Why the Democrats lost

[ComradeBadger]

No, it's not becuase everyone else is retarted.

It's becuase they are talking to their supporters only, not reaching out.

It's the same problem that the conservative party has in the United Kingdom, they make no effort to win over people from the other side, they just preach to their own.

Clinton was a good president, he made an effort to seek the middle ground :)

[Sprafa]

meh. some nutcko will come in and say Bush stole the election again...

Actually, they did get the majority of Independents. The problem was more Democrats voted for Bush than Republicans voted for Kerry.

[ComradeBadger]

Precisely.

My point is, the Republicans did get people from the other side over.

:)

[CptStern]

I heard a radio program this morning that said 40% of americans are belong to the evangelical faith ..so does Bush. Bush won because he tacked on the same sex marriage vote in a lot of the swing states ...pretty easy to read between the lines

[PvtRyan]

I reckon it's because Bush appealed to the conservative Christians more.
Wasn't morality the major reason for most people to vote for Bush?
I thought about 80% of the people that think moral was the most important thing in the elections, voted for Bush.

[DiSTuRbEd]

Clinton was a good president, he made an effort to seek the middle ground :)

Yeah if you call all his scandals good too, I might agree. :rolleyes:

Actually, they did get the majority of Independents. The problem was more Democrats voted for Bush than Republicans voted for Kerry.

If a republican voted for a democrat, they deserved to be smacked and kicked in the nuts. Because I don't see republicans voting for democrats.

[Absinthe]

Yeah if you call all his scandals good too, I might agree. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, the White Stain (tm) in the White House.

I wish I could come up with a similarly witty name for the War on Iraq.


If a republican voted for a democrat, they deserved to be smacked and kicked in the nuts. Because I don't see republicans voting for democrats.

What?

[K e r b e r o s]

I heard a radio program this morning that said 40% of americans are belong to the evangelical faith ..so does Bush. Bush won because he tacked on the same sex marriage vote in a lot of the swing states ...pretty easy to read between the lines

Kerry went against Gay Marriage too. He said that in his second debate. Lesser of the two evils? I think so.

[Sprafa]

Kerry went against Gay Marriage too. He said that in his second debate. Lesser of the two evils? I think so.

I believe his official stance was something in the lines of allowing civil marriage or something in those lines...

[CptStern]

Kerry went against Gay Marriage too. He said that in his second debate. Lesser of the two evils? I think so.

ah but he didnt push for states to vote for gay amendment to state constitutions now did he?


IMHO opinion if ever a political candiadate said the word "god" it would be the very last time I'd support him ..how people elect a president that believes in creationism is beyond me

[K e r b e r o s]

Civil marriage is still against the concept of Gay Marriage officially. Its also, against "straight marriage", in the idea someone could be civily unified, but not "married".

This also happens to be a firm arguement for those in the anti-gay marriage crowd, that want to seek a middle ground.

[K e r b e r o s]

IMHO opinion if ever a political candiadate said the word "god" it would be the very last time I'd support him ..how people elect a president that believes in creationism is beyond me

Because of our belief system. How did the Iraqi's let Saddam Huessein into office? He used the context of God many times, and how can people in the Gaza strip, admire an allah?

They too believe in creationism, so if your against one on those grounds, your against the rest.

[othello]

why the democrats lost. (http://www.paratrooper.us)

[skarrob]

I think only people who pay taxes should vote.These are the people who run america on their backs not the idiots that cant even name the vice President.People who went to vote just because MTV told them to are so lame.If you have to have someone take you to the voting booth you should'nt vote.People just wanting something from the government"a hand out" shouldnt vote either.If you voted for Kerry and you knew what he was about and had passion for the man then thats fine,but if you voted for Kerry just because you hated Bush thats stupid. Get involved in your community listen to both sides and reason between the 2 candidates.GL everyone for the next 4 yrs. and yes i voted for Bush

[The Monkey]

Beacouse a lot of americans follow their heart and not their brain.

[blahblahblah]

I heard a radio program this morning that said 40% of americans are belong to the evangelical faith ..so does Bush. Bush won because he tacked on the same sex marriage vote in a lot of the swing states ...pretty easy to read between the lines

Closer to 25% actually.

I've discussed this with several political science professors (who are democrats) and they all point to the lack of a common stance on issues with the democratic party. They also blame the elitiest appearance of the democratic party. John Kerry isn't the type of person who you want representing the working party. That is why the vast majority of people vote for Bush. Bush, even though he is rich, appears to be from a working class background.

There are many other issues that I have learned about as well. It was rather interesting stuff.

[ComradeBadger]

Indeed Blahblahblah.

I find this whole affair very interesting, especially since Bush took former democrat states...

[skarrob]

All i heard was i have a plan. talking about Kerry.He never said what his plan was. other than it was different from Bush.

[burner69]

Because of our belief system. How did the Iraqi's let Saddam Huessein into office? He used the context of God many times, and how can people in the Gaza strip, admire an allah?

They too believe in creationism, so if your against one on those grounds, your against the rest.

I was pretty sure it was Americans who put Saddam into power. That's what I've been told.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

EDIT: But you're right, I believe he used religion as a tool for his ways as well

[Homer]

If a republican voted for a democrat, they deserved to be smacked and kicked in the nuts. Because I don't see republicans voting for democrats.

I would vote for Lieberman.

[Neutrino]

why the democrats lost. (http://www.paratrooper.us)

Which says:

1) A weak Candidate

2) Poor spokesmen (women)

3) Ambiguity of message.

Yes, they got 48% of the American vote from a weak candidate, poor spokemen, and an ambiguous message. :rolleyes:

Now I think they could have done quite a few things better and they probably could have improved some of those things, but lets not be forgetting just how close this race was.


I wish people would stop thinking this was some sort of landslide victory and that it's now ok for the conservative to do what they want since "everyone" (51%) agree with them.

Here's an interesting statistic:

Out of 7 polls taken from 10/28 to 11/01, on average 51% of Americans think the country is going in the wrong direction.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/direction_of_country.html

So I sincerely hope Bush and the like don't take his victory as some sort of sign that the American people support whatever he wants to do. The election could have easily gone the other way and I hope he remembers that in his next four years.

If a republican voted for a democrat, they deserved to be smacked and kicked in the nuts. Because I don't see republicans voting for democrats.

So you think party lines are the be all and end all of political opinions? What ever happened to independant thought? I'm saying this for both democrats and republicans equally.

[gh0st]

election 2004: bush: 51.07%, kerry: 47.99%
election 2000: bush: 47.87%, gore: 48.38%
election 1996: clinton: 49.23%, dole: 40.72%
election 1992: clinton: 43.02%, bush: 37.35%
election 1988: bush: 53.37%, dukakis: 45.65%

the point is, no presidential candidate has won more than 50% of the vote since bush's father in 1988. 1 percent may not sound like much to a big man such as yourself neutrino, but thats a difference of several million votes, and several million people. the hugeness of bush's (and the gop in generals) victory in this election shouldent be underscored.

