A MUST SEE.....for Kerry voters!!!!
POSTED BY: Anarko
UPDATED: Friday, January 7, 2005 00:13
VIEWED: 9417
PAGE 1 of 3
It is important to reach out to Kerry voters after the election and give them an important message...
http://69.93.61.74/~newsfly/media/afterelection.htm
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wonder how much he'll be laughing when the total number of deaths caused by the Iraq war are known, or when the deficit grows even larger in 2008 because of further tax-cuts. When he is arrested because of the Patriot Act, etc.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
/SHRUG--I'm over it and looking towards 2008. I think Bush realizes he is working towards a legacy and can't pull the BS he did his first term. I voted for Bush (Gullible as hell..didn't know it in 2000, but know it now..) in 2000..I voted for Badnarik in 2004. I don't know how anyone voted for Kerry(a complete corporate/Hollywood suckass )except for those folks who didn't want Bush and wanted their vote to mean something if anything. Personally, I'd love to see both the Dems and Repubs removed from the political system.
I really can't tell the difference between the 2 parties anyhow. The more I look at it..the more I realize, the only thing that matters to politicians in Washington is the almighty dollar. If they could make bigger money walking hand in hand..they would.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I listened to the whole thing and I kept thinking he might have something intelligent to say, but like pretty much all of the Republican outreach I've heard, intelligence is an alien concept.
Fear and ignorance is an effective way to rule, Karl Rove has shown just how effective, but I'm not sure I could be so gleeful in succeeding that way. I wonder what they think they've won?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I wonder what they think they've won?
Duh, four more year!
http://www.georgewbush.com/
The United States of Bush
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apparently my question was too subtle. Sorry.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn
I think Bush realizes he is working towards a legacy and can't pull the BS he did his first term.
...
I sincerely hope you're right. However, I can't help flashing back to 2000 and me telling my girlfriend , "It's not that bad. How much could Bush do in four years anyway?"
In regards to the video link... I don't really have much to say. I gave it a try, at least until I got halfway through and assumed that it was just going to be redundant laughter for the last three minutes. It didn't do much for me (I am in the target demographic
). Although it did fit under my political-fallacy category of "Viewing Political Parties as Sporting Teams - My Team Wins, Your Team Loses, That's All That Matters".As a liberal independent I'm still trying to figure out how to interpret this election. This past Monday the electors voted and the numbers are all totaled so I've finally gotten around to analyzing the results. There are a couple of things that pop out at me: the poor showing of third party candidates and the population density/geographic area divide.
It's hard for me to do any type of comparison with elections before 1996 since I get all my data off the web. I did look at the Pacific region (Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, and California) for the past three elections on a county by county basis (except for Alaska, which doesn't break down the numbers like that and excluding Washington for 1996 since I couldn't find those numbers - in other words, the analysis is very slipshod
). One thing that stood out was the drastic decline in support for third party candidates. I don't know if 1996 was an anomaly with Perot and Nader but a non-trival percentage of the popular vote (between 5 and 20 percent for most counties) went to third party candidates. This dropped in 2000 but was still a healthy percentage. This year, third party support was positively anemic. It was very disappointing to see those numbers (My personal belief is that we would be better off with no national political parties but instead large numbers of regional political parties working in coalitions on the national level). I hope that we've bottomed out and that third party support will rise in the future but with the electoral system set up the way it is there's really no way a third party candidate can be elected to a national office (just my opinion).The second thing that jumped out at me was the county map of the US. The red-blue picture is very impressive. That's a whole lotta red. Granted, many of those counties that voted red are large in area with sparse population, but that's still a lot of red. I personally prefer some of the other variations that also vary the size of the county by the population (such as some of the maps found at http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/ or http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/ ). My personal favorite is this map:
And I found it humerous to click through the selections at the following site: http://www.topalli.com/blue/intro.html (you'll have to wade through some juvenile partisan name calling and the sporting section on baseball and football champions isn't fair at all when you think about where the majority of teams are located).
But at the end of the day... that's a whole lotta red.
There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn
I think Bush realizes he is working towards a legacy and can't pull the BS he did his first term.
...
I sincerely hope you're right. However, I can't help flashing back to 2000 and me telling my girlfriend , "It's not that bad. How much could Bush do in four years anyway?"
In regards to the video link... I don't really have much to say. I gave it a try, at least until I got halfway through and assumed that it was just going to be redundant laughter for the last three minutes. It didn't do much for me (I am in the target demographic
As a liberal independent I'm still trying to figure out how to interpret this election. This past Monday the electors voted and the numbers are all totaled so I've finally gotten around to analyzing the results. There are a couple of things that pop out at me: the poor showing of third party candidates and the population density/geographic area divide.
It's hard for me to do any type of comparison with elections before 1996 since I get all my data off the web. I did look at the Pacific region (Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, and California) for the past three elections on a county by county basis (except for Alaska, which doesn't break down the numbers like that and excluding Washington for 1996 since I couldn't find those numbers - in other words, the analysis is very slipshod
The second thing that jumped out at me was the county map of the US. The red-blue picture is very impressive. That's a whole lotta red. Granted, many of those counties that voted red are large in area with sparse population, but that's still a lot of red. I personally prefer some of the other variations that also vary the size of the county by the population (such as some of the maps found at http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/ or http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/ ). My personal favorite is this map:
And I found it humerous to click through the selections at the following site: http://www.topalli.com/blue/intro.html (you'll have to wade through some juvenile partisan name calling and the sporting section on baseball and football champions isn't fair at all when you think about where the majority of teams are located).
But at the end of the day... that's a whole lotta red.
There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.
Well..there is ALOT Bush could do in the next 4 years, but he's going to be hard pressed to push anything as bold as he did in 2003. 9/11 emotions blinded many of us (myself included..a moderate conservative), allowing old Rummy to push forward his agenda with Bush going along because he trusted him. They sold Iraq on a series of "Lies", some of which are blatantly obvious now..rather then using truth as a means to an end. Now those of us who feel misled..will be more leery to trust anything in regards to mil
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarko:Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I wonder what they think they've won?
Duh, four more year!
http://www.georgewbush.com/
The United States of Bush
I'm a conservative and I'm pretty damn skeptical about this map LOL. No offense, but I know a couple dems who could create something in blue as easily in photoshop ;)
Our population is over 200 million people. Of those only 105 million voted and of those 105 million 51% voted for Bush..of those 51% not all were "RED" voters..they were anti-Kerry voters. It just seems alil too specious and overzealous(maybe even a little bit pompous if you will hehe), to try and declare counties as "Republican" or "Democratic"..particularly when there are more political affiliations then what are shown on this map.
PS.. This is written by Connor_flynn, I just realized I was posting while my wife was still logged in. She's far better looking and smarter then me LOL. Please don't hold my comments against her.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The most accurate map I saw was a cartograph (Expandings areas of large populaiton, shrinking areas of smaller population) by county of the PERCENT of voters who voted one way or another. (If the percentage was near 50% it was purple). What I saw was a whole lot of purple and SOME areas of read and SOME area of blue.
Besides... and I know I'm going to take flak for this- Bush didn't win. I think he stole the election again. There are some pretty compelling statistical irregularities out there in the e-votes in "contested" counties. Unfortunately, since the Diebold machines leave no paper trail, it's extremely difficult to verify the vote. It seems we care more about our ATMs than we do about our vote.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME