child, wasn't it viewed that your behavior was reflection on the rest of your family? When you were a teacher, wasn't your conduct looked at as a reflection of the school and the school district? You're now a lawyer. As a representative of that firm, don't they view your conduct and work ethic as a reflection on them? Bush is the leader of this country, and like it or not his actions and policies are viewed as a reflection of America and it's people. That's just the way it is. Always was, always will be. Yes it has been, with the words and actions of "pre-emptive war". No other president before him has waged one, and all those that follow may be able to temper it at best, but the genie has been released from the lamp and there's no going back. That is how this country will be viewed from now on, as an aggressor, and Iraq is now a monumental defining moment in this country's history. Mr. Shooter, all those men may belong to the Republican party, but they are seen as "liberal" Republicans. Why do you think they were paraded out for the cameras at the GOP convention instead of their Republican "superstars" like Tom DeLay or Alan Keyes? Why do you think "liberal Democratic" states like New York and California have no problem electing Republicans like Giuliani and Schwarzennager? Because their views are really no different from the Democrats'. If I'm not mistaken, weren't Giuliani and Bloomberg originally Democrats and after the 2000 election, didn't McCain seriously contemplate leaving the GOP party? No offense to you Mr. Shooter, but it's precisely that attitude as to why the "cultural divide" will only widen. Mr. Shooter, it's called life experience. Live and learn. I don't know how old you are. Newlywed and talking about starting a family down the road, my guess is you're in your late 20s to early 30s. Unless you were an adult during daddy Bush's administration, I'm afraid it's probably something you can't understand. This country had lived through worse recessions before, but that one was different. When previous recessions hit, people lived within their means and for the most part just tightened their belts and managed to ride out the storm with little permanent damage. Reagan ushered in the era of mass consumption and too many people were dazzled and lived far beyond their means, on credit. When the effects of Reaganomics kicked in and the bottom fell out of the economy, it plunged millions of people into debts they couldn't repay. That in turn trickled down to the people who had continued to live within their means. Corporate mergers and downsizing were the order of the day and no one's job was safe or spared. Interest rates soared, personal bankruptcies and foreclosures reached historic proportion. Millions of people lost everything and millions upon millions more were barely hanging on. Although minor in comparision, we'd gotten a small taste of and appreciated what our grandparents endured during the Great Depression. What FDR was to that generation, Clinton was to us. Since this Bush has been in office, we've returned to that frightening place. The millionaires that were made during the dotcom years are now penniless after the bottom fell out. As for the rest of us, instead of corporate downsizing, the new word is outsourcing. Despite actual dollar increases, the reality is that Americans have been losing salary instead of making gains. The cost of living has outpaced salary increases by a wide margin. The salary gap between company executives and their employees has widened dramatically. Mr. Shooter, from the sound of things you seem to be well off and are doing fine. I don't begrudge that to you or anyone else who is, I'm happy for you. But on that point, you are in the minority. Look past your fence and there's millions upon millions of people who are falling over the edge or are barely hanging on. There's been a profound sense of hopelessness over the past 4 years. What both FDR and Clinton were back then was hope for a new beginning and they lifted people out of hopelessness and got the American people back on their feet. What Kerry represented to many of us who lived through the early 90s was hope. The hope that he'd do for us what FDR and Clinton did. We've lost that hope and it's a profound sense of loss. Instead we've got 4 more years of the same and with Iraq in the picture indefinitely, perhaps worse. The reality is that too many of us just aren't going to make it through another 4 years of status quo. I can only wonder how important gay marriage, the fear of terrorists or democracy in the Mid-east will be to these people after they've lost their jobs, their homes and their healthcare.
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Nov 8, 2004 20:05:03 GMT -5
Here's the average IQ by state according to the Ravens APM This comparison is drawn by an individual whom does not vote for 2 reasons: 1. The majority votes does not ensure a presidency. 2. The elector does not by law have to vote for majority only 2 of the 50 states have laws forcing this.
As a result, I do not bitch either way. It seems pointless to vote for something that only amounts to a suggestion in the end.