Yes, they got 48% of the American vote from a weak candidate, poor spokemen, and an ambiguous message. :rolleyes: youd be surprised how many people vote within party lines religiously, as evidenced by disturbed.

[Neutrino]

election 2004: bush: 51.07%, kerry: 47.99%
election 2000: bush: 47.87%, gore: 48.38%
election 1996: clinton: 49.23%, dole: 40.72%
election 1992: clinton: 43.02%, bush: 37.35%
election 1988: bush: 53.37%, dukakis: 45.65%

the point is, no presidential candidate has won more than 50% of the vote since bush's father in 1988.

How is that meaningful at all? In every election between now and then there has been a much stronger third party. That is why no one got over 50%.

1 percent may not sound like much to a big man such as yourself neutrino,

What exactly is that suppose to mean? Really, I'm curious.

but thats a difference of several million votes, and several million people. the hugeness of bush's (and the gop in generals) victory in this election shouldent be underscored.

On the contrary, I do not think it was that big of a victory. I would say the same if Kerry had won by that margin. Fact is the country is incredibly polorized, politically. This is a fact. So my point is that I think it would be irresponsible of Bush to ignore half the population when governing the US. Heck, he even claims to agree with me and many people are predicting his second term will be much more centrist than his first one, though I personally highly doubt it.

youd be surprised how many people vote within party lines religiously.

I know about 95% or so of both democrats and republican always vote with in party lines. I was just responding to DiSTuRbEd's idea that it was somehow wrong for a democrat or republican to vote outside their party if they want to.

[gh0st]

How is that meaningful at all? In every election between now and then there has been a much stronger third party. That is why no one got over 50%.

a 1 percent third party showing isnt significant, its been that way for some time.


What exactly is that suppose to mean? Really, I'm curious.

whatever youd like it to mean :P


On the contrary, I do not think it was that big of a victory. I would say the same if Kerry had won by that margin. Fact is the country is incredibly polorized, politically. This is a fact. So my point is that I think it would be irresponsible of Bush to ignore half the population when governing the US. Heck, he even claims to agree with me and many people are predicting his second term will be much more centrist than his first one, though I personally highly doubt it.

the fact that you consistantly say "id say this even if ____ happened" only besets your already biased opinion. its really alright to have one, we all do - its human. the country isnt as polarized as you claim. even with the democrat propoganda machine at full speed (moveon.org, michael moore, hollywood, and the supposed advantage given to democrats given the more people vote) they STILL lost to bush by a much wider margin than even clinton won with for his elections. was the country polarized then? the reason people vote for bush is that he is a much better repsentation of the average american to the average voter, and many americans share his moral values. kerry seems above it all, and while a great speaker is lousy at the same time. i predict a MUCH more conservative ticket than last term, with bush's mandate :)


I don't think so. I know about 95% or so of both democrats and republican always vote with in party lines. I was just responding to DiSTuRbEd's idea that it was somehow wrong for a democrat or republican to vote outside their party if they want to.
yeah, "95%" of all democrats and republicans vote within party lines, kind of what i was saying.

[Korgoth]

No, the democrats lost because we didn't have a guy playing "redneck" who could appeal to the nascar dads and security soccer moms, clinton was southern, bush is southern, its all relative.

The only high point of this whole ordeal is that he can't run again, ever.

[gh0st]

No, the democrats lost because we didn't have a guy playing "redneck" who could appeal to the nascar dads and security soccer moms, clinton was southern, bush is southern, its all relative.

The only high point of this whole ordeal is that he can't run again, ever.
clinton, bush, carter, and many others were southern. people dont want a liberal massachusetts senator, the most successful democrats (inc. al gore) have been from the south. btw quit using the term redneck, i'm not calling all new englanders a bunch of arrogant appeasers, which would be a lot more accurate than "redneck."

edit: howard dean isnt a southerner, whoops. probably why he lost.

[Korgoth]

redneck redneck redneck redneck, hell, I know rednecks they wouldn't take offense to the term redneck, most of them have huge "redneck" stickers on their trucks with their rebel flags and their gun racks.

Forgive me if the truth offends you, but i never callled you a redneck so get over it. (and btw, say whatever you want about new englanders or bostonians or californians I don't give a shit.)

[gh0st]

redneck redneck redneck redneck, hell, I know rednecks they wouldn't take offense to the term redneck, most of them have huge "redneck" stickers on their trucks with their rebel flags and their gun racks.

Forgive me if the truth offends you, but i never callled you a redneck so get over it. (and btw, say whatever you want about new englanders or bostonians or californians I don't give a shit.)
haha most democrats do throw tantrums, maybe thats why they lost. dipshit :dozey:

[ShadowFox]

a 1 percent third party showing isnt significant, its been that way for some time.
8 years constitutes as some time?

Assuming one percent of Perot's 8 percent in 1996 goes to Clinton, then he has a majority. Not a stretch by any means.

And of course, in 1992 Perot got a whole 19 percent, and it probably cost Bush Sr. the election.

[Korgoth]

haha most democrats do throw tantrums, maybe thats why they lost. dipshit :dozey:
Oh i'm a dipshit, ok when did I call you a name?

Go to church, drink a six pack, shoot a horse and **** your sister because you and bush are one in the same. I swear you'd take a bullet for that crook, you are pathetic.

[gh0st]

Oh i'm a dipshit, ok when did I call you a name?

Go to church, drink a six pack, shoot a horse and **** your sister because you and bush are one in the same. I swear you'd take a bullet for that crook, you are pathetic.
you are a dipshit, you didnt have to call me anything its pretty obvious by the way you spew shit. i do go to church, do you have a problem with that? i'll live my life however the **** i want, deal with it. i live in seattle, not some deep south slum, i and i dont have a sister. id **** her if she was hot. who would take a bullet for who, you're the god damn fanatic here.

8 years constitutes as some time?

Assuming one percent of Perot's 8 percent in 1996 goes to Clinton, then he has a majority. Not a stretch by any means.

And of course, in 1992 Perot got a whole 19 percent, and it probably cost Bush Sr. the election.
but you dont know whether someone who voted for perot would have voted for clinton instead.

[burner69]

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=48404

:) :) :)

[Korgoth]

you are a dipshit, you didnt have to call me anything its pretty obvious by the way you spew shit. i do go to church, do you have a problem with that? i'll live my life however the **** i want, deal with it. i live in seattle, not some deep south slum, i and i dont have a sister. id **** her if she was hot. who would take a bullet for who, you're the god damn fanatic here.


but you dont know whether someone who voted for perot would have voted for clinton instead.

Aaaaw some one needs a hug.. Poor guy.

[cronholio]

8 years constitutes as some time?

Assuming one percent of Perot's 8 percent in 1996 goes to Clinton, then he has a majority. Not a stretch by any means.

And of course, in 1992 Perot got a whole 19 percent, and it probably cost Bush Sr. the election.

You can't assume his vote would've gone to Clinton. Perot was a businessman and a lot of what he was saying appealed to corporate America, independent != liberal.

[gh0st]

Aaaaw some one needs a hug.. Poor guy.
wow youre the most bitter liberal ive ever met. sig worthy and priceless.

edit: actually i dont want your filth contaminating my signature, ill just keep it dear to my heart.

[Korgoth]

Jeee whiz, you'd do that for me, thanks a million gh0st.
Funniest part is you took me seriously, and you claim i'm the one over reacting? lol
(oh yeah, nice comeback... I guess.)

PS. Liberal is not an insult, but please, try again! :laugh:

[gh0st]

Jeee whiz, you'd do that for me, thanks a million gh0st.
Funniest part is you took me seriously, and you claim i'm the one over reacting? lol
(oh yeah, nice comeback... I guess.)

PS. Liberal is not an insult, but please, try again! :laugh:
i wasent trying to insult you. im conservative, and youre liberal. why would you even construe that as an insult? oh iiiii see, you want to continue this. by all means pm me, theres no point to getting this thread locked over "redneck redneck redneck."

[burner69]

Gh0ost, just wondring wat the America > Earth bit meant.

[Korgoth]

meh, i'm finished, actually I never even started but whatever. I said redneck, sure, but I never called you a redneck. For some reason you took it as though I did, and for some reason you took it as an insult. Well to be perfectly honest, I live in Kentucky, surrouned by rednecks. And let me tell you, redneck is not a derrogatory term to them. I was being honest when I said they had redneck stickers, rebel flags, and gun racks on their trucks, thats no lie where I live.

[gh0st]

Gh0ost, just wondring wat the America > Earth bit meant.
gh0st. not gh0ost. its satire.

meh, i'm finished, actually I never even started but whatever. I said redneck, sure, but I never called you a redneck. For some reason you took it as though I did, and for some reason you took it as an insult. Well to be perfectly honest, I live in Kentucky, surrouned by rednecks. And let me tell you, redneck is not a derrogatory term to them. I was being honest when I said they had redneck stickers, rebel flags, and gun racks on their trucks, thats no lie where I live.
im just tired of people saying everyone who supports bush is a stupid redneck, because im neither stupid or a redneck. i know what you mean about actual rednecks though, eastern washington has a ton.

[burner69]

sorry.
cud u explain the satire? Sorry :)

[gh0st]

sorry.
cud u explain the satire? Sorry :)
because people seem to think americans have this rediculous patriotism that elevates beyond respect for our country to hate for the rest of the world, which isnt true. cud is something a cow chews.

[burner69]

Cheers. I figured you were joking with it, just checking ;)

We're on a forum, not writing a book. Please don't knock my ability to spell when clearly I was abbreviating. (unless you were jkn there, if you were sorry for this bit)

[gh0st]

We're on a forum, not writing a book. Please don't knock my ability to spell when clearly I was abbreviating. (unless you were jkn there, if you were sorry for this bit)
yep im a joker :D

[burner69]

Keep it up man! :cheers:

[seinfeldrules]

I heard a radio program this morning that said 40% of americans are belong to the evangelical faith ..so does Bush. Bush won because he tacked on the same sex marriage vote in a lot of the swing states ...pretty easy to read between the lines

Oregon and Michigan both had these votes tacked on. Kerry won both. If you are saying that 59 million people voted solely because of gay marriage then all I have to say is: :rolleyes: .

[ShadowFox]

You can't assume his vote would've gone to Clinton. Perot was a businessman and a lot of what he was saying appealed to corporate America, independent != liberal.
Why not?

I never said independent means liberal. Perot was obviously rather conservative economically. Hell, his whole platform was debt reduction. But the fact is, I said it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that had he not run, one out of his eight percent of the popular vote could have gone to Clinton, thus giving him the majority.

Christ, some of you get so bent out of shape over the smallest comments, and in the end it is pointless to argue. I think some of the Perot voters would have went Clinton, and you don't.

Oregon and Michigan both had these votes tacked on. Kerry won both. If you are saying that 59 million people voted solely because of gay marriage then all I have to say is
This is a stupid comment and you know it. Even though Bush could have won anyway (we don't know), you can't possibly say that the gay marriage referendums had no effect. They most likely helped to mobilize segments of the Bush camp that might not have voted otherwise.

It was smart thinking on the Republican's part and the Democrats had no issue that could answer.

[seinfeldrules]

This is a stupid comment and you know it. Even though Bush could have won anyway (we don't know), you can't possibly say that the gay marriage referendums had no effect. They most likely helped to mobilize segments of the Bush camp that might not have voted otherwise.

It was smart thinking on the Republican's part and the Democrats had no issue that could answer.

I never said it didnt play any role, but Bush won states where it wasnt on the ballot, and he lost states where it was. It cannot be viewed as the main reason he was elected, maybe a part of it. The exit polls showed that only 20% of people found moral issues #1. The other people were voting on the economy, terrorism, war, and other issues.

[Neutrino]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6401635/site/newsweek/

Culture Wars: Winning the 'Values' Vote
It was on 11 ballots, and won on all of them. How the anti-gay-marriage initiatives shaped the presidential contest

For weeks, gay-rights activists had been bracing for the worst. Pre-election polls told them that contentious anti-gay-marriage initiatives, on the ballot in 11 states, would likely pass in all but Oregon. One by one on Election Day, those predictions came true. And then some. In the end, it was a clean sweep—even libertarian-leaning Oregon eventually voted to outlaw same-sex marriage by 56 percent, despite a $2.8 million push by gay groups. In eight states, including Ohio, Michigan and Utah, the measures went even further. They curtailed rights granted under civil unions and domestic partnerships, which could affect unmarried straight couples, too—a position to the right of President Bush and other Republicans. Ohio's Republican governor opposed his state's initiative. It still passed with 62 percent of the vote.

Religious groups vowed that gay marriage would send evangelicals flocking to the voting booth. Exit polls showed that 22 percent of voters named "moral values" as the most important issue to them—ranking it higher than the economy and the Iraq war. Of them, 79 percent voted for President Bush. In Ohio, 24 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as "white evangelical/born-again Christians."

Gay marriage was a key part of Karl Rove's turnout strategy, and stood out as one of the cultural fault lines dividing the two Americas. Overwhelmingly, Americans say they oppose same-sex marriage, yet favor civil unions and other rights for gay couples. But the issue became a catchall for the concerns of Christian conservatives, who were already fed up with the many restrictions "activist" judges had imposed on them: rulings protecting abortion, banning school prayer and limiting religious displays in public buildings. The biggest concern: that judges in their states would follow the Massachusetts Supreme Court and force gay marriage on them. "It was a target," says Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council. "It was a very clear focus of where to channel their frustration, their aggravation at what the courts have done."

