angry planet wrote:He readily lies: you mean like the repeated stupid lie about the upcoming draft from the Kerry campaign?

I know of a fifty-five-year-old Vietnam veteran retired cop with arthritis, who is deaf in one ear. He still had some small amount of un-served National Guard reserve service in his background. He hadn't served it partly because he failed his last physical. He has been called up, and is now headed to Iraq. A half-deaf, arthritic retiree. That's how desperate we are for troops. If this occupation carries on long enough to have a result, however horrific, it will need a lot more grunts.

I think it is entirely realistic that a draft may be instituted, because there aren't that many half-deaf, arthritic retired cops who still owe us a couple months. And while the Democrats (Rangel, if memory serves) highlighted the issue, since we are already telling servicemen that they may not leave once they have served their committment (they call it a stop-loss), it is one the administration will have to confront. They must have made provisions for it already, or they are inept and underprepared. You don't think they're inept and underprepared, do you?

Or Kerry's lie about Bush's 'secret' plans that would take place after the first oft he year? Or Kerry's lie about meeting with the entire UN security council before the war?

Do you know what Bush's plans for after the first of the year are? No, nobody does, because they're secret. While I don't know what you're talking about here, the statement that "Bush has secret plans for after the first of the year" is plainly true. And I'd wager that Kerry has, over the course of his career, met with and discussed policy with more international leaders than our president -- I can't even make myself capitalize that motherfucker.

He plants false stories: you mean like ultra-liberal Dan Rather and his false documents?

That was (apparently) a true story supported by phony documents. And besides -- Dan Rather doesn't work for the government, and his mistakes are exposed to the full scrutiny of anyone who disagrees with him. Not so the secretive troll Rove.

He exploits intolerance and obfuscates by painting those who disagree as heathens: like everyone on this board who paints those who disagree as ignorant NASCAR-watchers?

Yeah, just like that. Except he plants flyers on windshields in Southern states decrying Bush's opponent's "secret black baby." And while we type on an internet message board, he works for the motherfucking president.

I was really looking forward to this election because I thought at the very least that four years of infantile whining from the left would come to an end. I was wrong.

So, you've decided to start whining yourself. Bravo.

SixOhSix47 wrote:I didn't think it was the end of the discussion; I'm asking for numbers. Can you find some to demonstrate what you're arguing?

I saw some side-by-side 2000 to 2004 numbers, but I was too hungover on Wednesday to remember them and I haven't had the time to hunt them down again this afternoon.

i've been scouring the net for a transcript of the show i was referencing, to no avail. but HERE is a link to a realaudio show snippet where the president of Pew Research talks about the results of the election and says just about the same thing the guy i was paraphrasing said... it shouldn't be attributed to evangelicals, it was other folks, it was women, it was the elderly... i've also seen sites that specifically mention how kerry lost a bit of the hispanic vote. hopefully the episode of Chicago Tonight that i was referencing will pop up on the net at some point.

There's intelligent conversation happening here, and I'm sorry to interrupt. But someone was talking earlier about wishing the people that start wars would be forced to suffer the consequences of war, and it got me thinking. There was a story a month or so ago where a zoo worker near Chicago accidentally wandered into the lion cage when the lions were in the cage, which is a no-no. In seconds, one or two lions jumped on her and chewed her up.

I thought, now, there's a way to learn from your mistakes: you make a mistake, you're ripped apart by a pair of lions. I thought of Bush getting attacked by a pair of lions during his "mission accomplished" speech. Call me a bloodthirsty hypocrite, but I like that thought.

unarmed man wrote:aside from occasionally discussing what states might contain the marriage amendment and how this might affect voter turnout, i never heard the topic discussed. and when i did, it was very brief and in passing.

Earlier in the year, Bush was asking for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. That's a huge deal, everyone was talking about it. It was all over the news. I don't operate in morally conservative circles, but I expect it was a huge deal in morally conservative circles - probably a huger deal than in the morally lax circles I operate in. It was headline news when Massachusetts & SF and wherever it was in Oregon gave it the OK - headline news all over the nation, for weeks. 12 (or 13?) states passed constitutional amendments making marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. It's a huge deal, it's been all over the news, off an on, for a long time now. Everyone's been talking about it. If all those states had marriage amendments, it means people were talking about it.