It is interesting when the slower half of the country moves the more intelligent half.
Draw your own conclusions about education vs. votes
AVG IQ AVG Income '04 Electoral (1) Connecticut..................113 $26,979 Kerry (2) Massachusetts................111 $24,059 Kerry (3) New Jersey...................111 $26,457 Kerry (4) New York.....................109 $23,534 Kerry (5) Rhode Island.................107 $20,299 Kerry (6) Hawaii.......................106 $21,218 Kerry (7) Maryland.....................105 $22,974 Kerry (8) New Hampshire................105 $22,934 Kerry (9) Illinois.....................104 $21,608 Kerry (10) Delaware....................103 $21,451 Kerry (11) Minnesota...................102 $20,049 Kerry (12) Vermont.....................102 $18,834 Kerry (13) Washington..................102 $20,398 Kerry (14) California..................101 $21,278 Kerry (15) Pennsylvania................101 $20,253 Kerry (16) Maine.......................100 $18,226 Kerry (17) Wisconsin...................100 $18,727 Kerry (18) Virginia....................100 $20,629 Bush (19) Iowa.........................99 $18,287 Kerry (20) Oregon.......................99 $18,202 Kerry (21) Colorado.....................99 $20,124 Bush (22) Michigan.....................99 $19,508 Bush (23) Nevada.......................99 $20,266 Bush (24) Ohio.........................99 $18,624 Bush (25) Alaska.......................98 $21,603 Bush (26) Florida......................98 $19,397 Bush (27) Missouri.....................98 $18,835 Bush (28) Kansas.......................96 $19,376 Bush (29) Nebraska.....................95 $19,084 Bush (30) Arizona......................94 $17,119 Bush (31) Indiana......................94 $18,043 Bush (32) Tennessee....................94 $17,341 Bush (33) North Carolina...............93 $17,667 Bush (34) West Virginia................93 $15,065 Bush (35) Arkansas.....................92 $15,439 Bush (36) Georgia......................92 $18,130 Bush (37) Kentucky.....................92 $16,534 Bush (38) New Mexico...................92 $15,353 Bush (39) North Dakota.................92 $16,854 Bush (40) Texas........................92 $17,892 Bush (41) Alabama......................90 $16,220 Bush (42) Louisiana....................90 $15,712 Bush (43) Montana......................90 $16,062 Bush (44) Oklahoma.....................90 $16,198 Bush (45) South Dakota.................90 $16,558 Bush (46) South Carolina...............89 $15,989 Bush (47) Wyoming......................89 $17,423 Bush (48) Idaho........................87 $16,067 Bush (49) Utah.........................87 $15,325 Bush (50) Mississippi..................85 $14,088 Bush
Bush..... IQ: 91 Kerry.... IQ: 128
* Retarded is considered 75-85.
|
|
|
Post by Mr._Shooter on Nov 8, 2004 22:17:28 GMT -5
I have a lot to respond to and neither the time nor the inclination to do so at this point. I will respond in due course, since I guess I have an obligation to do so now that everyone has identified me as someone who should be foaming at the mouth but inexplicably (and stupidly) isn't.
I will say that the notion that I am well-to-do and therefore lack sympathy for, or am otherwise unable to understand the cause of those who have been marginalized under the first Dubyah administration, isn't fair. I would be offended by this notion under normal circumstances, but I realize that no one here actually realizes where my wife and I have been in life, where our families have been, what our backgrounds are, and what our dinner table conversations revolve around. And so I really can't take offense, because I know, among other things, that only my wife and I know the truth...and I can take solace in the fact that, unlike millions of my fellow Americans, I won't be labeled "dumb" on this board because I at least didn't vote for Bush this time around.
|
|
|
Post by SanAntonioMike on Nov 8, 2004 23:31:32 GMT -5
Mr. Shooter, you are not dumb, and I hope you don't take Roland's conversation as anything more than just that -- conversation. I think he's just answering you, not being insulting. Everyone's trying to solidify their stand, that's all.
Roland, this one got me: One woman I know holds a doctorate in child pyschology and she voted for Bush. Her reason? She didn't want Kerry to win so Hillary could run and win in '08. Is this woman mental? Um, if Kerry had won this time, then HE would have had the Dem nomination in 2008 as the INCUMBENT. By putting Bush back in office, she's practically handed Hillary the 2008 nomination (unless they go with John Edwards).
I think people don't think anymore. In fact, looking at these results and the "reasons" given for the results, I think "thinking" has become a pasttime that a large number of Americans just don't go out for anymore. Between "morality" and "safety," neither of which I'm at all sure Bush delivers to anyone, I found I couldn't argue rationally with any Bush supporter.
Gay people are right to be hurt by this. Their fellow countrymen are happily legalizing bigotry and intolerance of them without even considering it AS bigotry. Phrase it like this: "Do you want the Congress to tell YOU who you're allowed to marry?" Don't say anything about "gay," and see where it goes. Folks fear the unknown, but that unknown it getting more and more known. Another generation coming up who'll want it explained to them why "Dory" isn't allowed to marry the person she loves.
Anyway, don't anyone get upset about anything here. This is one of the most civilized discussions I've seen on the topic thus far (LiveJournal gets nasty).
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Nov 9, 2004 10:45:07 GMT -5
Roland, this one got me: One woman I know holds a doctorate in child pyschology and she voted for Bush. Her reason? She didn't want Kerry to win so Hillary could run and win in '08. Is this woman mental? Um, if Kerry had won this time, then HE would have had the Dem nomination in 2008 as the INCUMBENT. By putting Bush back in office, she's practically handed Hillary the 2008 nomination (unless they go with John Edwards). No, I get this. What she meant was that she voted for Bush in order to clear the way for Hillary to run in 2008. The sentence is poorly worded however. And while now we have to deal with him like it or not, I'm sorry, but I feel Bush is too dangerous to give another four years to simply so that Hillary can run in 2008.
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Nov 9, 2004 11:01:50 GMT -5
Maybe we did come down a little hard, but the rest of us really are pissed off and seeing red about this. Folks at work are tired of hearing me on it, and Bush has no fans there. No, I don't know what your background is, but you never struck me as being from the upper 1%. I'm aware that not all lawyers live in mansions and eat caviar regularly and drive Navigators. Some drive Escorts and live in apartments and eat Raman noodles. I think it's also that a lot of us even offline tend to associate with folks frothing at the mouth, and even the Bush folks we know are passionatly Bush, that it really does strike us as odd that someone could just not care about the election results, whether they are elated that Bush won or enraged that Kerry lost.
Although I do think the whole blue state red state thing has gotten way out of hand. The maps (and the Electoral College) should be scrapped. One pundit even said burn all the red and blue maps. They tend to turn things into us and them. We see it as ALL Georgians voted for Bush, but when the post election call ins came to CNN, several Georgians were enraged. Hell, it was a Georgian who killed himself at Ground Zero. Not all Texans voted for Bush-SAM can atest to that-and not all Massacheusettans voted for Kerry. I don't think any state was won by with more than 59%. One article I saw went to a home in Ohio...redneck central. Drinking beer in the morning, no books, watching Jerry Springer...the picture of a stereotypical Bush voter, but they railed against him. Not all New Yorkers voted Kerry either, but the map gives the impression that EVERYONE in the northeast did and that EVERYONE in the heartland voted Bush. It also might be nice to actually make all votes count. Let's face it, if I lived in Montana, I might have stayed home, cause it would have been a forgone conclusion who would win it. Why take the time out of my day? But those maps I think definitely cause much of the discord.
But one thing, I wouldn't kid ourselves. This is an amicable disagreement because Bush has absolutely no fans here. We're lucky in that the cards just fell that way when we came togther. We all agree there. If we had some regular Republican members here, it'd be a warzone-if it wouldn't have been for months already.
|
|
|
Post by Travelinman on Nov 9, 2004 13:01:26 GMT -5
Well hello Mr. Shooter I hope you and your wife are doing well. I see your making friends. Oh and by the way about your Yankees......I'm so......sorry......NOT. ;D;D;DOh I needed that.