But the measures, intended to bypass the courts, will inevitably wind up in the dock. Gay-activist groups are already planning lawsuits to challenge the new provisions. "Fundamental human rights should never be put up for a popular vote," says Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

A judge in Louisiana, which passed a similar anti-gay-marriage amendment earlier this year, already overturned the measure on a technicality: the ballot initiative put two issues before voters—gay marriage and civil unions—at once, a violation of state law. The Lambda Legal Defense Fund is planning to use the same tactic to challenge Georgia's just-passed amendment. Other activists will argue that the amendments violate equal-protection rights.

The one question that looms over all of these state battles: what will Bush do? Appealing to evangelicals during the campaign, the president repeatedly said he'd push for a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriages. But Bush has shown no real enthusiasm for the issue. Christian leaders had to lean on him to back it, and even then he was slow to embrace it. Even some gay activists are hopeful that the amendment push will fade from sight in a second Bush term. "Now that he doesn't have to run for re-election," says Foreman, "hopefully he can call off the dogs."

[seinfeldrules]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041108/ap_on_el_pr/rove_election_wrap&cid=694&ncid=1963&sid=96378798

WASHINGTON - Reflecting on how he delivered President Bush his second term, White House political adviser Karl Rove admitted Sunday that John Kerry vote for, then against, funding in Iraq and Afghanistan was the "gift that kept on giving."



The deft strategy of Rove, whom Bush calls the architect of his re-election campaign, is credited with helping move the nation from the 49 percent to 49 percent stalemate of the 2000 election to a 51 percent to 48 percent split in the Republicans' favor.


"The country is still close, but it has moved in a Republican direction, and this election confirmed that," Rove said on NBC's "Meet the Press."


Tactically, Kerry's decision to vote for the $87 billion in funding for troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then deciding in October 2003 to vote against it, was a bonanza for the president's campaign, "the gift that kept on giving," Rove said.


.....

Rove played down the importance to the campaign of "moral values," which exit polls last Tuesday unexpectedly identified as a major consideration of many voters, especially those who voted for Bush.


Rove said 34 percent of the voters were motivated by issues surrounding Iraq and the war on terror, compared with 30 percent motivated by moral values. "What essentially happened in this election was that people became concerned about three issues: first the war, then the economy, jobs and taxes and then moral values. And then everything else dropped off of the plate," he said.

[blahblahblah]

Neutrino - The get out to vote campaign's for evangelical Christians was only a little bit stronger than in past years. That does not explain the 3 million vote difference.

There were a host of differences on why Bush one. A higher democratic defection rate, higher latino vote for Bush (than expected) were among the reasons why Bush one. I hate the fact that people think the entire election was determined by one factor, when in reality Kerry lost in multiple areas. Yes, evangelical Christians did play a role, but nothing Kerry could have prevented if would have made up for the last votes with his democratic party and the latino population.

[No Limit]

Neutrino - The get out to vote campaign's for evangelical Christians was only a little bit stronger than in past years. That does not explain the 3 million vote difference.

There were a host of differences on why Bush one. A higher democratic defection rate, higher latino vote for Bush (than expected) were among the reasons why Bush one. I hate the fact that people think the entire election was determined by one factor, when in reality Kerry lost in multiple areas. Yes, evangelical Christians did play a role, but nothing Kerry could have prevented if would have made up for the last votes with his democratic party and the latino population.
I have to disagree. I honestly believe that the only reason Bush won was because of his faith. I had many religious friends who were democrats but voted for Bush only because of his faith (mostly because of the abortion issue). I think about 25% of all voters said faith was the most important issue, out of them something like 80-90% voted Bush. This is a huge issue and it had to make a huge difference. I am presonally disgusted that religion played such a huge role in this election. From now on to be president you don't need to do what's better for the country, you simply have to follow the bible blindly and get all the religious folks to turn out.

[seinfeldrules]

The economy and jobs was a 80/20 split in favor of Kerry. It should have nulled the moral values vote. Then terroism played a large role with a 86/14 majority going to Bush.

[CptStern]

I dont understand why terrorism played a factor in the election ..common sense says kerry should have won if that was the only factor in the election. The US is not safer since the war on terrorism ..actually it's the opposite. Bush lied over a 1000 soldiers died ..that alone is enough of a failure to want someone else to do the job.

[ShadowFox]

I dont understand why terrorism played a factor in the election ..common sense says kerry should have won if that was the only factor in the election. The US is not safer since the war on terrorism ..actually it's the opposite. Bush lied over a 1000 soldiers died ..that alone is enough of a failure to want someone else to do the job.
The demographics were not done that way. Those who said Terrorism was their main issue went heavily Bush.

But those who said Iraq specifically was their main issue went heavily Kerry.

[othello]

The economy and jobs was a 80/20 split in favor of Kerry.

which only further proves how little research bush-haters actually do.

Bush lied over a 1000 soldiers died

ahh... uninformed AND a bleeding-heart to boot. tell me, what did bush lie about, exactly?

[CptStern]

ahh... uninformed AND a bleeding-heart to boot. tell me, what did bush lie about, exactly?

the entire justification behind the war ..oh and before you start with your pre-amble have a gander at this (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm)

prove me wrong! No one here has been able to, maybe you'd like to take a crack at it

[seinfeldrules]

prove me wrong! No one here has been able to, maybe you'd like to take a crack at it

The basis of evidence isnt on him. You are making the claim he lied intentionally. There is no evidence of that. There is evidence he was misinformed, but did not intentionally lie to the world and the American people. If there was, it would be all over the media and he would have likely been impeached.

Those who said Iraq was top issue went heavily with Kerry
Not true. It was less than a 60/40 split in favor of Kerry.

[CptStern]

The basis of evidence isnt on him. You are making the claim he lied intentionally. There is no evidence of that. There is evidence he was misinformed, but did not intentionally lie to the world and the American people. If there was, it would be all over the media and he would have likely been impeached.

oh come on ..he planned to invade Iraq before 9/11 ...9/11 just gave him the excuse

[ShadowFox]

Not true. It was less than a 60/40 split in favor of Kerry.
Yep.. I'm making this up.. :rolleyes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/05/opinion/meyer/main653931.shtml

[seinfeldrules]

Yep.. I'm making this up.. :rolleyes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/05/opinion/meyer/main653931.shtml

Whoops your right. It was a 26-74 split for Kerry. I forgot the correct numbers :devil:

[seinfeldrules]

oh come on ..he planned to invade Iraq before 9/11 ...9/11 just gave him the excuse

Sounds like a real reliable source... somebody who was fired making claims against the man who fired him. Why would the treasury secretary know about these foreign policy decisions in the first place? I am sure we have plans to invade almost every country on earth if need be. These are the type of things that must be done to cover every scenario possible.

You have still yet to provide evidence he intentionally lied.

[Mechagodzilla]

1 out of every 5 voters chose Bush because of "cultural values". Possibly more.

Kerry and Bush have basically the exact same religious values. However, Kerry said he would not let his belief supercede logic when it came to the secular affairs of government, while Bush sees no problem with making christianity into law which everyone must follow. Therefore, 79% of cultural voters voted directly for the merging of church and state.

Now, Bush got 58 million votes. 20% or more came from the utterly illogical gay marriage ban. Without those numbers, he would not have won.

Add the people who voted for the Iraq war because it was "God's plan," and the people who voted Bush because he is "bringing god into the white house," and it's clear that Bush would not have won without the illogical christian vote.

The story Neutrino posted is totally right. Even perennial conservative seinfeldrules' rebuttal is a story citing an (obviously unbiased) Karl Rove guess that the number of people who voted Bush because of "cultural issues" is as high as 30%.

30% of his votes came from a policy of putting christianity before America for no logical reason.

[seinfeldrules]

The story Neutrino posted is totally right. Even perennial conservative seinfeldrules' rebuttal is a story citing (an obviously unbiased) Karl Rove guess that the number of people who voted Bush because of "cultural issues" is as high as 30%.

They cite Karl Rove's plan in Neuts story. Who better to rebuke that then the man who actually made the plan?

Add the people who voted for the Iraq war because it was "God's plan," and the people who voted Bush because he is "bringing god into the white house," and it's clear that Bush would not have won without the illogical christian vote.
He also would not have won if people didnt trust him on the terrorism issue. You cannot single out one thing as winning the election, it was a whole grouping of events and priorities.

[Mechagodzilla]

They cite Karl Rove's plan in Neuts story. Who better to rebuke that then the man who actually made the plan?
The real point of Neut's quote is that nearly 22% of Bush's votes came from value voters. It doesn't matter is Rove planned it or not. Your rebuttal quote only confirms what Neut said, and suggests that it is worse.

He also would not have won if people didnt trust him on the terrorism issue. You cannot single out one thing as winning the election, it was a whole grouping of events and priorities.

Yes, but terrorism and Iraq are logically debateable issues. Same with everything else on the list.
Except "values".
The gay marriage ban is not logical at all. In the secular system of government, it should never have been brought up in the first place.
So, if you remove the votes that came solely because Bush is playing favorites to christianity to the detriment of everyone else, Kerry wins in a relative landslide.

If religion were removed as an issue (which it should be since American government is secular by design), and both candidates were religiously neutral, Bush would lose by about a 30% margin.

Kerry was the logical choice, but not everyone in America uses logic. That's why Bush won. He's the worse candidate, but the better catholic.

[seinfeldrules]

Yes, but terrorism and Iraq are logically debateable issues. Same with everything else on the list.
Except "values".
The gay marriage ban is not logical at all. In the secular system of government, it should never have been brought up in the first place.
So, if you remove the votes that came solely because Bush is playing favorites to christianity to the detriment of everyone else, Kerry wins in a relative landslide.

If religion were removed as an issue (which it should be since American government is secular by design), and both candidates were religiously neutral, Bush would lose by about a 30% margin.

Kerry was the logical choice, but not everyone in America uses logic. That's why Bush won. He's the worse candidate, but the better catholic.

You are just assuming again. Kerry would have won if... Well he lost. If Bush hadnt gone into Iraq based off intelligence gathered under Presidents before him, then he probably would have won a landslide. If he hadnt inherited a recession then he probably would have won easily too. All the ifs are unimportant. Bush won, and won for more than one issue. Calling Americans that voted for Bush isnt going to win you many votes come 2008, heck it might have cost you 2004.

[Death.Trap]

The real point of Neut's quote is that nearly 22% of Bush's votes came from value voters. It doesn't matter is Rove planned it or not. Your rebuttal quote only confirms what Neut said, and suggests that it is worse.



Yes, but terrorism and Iraq are logically debateable issues. Same with everything else on the list.
Except "values".
The gay marriage ban is not logical at all. In the secular system of government, it should never have been brought up in the first place.
So, if you remove the votes that came solely because Bush is playing favorites to christianity to the detriment of everyone else, Kerry wins in a relative landslide.

If religion were removed as an issue (which it should be since American government is secular by design), and both candidates were religiously neutral, Bush would lose by about a 30% margin.

Kerry was the logical choice, but not everyone in America uses logic. That's why Bush won. He's the worse candidate, but the better catholic.


He's not Catholic, thought I would point that out. Neither is Kerry for that matter. Oh, he might have been baptised into the Catholic church. But he isn't a true Catholic. IE, he picks and chooses what he want's to believe.

[seinfeldrules]

The real point of Neut's quote is that nearly 22% of Bush's votes came from value voters. It doesn't matter is Rove planned it or not. Your rebuttal quote only confirms what Neut said, and suggests that it is worse.

Rove said 34 percent of the voters were motivated by issues surrounding Iraq and the war on terror, compared with 30 percent motivated by moral values. "What essentially happened in this election was that people became concerned about three issues: first the war, then the economy, jobs and taxes and then moral values. And then everything else dropped off of the plate," he said.

.!,?;":

[CptStern]

Sounds like a real reliable source... somebody who was fired making claims against the man who fired him. Why would the treasury secretary know about these foreign policy decisions in the first place?

do I need to find you an article from fox"news" before you'll accept it?
here's more ..are you going to refute them all?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/11/bush_began_iraq_plan_pre_911_oneill_says/
http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/before9-11.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html



You have still yet to provide evidence he intentionally lied.

once a liar always a liar:

here's some proof he lies through his teeth:

"Bush asserted that Iraq was "harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner"; US intelligence officials told reporters this terrorist was operating ouside of Al Qaeda control. And two days before launching the war, Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Yet former deputy CIA director Richard Kerr, who is conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, has said that intelligence was full of qualifiers and caveats, and based on circumstantial and inferential evidence. That is, it was not no-doubt stuff. And after the major fighting was done, Bush declared, "We found the weapons of mass destruction." But he could only point to two tractor-trailers that the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded were mobile bioweapons labs. Other experts--including the DIA's own engineering experts--disagreed with this finding. "

source (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20031013&s=corn)

quite an interesting read

[seinfeldrules]

do I need to find you an article from fox"news" before you'll accept it?
here's more ..are you going to refute them all?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...eill-iraq_x.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLI...10/oneill.bush/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a..._o neill_says/
http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/before9-11.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Apr16.html

All by O'Neill- a man who was fired by Bush. How can you call anything he says unbiased? Furthermore, he was the Treasury Sec, not the CIA Director. How would he have had information on the intricacies of Bush's foreign policy plan?

Finally, intentional lie. If he was given misleading information it was a mistake, not an intentional attempt to mislead the public. The writer you chose to cite does nothing except bash Bush. FOX doesnt do this, yet you claim your sources are so superior? Get real stern, your attitude is wearing thin.

EDIT: Apparently he was a member of Bush's national security advisors, but it still seems too fishy for me. He was releasing a book at the same time he made these accusations so he was most likely trying to get more sales from it, which he undoubtedly did.

I also noticed in that article the fact that in 2001, John and Teresa gave a dinner party for Paul O'Neill after he became George Bush's treasury secretary. Same Paul O'Neill, I suspect, who later clashed with his boss, was booted from his job and wrote a crushingly critical book about W. that hit the best-seller list and became a major lethal weapon in hands of Bush opponents. http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/opinion/columnists/scn-gt-yudain10.13oct13,0,7512777.column?coll=green-opinion-columnists

Since Paul O'Neill is now challenging his own credibility, isn't this book about to be laughed out of town?:

O'NEILL: Yeah, and the other thing that's good, today the book is going to be available, and this red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets -- as an example, you know, people are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq.

COURIC: So you see nothing wrong with that being at the top of the president's agenda 10 days after the inauguration?

O'NEILL: Absolutely not. One of the candidates had said this confirms his worst suspicions. I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances. Saddam Hussein has been this forever. And so, I was surprised, as I've said in the book, that Iraq was given such a high priority. But I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation of planning that had been going on and looking at contingency options during the Clinton administration.

[Korgoth]

Are we forgetting Richard Clark? Former counter terrorism chief, he also said it was bush's goal to go to iraq. He told clark to come back with proof saddam did 9/11, obviously there was none.

[brink's]

Its funny how even after 100+ pages/months of arguing no one has changed their minds on who should lead the US. Yet, you still keep arguing.

[Korgoth]

And you're still reading....

[CptStern]

All by O'Neill- a man who was fired by Bush.

so you're dismissing everything he says on the fact that he was fired and may have had a book deal?

ah but there's more than just O'Neill, he's just a light weight:


"Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century" report commissioned by Dick Cheney Feb 2001

"Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East'' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US ''military intervention'' is necessary ....

The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments....


source ..this is the actual report ..read it (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3535.htm)

here's a summary of the report (http://www.sundayherald.com/28224)


Project for the New American Century
principle members: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz

The actual PNAC document: Read it (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century September 2000 - by Dick Cheney

''The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.''





____

[CyberSh33p]

dethroning a wartime president is difficult, no matter how good he was at said war

[seinfeldrules]

Are we forgetting Richard Clark? Former counter terrorism chief, he also said it was bush's goal to go to iraq. He told clark to come back with proof saddam did 9/11, obviously there was none.

Yet another book deal. What a shocker. There were more strings attached to this man than a puppet.

And again Stern, you are dodging the issue. Where is the evidence? All you can rely upon is O'Neill, who really didnt turn out to claim what you had hoped, and another disgruntled man with a book deal in Clark.

Clinton on Bush's invasion:
In an exclusive interview Thursday on CNN's "Larry King Live," the former president said he sees a good possibility that the international community will unite to force Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm.

"I still hope the United Nations can act together on this, and I still think there's a chance we can, and there's still a chance that Saddam Hussein will come to his senses and disarm," Clinton said.

He said Bush is "doing the right thing now" by gathering international support, but said he doesn't believe another U.N. resolution is needed to go to war with Iraq.

"As a matter of international law, I don't think it's required," Clinton said.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/clinton.iraq/

Also, Clinton passed into law a bill which gave the US full authority to remove Saddam, at least on a domestic stance.Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

[CptStern]

And again Stern, you are dodging the issue. Where is the evidence? .

staring you in the face

[seinfeldrules]

staring you in the face
You've quoted 90 page articles that nobody will read without even mentioning the name Bush. We arent talking about Cheney here. You dodge O'Neill now that his intentions are known, and you are still coming up blank over Bush. Face it, there was no huge intentional lie like you make it out to be. There are papers written all the time attempting to change American foreign policy. Judging by the first few names listed in each article, Cheney and others werent even the key authors.
O'NEILL: Yeah, and the other thing that's good, today the book is going to be available, and this red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets -- as an example, you know, people are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq.

COURIC: So you see nothing wrong with that being at the top of the president's agenda 10 days after the inauguration?

O'NEILL: Absolutely not. One of the candidates had said this confirms his worst suspicions. I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances. Saddam Hussein has been this forever. And so, I was surprised, as I've said in the book, that Iraq was given such a high priority. But I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation of planning that had been going on and looking at contingency options during the Clinton administration.

[Neutrino]

Neutrino - The get out to vote campaign's for evangelical Christians was only a little bit stronger than in past years. That does not explain the 3 million vote difference.

There were a host of differences on why Bush one. A higher democratic defection rate, higher latino vote for Bush (than expected) were among the reasons why Bush one. I hate the fact that people think the entire election was determined by one factor, when in reality Kerry lost in multiple areas. Yes, evangelical Christians did play a role, but nothing Kerry could have prevented if would have made up for the last votes with his democratic party and the latino population.

I just posted the article without any comment. People are free to draw their own conclusions.

[Mechagodzilla]

You are just assuming again. Kerry would have won if... Well he lost. If Bush hadnt gone into Iraq based off intelligence gathered under Presidents before him, then he probably would have won a landslide. If he hadnt inherited a recession then he probably would have won easily too. All the ifs are unimportant. Bush won, and won for more than one issue. Calling Americans that voted for Bush isnt going to win you many votes come 2008, heck it might have cost you 2004.

Calling americans loses votes? Eh?

The american government is secular by design.
Secularity is the basis of the north american concept of freedom, and the constitutions that protect it.
What I am saying is not just a 'what if'.

I am saying that Bush essentially cheated by making a religious belief into a secular policy, and then subsequently winning the election because of it.

This isn't a grey area like Iraq or the economy.
This is something that Bush should never have even considered doing if he were at all responsible.
He chose a select religious belief over the entirety of western society as it has developed over the last 200 years.
He chose christianity over America.
In the one case where his black-and-white "with us or against us" morality was finally realistically applicable, he intentionally chose the wrong side.

By directly contradicting the values inherent to the constitution, by playing favorites to one religion and discriminating against another, by selectively and frivolously dismissing "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for purely selfish reasons, Bush won 2004.

I'm not going to dismiss that so easily as "oh well, he won, get over it".

[seinfeldrules]

I am saying that Bush essentially cheated by making a religious belief into a secular policy, and then subsequently winning the election because of it.
Then you are an alone extremist. Nobody is suggesting this, but you and a select other few. The people from each state voted to get this issue on the ballot, not Bush. He just didnt wave his wand and make them appear.

Calling americans loses votes? Eh?

Calling Americans, who voted Bush, 'illogical', or in other words idiotic, will lose you votes. In case you havent noticed, insulting people will only push them away. The superiority complex of many liberals could have cost them the election.

[CptStern]

You've quoted 90 page articles that nobody will read without even mentioning the name Bush. We arent talking about Cheney here. You dodge O'Neill now that his intentions are known, and you are still coming up blank over Bush. Face it, there was no huge intentional lie like you make it out to be. There are papers written all the time attempting to change American foreign policy. Judging by the first few names listed in each article, Cheney and others werent even the key authors.

ummm instead of skimming over my resposne why dont you try reading it ..there's a summary of the document that quite clearly points out all the major issues. Read what I wrote: Cheney commissioned the first report and wrote the second. Stop harping on the O Neill issue ..I never made that point, I linked to a bunch of sites that said that they planned this in advance ..some just so happened to have the O Neill angle on it. There were others that you will not touch the PNAC documents for example. BTW what do you mean by "now that his intentions are known" ...did you all of the sudden wave your magical dismissive wand and poof "there's goes that theory" :upstare:

excuse my french but you're a ****ing hypocrite of the worst order. You'll accept shabby evidence based on hearsay and half-assed investigation that justifies the invasion and subsequent murders of thousands of people yet you cant for one minute concede that there might be some kernel of truth to the whole "they planned this in advance" theory ...there's so much evidence that says it's true yet you dismiss it (you even dismiss direct quotes from the big players behind the war) ..you sir are worse than ignorant or stuborn, you sir are a bonafide fool. You are exactly what the neo-cons want ..mindless automatons that will tow the party line no matter how much evidence is thrown at them, never questioning anything. You sir are a "Yes man"


*waves magical dismissive wand at general direction of "yes man"*

[seinfeldrules]

Seems you keep missing this.

O'NEILL: Yeah, and the other thing that's good, today the book is going to be available, and this red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets -- as an example, you know, people are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq.
COURIC: So you see nothing wrong with that being at the top of the president's agenda 10 days after the inauguration?

O'NEILL: Absolutely not. One of the candidates had said this confirms his worst suspicions. I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances. Saddam Hussein has been this forever. And so, I was surprised, as I've said in the book, that Iraq was given such a high priority. But I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation of planning that had been going on and looking at contingency options during the Clinton administration.

ummm instead of skimming over my resposne why dont you try reading it ..there's a summary of the document that quite clearly points out all the major issues
How did you summarize a 90 page document in one paragraph. Or more accurately, 2 quotations. Seems you were pulling a Michael Moore to me.

[CptStern]

read the summary it's all there....I picked out the most damning quotes ..would you rather I paste the entire article?

stop pushing your partisan agenda I dont care if it was clinton, gore, or abraham lincoln. Incidenily Bush sr was at the helm before clinton ..there are references in the document to 1992.


you're still a hypocrite

[Mechagodzilla]

Then you are an alone extremist. Nobody is suggesting this, but you and a select other few. The people from each state voted to get this issue on the ballot, not Bush. He just didnt wave his wand and make them appear.

How is that an extremist view? That's exactly what happened.
If you're saying that rewriting the constitution to include discrimination for no logical reason in what can only be seen as either an intrusion of singular faith into a multicultural secular domain and/or a grab at votes is fair, then I'd venture to say that you're the extremist here.

If defending the american constitution is too "extreme" for you, maybe you should go back to France, as I have been told so many times to. :P

And those are state laws. Bush is the highest ranking supporter of a national, all-encompassing constitutional ban.

If you expected me not to know the difference between a state constitution and the US constitution, you have perhaps 'misunderestimated' me.
Either that, or it's a case of "look over there!" distraction or an "everyone is doing it, so it's okay" excuse.

All you're showing is that this problem is more endemic than just the president, reaching to a large segment of the population.
The exact same segment that Bush was appealing to with his illogical, un-american ban.

You said that voters really didn't care too much about the ban, and then immediately pointed out how huge amounts of voters went out to support it at the state level.
And you're completely dodging the fact that Bush and Cheney are the key supporters of a constitutional ammendment that directly contradicts the values inherent to the constitution!

Are you honestly so willing to ignore that fact? Or are you just trying so hard to 'prove' me wrong that you'll change the topic like that while ignoring and omitting the key points of what I'm saying?

Here are the facts you missed or avoided, bolded so that you might not miss them again:

-George Bush supports an ammendment to the US constitution that directly contradicts the basic constitutional and american principles of the rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness, for no logical reason.
-People who dislike gays voted for Bush in unexpectedly massive numbers.
-This was many times more than enough votes to give Bush the 1% he needed to beat Kerry.

So, Bush did something distinctly unamerican, and used it to become leader of America.

If you do something utterly and needlessly undemocratic in order to shift the democratic system in your favor, I call that cheating.

What do you call it?


Calling Americans, who voted Bush, 'illogical', or in other words idiotic, will lose you votes. In case you havent noticed, insulting people will only push them away. The superiority complex of many liberals could have cost them the election.

See, this is where the problem comes from.
"Illogical", in this case, is not an insult. It's a goddamn fact.
There is literally no logical reason behind this ban.
I will pay you 150$. No, 500$.
500$ for a single logical reason. You don't even need to come up with it yourself, feel free to check google or quote George W's reasoning. He's the president, after all, so he must have a good reason, right?

But no, there is no logical reason. Only if you completely disregard constitutional law, secular government, and the progress of the last 200 years will it be remotely 'logical'.
And weren't you just complaining about "what ifs"?

Instead of jumping to conclusions and saying that by calling many americans "illogical" I am therefore somehow calling them "idiotic", even though the words don't mean the same thing, how about you just stop and realise one thing:

Between 20 and 30 percent of voters chose Bush because of his actions against gay marriage.
There is no logical reason to take action against gay marriage.
They are therefore being illogical!

The truth hurts, doesn't it?
I'm sure it does.
But you absolutely must understand that, just because a fact is unpleasant, it does not become untrue.

There are four apples and you say there are three.
All the facts are against you in this case. All logic, all fact, everything.
When I contradict you, that's not a 'liberal superiority complex'.
That's you being wrong.

[seinfeldrules]

read the summary it's all there....I picked out the most damning quotes ..would you rather I paste the entire article?

stop pushing your partisan agenda I dont care if it was clinton, gore, or abraham lincoln. Incidenily Bush sr was at the helm before clinton ..there are references in the document to 1992.


you're still a hypocrite
And you're still dodging the evidence.

Mecha I just got Halo2 and XBOX live. Im traveling to DC tomorrow so I wont be able to read, let alone respond to your post until Monday.

[Korgoth]

Yet another book deal. What a shocker. There were more strings attached to this man than a puppet.

And again Stern, you are dodging the issue. Where is the evidence? All you can rely upon is O'Neill, who really didnt turn out to claim what you had hoped, and another disgruntled man with a book deal in Clark.

Clinton on Bush's invasion:


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/clinton.iraq/

Also, Clinton passed into law a bill which gave the US full authority to remove Saddam, at least on a domestic stance.

