I voted for the populist, Nader. It's not that I didn't want Kerry to win, I just realized that a single vote isn't worth shit. So I picked the lesser of 3 evils. There was obviously no chance of Ralph winning, but why vote for anyone that's part of a two party system. If i'm not mistaken most of us don't hold the same beliefs as one side or the other entirely. Taking sides isn't going to help ourselves much and it isn't going to fullfill our ideals of where we think this country should be going.
Much thanks to all bipartisan supporters for our divided nation.

toomanyhelicopters wrote:stewie, i have heard from multiple teevee-related sources that bush received the largest number of popular votes in the history of the country. FWIW.

Careful! I'm not sure if I can hold off Bradley's wrath...

bellulah wrote:i think the best way to accomplish that is NOT to change the enitre leadership structure of the country leading the charge over there.

That's right...you can't change horsemen mid-Apocolypse!

The other word(s) for "mandate" out there right now is "political capital." I heard a soundbite from GWB today saying that "this election gave me political capital, and now I'm going to spend it."

The soundbite ended there, so I didn't hear the peal of maniacal laughter and the Burns-like utterance of the word "Eeeeexcelllent" that surely followed such a statement.

Noah wrote:Been played my ass. There is absolutely nothing wrong with voting for someone you don't like. Why would someone like me do that? Well, I voted for Kerry because there are more things at stake than my dignity. I don't want a republican majority in DC. I don't want more oil to come from Alaska. So what if the other guy isn't great? Less damage is better. An acre saved is an acre earned, if you will. In the meantime, shove your thrashing "this is bullshit" argument up the ass. You know quite well you have no chance.

quartermain wrote:Can he memorise the phone book, count toothpicks or perform any other good party tricks?

I could be wrong, but I remember hearing that this is not a requirement for idiot savantism.

-noah

yes, i dont have a chance with spineless conformists like you. and what is the problem with oil from alaska? we could then just write off the middle east and watch the whole thing fall into chaos. and before we could ever use it all, hydrogen cells will be small enough and cheap enough to replace oil. hence a clean enviroment. wow!

empty wrote:yes, i dont have a chance with spineless conformists like you. and what is the problem with oil from alaska? we could then just write off the middle east and watch the whole thing fall into chaos. and before we could ever use it all, hydrogen cells will be small enough and cheap enough to replace oil. hence a clean enviroment. wow!

Come on, empty. A spineless conformist? I have just as much of a spine as anyone. And as much as I wish for someone less conforming than Kerry, this was sort of an election where everyone said "Okay, let's do this. Let's put our differences aside and suffer with Kerry, even if we don't like him." Maybe that seems ugly to you. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Would we be able to write off the Middle East if we drilled in Alaskan wilderness? I'm not sure about that. I have no qualms about cutting off all oil transactions with the Middle East, but rest assured this won't happen if we go into Alaska. Not even close. I'd much rather see some real action taking place. Hydrogen cells are small enough. There already exist cars that run on hydrogen. How about taxing gasoline more? How about tax breaks to hydrogen users? How about it?
But changing the government? Not right now. It is too hard, especially with the other side so willing to unite. We have to work with what we have to do good. I see it happening sooner with a Democrat in office.


-Noah

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

If I hear "mandate" enough, am I supposed to capitulate? [/quote]

No, it's not meant to make you capitulate; it's intended to place
blinders on the Bush faithful. To assure them that all is right with
the world, that no one in their right mind would disagree with them.
This, in turn, allows them to ignore not only criticism, but everything
else in the world that their leader deems unfit for consumption.

Rove, at some point, admitted that it was harder for Kerry,
because he had to deal in facts and Bush didn't.

My favorite part of the election was when Cheney said Kerry wouldnt
know what to do if a nuclear device went off in the U.S.. Would Dick do
anything but stand there and say "Ouch! That's hot!" ?

Noah wrote:

empty wrote:yes, i dont have a chance with spineless conformists like you. and what is the problem with oil from alaska? we could then just write off the middle east and watch the whole thing fall into chaos. and before we could ever use it all, hydrogen cells will be small enough and cheap enough to replace oil. hence a clean enviroment. wow!

Come on, empty. A spineless conformist? I have just as much of a spine as anyone. And as much as I wish for someone less conforming than Kerry, this was sort of an election where everyone said "Okay, let's do this. Let's put our differences aside and suffer with Kerry, even if we don't like him." Maybe that seems ugly to you. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Would we be able to write off the Middle East if we drilled in Alaskan wilderness? I'm not sure about that. I have no qualms about cutting off all oil transactions with the Middle East, but rest assured this won't happen if we go into Alaska. Not even close. I'd much rather see some real action taking place. Hydrogen cells are small enough. There already exist cars that run on hydrogen. How about taxing gasoline more? How about tax breaks to hydrogen users? How about it?
But changing the government? Not right now. It is too hard, especially with the other side so willing to unite. We have to work with what we have to do good. I see it happening sooner with a Democrat in office.


-Noah

or how about pushing companies to start supplying hydrogen at gas stations. the price alone will endear americans to buy it and likewise force oil companies out of our gov't and foreign politics. the oil in alaska has been reported to be from 50 to 500 years worth, 50 years is more than enough to make the change. and the refinery out there now has had only positive impact in the region(a story by nat'l geographic) hey, did you know bush spent 1.8 billion on hydrogen research for this very reason. its starting to sink in, but i'd see it happening sooner with an independent in office.