Unarmed man, please let me tell you that I am thrilled that you read this board, and that you state your opinions when such a huge percentage of people here disagree with you. If you weren't around, the political dialogue here would be about an eighth as interesting as it is. Thanks for sticking around. Watch out for the lions.

Here is what I took out of watching this election:

If you Democrats want to blame someone for losing this election, look no further than your mirrors. There are several Democrats in the Senate that would have made fantastic candidates (Gephardt and Leiberman come to mind first) that would have probably CRUSHED Bush. But you turned them away in favor of the psychotic shrieking of Howard Dean and Kerry, and man who couldn't keep a coherent position on any issue for two consecutive days, had such a dismal record in the Senate that even HE didn't mention it until the final couple weeks, and under oath falsely accused our troops of war crimes and even met with enemy leaders during wartime. Excellent choice for command-in-chief, folks. Shit, even Democrats had less than a 35 percent favorable rating of him.

Republicans didn't force the Democratic base (minorities, unions and women) to vote Republican in record numbers. The democrats did this to themselves.

If you don't want a repeat in 2008, don't spend the next four years bitching and moaning like the last four, and instead work on reorganizing your party to bring back the base that has started to abandon you, and start working for electable candidates.

There are several Democrats in the Senate that would have made fantastic candidates (Gephardt and Leiberman come to mind first) that would have probably CRUSHED Bush.

i can't believe i'm actually going to respond to someone who thinks joe lieberman could've been president of the united states

but here goes

But you turned them away in favor of the psychotic shrieking of Howard Dean and Kerry

what on earth are you talking about? the dean howl killed him in the primary. who else shrieked? jesus, get your facts straight.

and man who couldn't keep a coherent position on any issue for two consecutive days, had such a dismal record in the Senate that even HE didn't mention it until the final couple weeks, and under oath falsely accused our troops of war crimes and even met with enemy leaders during wartime. Excellent choice for command-in-chief, folks. Shit, even Democrats had less than a 35 percent favorable rating of him.

again, get your facts straight. literally every point you just made is bullshit. isn't it enough that gwb won? you don't need to create a caricature of his opponent any more. y'all already did that, to great effect.

Republicans didn't force the Democratic base (minorities, unions and women) to vote Republican in record numbers. The democrats did this to themselves.

you are ignorant. the democratic base voted for kerry in record numbers. the republican base voted FOR BUSH in record numbers. he pulled off a few dems due to terror/iraq/what have you, but there was nothing 'record' about his pull of democrats.

If you don't want a repeat in 2008, don't spend the next four years bitching and moaning like the last four, and instead work on reorganizing your party to bring back the base that has started to abandon you, and start working for electable candidates.

started to abandon us....look, we had eight years of clinton, came w/in a few hundred votes (or one, depending on who you believe) of having at least one gore term. you guys changed the national dynamic by getting maybe 4mil evangelicals and other religious types to enter the fray and vote for your guy. congratulations. maybe it means you represent the majority of the country. maybe it just means you changed the game a little bit.

electable--52/47 nationwide is what it is. no better no worse. you've got a president in wartime who came within a couple percent of ohio's vote of getting bounced. he had more raw votes cast against him than any incumbent president in history. 86% of the people hardest hit by 9/11 (new yorkers) voted kerry. 82% of chicagoans voted kerry. we'll see you next time around. it should be interesting.

ok.. I'll play along.

i can't believe i'm actually going to respond to someone who thinks joe lieberman could've been president of the united states

Actually, that is a side point I didn't want to get into... I do believe he would have been a fantastic candidate and would have been very electable if he was any other religion. I don't think he could ever be president. I just over-simplified my description for that argument.

what on earth are you talking about? the dean howl killed him in the primary. who else shrieked? jesus, get your facts straight.

My facts are straight... my typing isn't. The next two words should have been "a man" not "and man". The point is that only two candidates lead the party in this entire process. Those two. Dean was shrieking well before the event you are talking about, and my description of Kerry is accurate.

you are ignorant. the democratic base voted for kerry in record numbers. the republican base voted FOR BUSH in record numbers. he pulled off a few dems due to terror/iraq/what have you, but there was nothing 'record' about his pull of democrats.