And guess what, Richard Clark went under oath in front of the 9.11 commision and his story didn't change. His book deal had nothing to do with it, in fact, Condi Rice pretty much confirmed what he was saying when she went in front of the commision.

-"I believe the title of the report was bin laden determined to strike within the U.S."-

[Mechagodzilla]

And guess what, Richard Clark went under oath in front of the 9.11 commision and his story didn't change. His book deal had nothing to do with it, in fact, Condi Rice pretty much confirmed what he was saying when she went in front of the commision.

-"I believe the title of the report was bin laden determined to strike within the U.S."-

He also went on oath to say he would not participate in or aid Kerry's campaign. Also true.
And the 9/11 commission confirmed pretty much everything he said in the book.

If everyone had read the book, they'd know that the war in Iraq is relegated to only a couple chapters. The book is mostly a chronicle of how Al Queda developed as a threat, and the US reaction to them over time.
As such, Iraq isn't touched on too much except for some criticisms about how it was a pointless diversion from Al-Queda that Clarke saw as an irrational fixation for the Bush administration from the beginning.

[CptStern]

hmmmm the only person in this thread who disagrees went away for the week? cant have a discussion on the war in iraq if we all agree on the same things!

mecha: so what you think about the US in iraq?

Innervision: I think they lied about the whole thing

Mecha: ya me too

Stern: me too!




*sound of crickets*



........soooooooooo what should we talk about? :E

[Mechagodzilla]

........soooooooooo what should we talk about? :E

Well, we could go to the "textbook censorship" thread and try and convince hasan that gays won't destroy society.
...but he's vanished too. :P

So, how about them Red Sox?

[othello]

hmmmm the only person in this thread who disagrees went away for the week? cant have a discussion on the war in iraq if we all agree on the same things!

mecha: so what you think about the US in iraq?

Innervision: I think they lied about the whole thing

Mecha: ya me too

Stern: me too!




*sound of crickets*



........soooooooooo what should we talk about? :E

pick a topic. clearly you have no idea what you're talking about, if you think bush lied to go into iraq, so why dont we try something you have a little better educational foundation in? i'll let you pick.

[Mechagodzilla]

pick a topic. clearly you have no idea what you're talking about, if you think bush lied to go into iraq, so why dont we try something you have a little better educational foundation in? i'll let you pick.

Sheesh, who stepped on your cat?

Seriously, starting off your 'argument' with "clearly you have no idea what you're talking about" when, even more clearly, everyone agrees with Stern and the only person here who agrees with you is rather MIA at the moment, is not exactly going to make us stroke our chins, nod and say:
"You know who isn't arrogant? That othello chap."

You're not Rudy and this isn't the superbowl. All the moxy in the world will not make you respected here.

If you're going to call someone stupid, you'd better have the facts to back it up, instead of saying:
"I'm smarter than you in this topic, so let's change the topic really fast before I am required to prove it."

So here's the topic we're debating: Was the need for Iraq exaggerated by the Bush administration?

So prove your side. Someone with your "educational foundation" shouldn't have any trouble.
Beyatch.

:stare:

[othello]

Sheesh, who stepped on your cat?

Seriously, starting off your 'argument' with "clearly you have no idea what you're talking about" when, even more clearly, everyone agrees with him and the only person here who agrees with you is rather MIA at the moment, is not exactly going to make us stroke our chins, nod and say:
"You know who isn't arrogant? That othello chap."

You're not Rudy and this isn't the superbowl. All the moxy in the world will not make you respected here.

If you're going to call someone stupid, you'd better have the facts to back it up, instead of saying:
"I'm smarter than you in this topic, so let's change the topic really fast before I am required to prove it."

So here's the topic we're debating: Was the need for Iraq exaggerated by the Bush administration?

So prove your side. Someone with your "educational foundation" shouldn't have any trouble.
Beyatch.

:stare:

why the change of tune? i thought bush sadistically lied to send all our troops to iraq so he could be rich while thousands of kite-toting iraqi children were mercilessly slaughtered?

now its whethere or not he 'exaggerated the need for iraq'?

[Mechagodzilla]

why the change of tune? i thought bush sadistically lied to send all our troops to iraq so he could be rich while thousands of kite-toting iraqi children were mercilessly slaughtered?

now its whethere or not he 'exaggerated the need for iraq'?

What change of tune? Are you insane?
I was arguing the ethical implications of a gay marriage ban before you showed up with this holier-than-thou attitude.
There was no "tune" to start with.

And I'm not Michael Moore. Seriously, I'm not. The kites are all in your mind.

But hey, notice how you still haven't presented a single piece of valid argument, yet continue to whine?
That's that arrogance thing I was talking about.

Put up, shut up, or place Fahrenheit 9/11 in your VCR and yell at the screen. Because that's the only way you'll be able to yell at the Michael Moore you apparently believe is here.

But he's not here. You're talking to me, you're talking to Stern, and you're talking to anyone else who joins in.
And if you're not going to raise the level of the debate, I suggest you leave.

[CptStern]

pick a topic. clearly you have no idea what you're talking about, if you think bush lied to go into iraq, so why dont we try something you have a little better educational foundation in? i'll let you pick.

how about "why is the new guy a belligerent condescending loudmouth who goes out of his way to flame members with opposing views?" ;)

anyways, bush is a liar liar pants on fire ..."laura godamm! my shorts are getting awfully hot" :thumbs:

[othello]

What change of tune? Are you insane?
I was arguing the ethical implications of a gay marriage ban before you showed up with this holier-than-thou attitude.
There was no "tune" to start with.

And I'm not Michael Moore. Seriously, I'm not. The kites are all in your mind.

But hey, notice how you still haven't presented a single piece of valid argument, yet continue to whine?
That's that arrogance thing I was talking about.

Put up, shut up, or place Fahrenheit 9/11 in your VCR and yell at the screen. Because that's the only way you'll be able to yell at the Michael Moore you apparently believe is here.

But he's not here. You're talking to me, you're talking to Stern, and you're talking to anyone else who joins in.
And if you're not going to raise the level of the debate, I suggest you leave.

ya it was a joke... i was exaggerating. and it made much more sense at 2:00am this morning. anyway, my point was... cptstern is rambunctiously claiming bush lied, and then you said we all agree with him, and then you ask if bush 'exaggerated the need for iraq'. those are 2 different viewpoints.

[CptStern]

k indirect lie #1:

“If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist.” - George Bush talking to 101st Airborne Division

George H Bush pardons wanted terrorist Orlando Bosch (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbosch.htm), wanted in cuba and venezuela (escaped justice) for the bombing of a cuban comercial airline that killed all 73 aboard

I'll continue later when I have some time, gotta run

[Kazuki_Fuse]

I reckon that the Democrats lost because they didn't get enough votes. I dunno, I could be wrong I'm from Australia, so I don't know, you guys from the states might do things differently.