As for Rudy.......the conservative republican base I don't think will even give him a second look. Did you forget him parading his little BIMBO around while he was still married. I mean if they gave Bill all that trouble, then Rudy would probably get the same. Although he is republican so they would let it go. (Look how mad they all got with Newt) ;D
John McCain.........in 2000 he was my choice........I'm still trying to figure Bush over McCain, no matter. I was very flip floppy this past year with McCain, first he would step forward and defend Kerry, and then in the next moment be right there with Bush. Now I know he has thoughts of 2008 dancing in his head and he would like the support of the party, but I think he gave away a bit of his soul this time out. I watched him in a interview on Today. He was asked very direct questions about Social Security and the dipping into it that has been going on. He was asked why the politicians did not stop it and guess what, he did not have an answer.
I'll have to wait until 2007 before I can even give any thought to it.
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Nov 9, 2004 16:57:37 GMT -5
I think it was a novel concept in this election cycle that he even did defend Kerry. Look at Dole...a fellow veteran, a fellow purple heart recipient, who has left public service and so has no stake in an election, doesn't have to worry about some faction in the party trying to run him out of town, as Spectre is going to now. He went on the attack for the Bushies, and then later had the nerve to call Kerry his friend. I think McCain knows his seat is secure, and so can get away with it, but just the fact that he wasn't in lockstep with the rest of the party in demonizing Kerry, and said that "he would make a fine President," isn't that the way it used to be done? The other guy would be ok, but I'd be better. That the other guy wasn't Satan.
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Nov 9, 2004 23:28:05 GMT -5
I have a lot to respond to and neither the time nor the inclination to do so at this point. I will respond in due course, since I guess I have an obligation to do so now that everyone has identified me as someone who should be foaming at the mouth but inexplicably (and stupidly) isn't. Mr Shooter, I'll assume this is directed at me. You are not "obligated" to respond. I apologize if you were offended by my responses, but I will admit I was irritated by being taken to task by you for a couple of sarcastic remarks I made that were not directed at you, but were meant in a general nature. In my last responses, I was short on time and was perhaps a bit too direct or abrupt. However, I did take great exception to several of the comments you'd made, but it was not my intention to offend you. You've been giving off some very mixed signals and I was simply looking for clarification on some of your points and trying to further clarify my own. In hindsight, I suppose I should have waited to respond until I had more time. Again, I apologize. This is not what I said or insinuated. My words were "well off" meaning "better off," not "well-to-do" as in "privileged" or "rich". No, I don't know your circumstances beyond what we've had conversations about on this forum. You recently returned from an anniversary cruise to the Bahamas. That's not to say you are "well-to-do," but you are "better off" than someone who has to sacrifice getting a prescription filled in order to buy groceries, isn't it? That was all I was saying and all that was meant. As for the second part of your statement, all I asked was whether or not you were an adult during those years. I did not insinuate you lack empathy if you weren't. I simply suggested you might have a better understanding of what you seem to view as an exaggerated reaction to this election if you were among those who were struggling to survive during that period in time. It goes along the lines of not really knowing what someone's been through unless you've walked a mile in their shoes. That is precisely the point Mr. Shooter. All I have to go by are the conversations on this forum and going by those conversations, most of the other people here I've had the privilege to converse with have, at one time or another, mentioned not being able to afford medications or other things. You've never mentioned things like that, but you do talk about things you do and places you go with your wife, so that leaves me with the assumption that you're doing better than other people and nothing more than that was meant by it. As I said, I was rushed for time and if I didn't express myself clearly enough, again I apologize. But you've read far more into what was said and misunderstand what was meant. I'm sorry you took such great offense to that remark, but on that count, I think you're overreacting. I like to think of myself as an intelligent person Mr. Shooter, but that doesn't mean I haven't done some dumb things in my life. I think we all have. Given the facts and actions surrounding Bush and his administration, I'm sorry but my point of view is that 59 million people did do a very dumb thing. My only intention was to defend my viewpoint, not to offend you. If I did so in the process, then I apologize for that. I will also take it that my "probie" status has undoubtedly come to an end.
|
|