I will ignore your childish 'ignorant' remark, and point out that Hispanics voted Republican at twice the rate of four years ago, unions voted Republican at an unheard-of 38 percent, and the percentage for women was 3 or 4 percent higher than four years ago as well. The democractic base IS abandoning the party regardless of your name calling.

86% of the people hardest hit by 9/11 (new yorkers) voted kerry. 82% of chicagoans voted kerry.

How on Earth is this relevant? You expect the rest of the united states to be governed by these two minute subgroups? Heck of a democracy.

And you still haven't answered the main point: even Democrats had a less than 35 percent favorable rating for their candidate. I think it says a lot about the party that they would foist such a candidate on us.

we'll see you next time around. it should be interesting.

Me? Is this really that personal to you? This is not about "me" and "you". This is about how the Democratic party let us ALL down and how this misfocused anger (at Karl Rove, NASCAR, me and anyone who has a different opinion than you) doesn't help, and may actually be partially responsible for the choices the party made.

Can I just take a minute and share this fantastic experience that I had on Nov. 3? Got home after work, and there was a documentary on Stanley Kubrickstarting on Showtime. I watched the whole thing, and let me tell you, never have I been so uplifted.

It made me realize just how down I allowed myself to get over the past four years. It also made me realize that there's no point in repeating this over the next four years - regarding politics, work, etc.

It was a singularly incredible recharge of my batteries like I haven't experienced in a long time. It illustrated to me that time, focus, and passion are all you need. Of course I won't know all of the answers, or know what is right until it is found. Of course I'll question and requestion myself. Yet, if I believe in what I do, and do it without compromisin my standards, all the rest is just noise.

True to this sentiment, as the credits rolled and I processed this story that I had just received, the noise and damage of the previous day, the previous weeks and months were just rolled off - application of filter, flicking the grounding switch, shutting down the weak link in the audio chain - choose your own appropriate metaphor.

When I was done with this inital surge of experience, I got off of the couch.

And felt good, nay - invigored, about myself and about it all.

And still feel good now.

Earlier in the year, Bush was asking for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. That's a huge deal, everyone was talking about it. It was all over the news. I don't operate in morally conservative circles, but I expect it was a huge deal in morally conservative circles - probably a huger deal than in the morally lax circles I operate in. It was headline news when Massachusetts & SF and wherever it was in Oregon gave it the OK - headline news all over the nation, for weeks. 12 (or 13?) states passed constitutional amendments making marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. It's a huge deal, it's been all over the news, off an on, for a long time now. Everyone's been talking about it. If all those states had marriage amendments, it means people were talking about it.

now i do understand that part of the story, which took place around feb-march '04. but what you also need to remember in this story is that before bush's support of the amendment, the mass. supreme court and (i believe) the mayor of san fransisco that started the ball rolling. i've heard many people dispute that bush & rove concocted this marriage amendment to fire up the base, drive a wedge in the electorate, etc. Personally i think that bush's support of the amendment was to allow the debate to take place by elected govt officials - not appointed judges. At least to me that represents how the system should work. On a side note, he dropped that amendment sometime a week or so ago. That's probably because some states have started drawing up separate amendments.

Unarmed man, please let me tell you that I am thrilled that you read this board, and that you state your opinions when such a huge percentage of people here disagree with you. If you weren't around, the political dialogue here would be about an eighth as interesting as it is. Thanks for sticking around. Watch out for the lions

well let me peek my head out from behind the bunker to say THANK YOU! I'm glad that a lot of people on here can discuss differing opinions, and i'm glad spoot that you're one of them-

unarmedman wrote:well let me peek my head out from behind the bunker to say THANK YOU! I'm glad that a lot of people on here can discuss differing opinions, and i'm glad spoot that you're one of them-

naw, it's just a faux-PR move... he's trying to coax you into going to see his band this weekend. then he's gonna give you a monster beat-down.

totally kidding. you're right, he is a good guy. cheers, the spoot!

unarmed man wrote:i'm glad spoot that you're one of them

too many heli copters wrote:cheers, the spoot

Bring back the trash talk! Eat balls, both of you!