Its looking grim
 

Scott opines:

Hopefully nonoffensively, I can point out that when Bush ran, he had a
record of failed businesses, a drunk driving arrest or two, a rich family
with heavy Saudi ties, family privilege that helped him avoid Vietnam by
almost meeting a National Guard commitment, no foreign policy experience,
and his biggest qualification was that he governed a state constitutionally
headed by a hands-off governor. Then on top of all that, I'll point out
that about half the population is largely unimpressed by his performance as
President and CIC, he deliberately trumped up faulty intelligence that
brought us to a war we're having problems finishing, he ignored
intelligence that might have prevented the deaths of 3,000 citizens, and he
ran up a record deficit (even without the two wars factored in) and put the
money into his buddys' collective pockets.

IMO, which is no more or less valid than YO, this is a train wreck that is
happening right now.


Then why didn't Gore win in 2000? He was the vp of a "successfull"
administration. Why didn't he walk away with the election?

The same holds true for this election. If Bush was so bad, so hated, so
disrespected, so dumb, so incompetent, how's come the VN hero didn't win? And
don';t tell me it's because of the "religious right". Remember, you don't have
to be religious or even *have* a religion to be moral. *I expected Kerry to
win, and to win handily*. When I awoke Wednesday morning, I was completely
surprised to see how well Bush did with a good majority of the electoral votes,
and a whopping 3.5 million more in the popular vote. He didn't beat Kerry; he
kicked the mush out of him.

Above all, I am glad we will not have an ambulance chaser a heartbeat away from
the presidency. That was a terrible choice the DNC/Kerry made. Edwards was
more of a hindrance than an asset. (On a sadder note: Just heard that Mrs.
Edwards has breast cancer. Terrible news. If only someday we can beat all
cancer.)

Its looking grim
 

Scott opines:

Hopefully nonoffensively, I can point out that when Bush ran, he had a
record of failed businesses, a drunk driving arrest or two, a rich family
with heavy Saudi ties, family privilege that helped him avoid Vietnam by
almost meeting a National Guard commitment, no foreign policy experience,
and his biggest qualification was that he governed a state constitutionally
headed by a hands-off governor. Then on top of all that, I'll point out
that about half the population is largely unimpressed by his performance as
President and CIC, he deliberately trumped up faulty intelligence that
brought us to a war we're having problems finishing, he ignored
intelligence that might have prevented the deaths of 3,000 citizens, and he
ran up a record deficit (even without the two wars factored in) and put the
money into his buddys' collective pockets.

IMO, which is no more or less valid than YO, this is a train wreck that is
happening right now.


Then why didn't Gore win in 2000? He was the vp of a "successfull"
administration. Why didn't he walk away with the election?

The same holds true for this election. If Bush was so bad, so hated, so
disrespected, so dumb, so incompetent, how's come the VN hero didn't win? And
don';t tell me it's because of the "religious right". Remember, you don't have
to be religious or even *have* a religion to be moral. *I expected Kerry to
win, and to win handily*. When I awoke Wednesday morning, I was completely
surprised to see how well Bush did with a good majority of the electoral votes,
and a whopping 3.5 million more in the popular vote. He didn't beat Kerry; he
kicked the mush out of him.

Above all, I am glad we will not have an ambulance chaser a heartbeat away from
the presidency. That was a terrible choice the DNC/Kerry made. Edwards was
more of a hindrance than an asset. (On a sadder note: Just heard that Mrs.
Edwards has breast cancer. Terrible news. If only someday we can beat all
cancer.)

Its looking grim
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote

Remember, you don't have
to be religious or even *have* a religion to be moral.

I think one fear many of us have for this country is the fact that it's also
well proven that "being religious" and having a "religion" don't always lead
to being moral.

A huge majority of history's nastiest moments resulted from men honestly
believing "god is on our side" A lot more have resulted from those
pretending true faith using "religion" to promote hate and self interest.

Our country has separated church and state for good, history proven,
reasons. I'd suggest that it's not time to forget those reasons, it's time
to really remember them.




Larry
(who thinks of himself as deeply spiritual and ethical, but finds any "true
believer" very scary ... )

Its looking grim
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote

Remember, you don't have
to be religious or even *have* a religion to be moral.

I think one fear many of us have for this country is the fact that it's also
well proven that "being religious" and having a "religion" don't always lead
to being moral.

A huge majority of history's nastiest moments resulted from men honestly
believing "god is on our side" A lot more have resulted from those
pretending true faith using "religion" to promote hate and self interest.

Our country has separated church and state for good, history proven,
reasons. I'd suggest that it's not time to forget those reasons, it's time
to really remember them.




Larry
(who thinks of himself as deeply spiritual and ethical, but finds any "true
believer" very scary ... )

Its looking grim
 

Larry L. writes:

Our country has separated church and state for good, history proven,
reasons. I'd suggest that it's not time to forget those reasons, it's time
to really remember them.



Uhhhhh, who said I favor a state religion? I don't. I am all for separation
of church and state. That was not what I was speaking of. You do not need to
be a Right Wing Religious Zealot to have morals. And, yes, some RWRZ have low
or no morals. That is not what I was speaking of. I have many friends who are
not church goers yet their morals are very high and they didn't vote for Kerry.


What are you afraid of, btw?

Its looking grim
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote


Uhhhhh, who said I favor a state religion? I don't.


Yeah, I knew I wasn't "on-thread" Your sentence caught my eye at just the
right minute to get me to respond ... my kid and I have been discussing the
difference between religious teachings and morality ... or more accurately
false religious teachings and morality



What are you afraid of, btw?


...specifically pertaining to this election, the reduction of separation
of church and state as political payback ... i.e. having my "religious
rights" threatened by the "religious Right"

Its looking grim
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote


Uhhhhh, who said I favor a state religion? I don't.


Yeah, I knew I wasn't "on-thread" Your sentence caught my eye at just the
right minute to get me to respond ... my kid and I have been discussing the
difference between religious teachings and morality ... or more accurately
false religious teachings and morality



What are you afraid of, btw?


...specifically pertaining to this election, the reduction of separation
of church and state as political payback ... i.e. having my "religious
rights" threatened by the "religious Right"

Its looking grim
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
When I awoke Wednesday morning, I was completely
surprised to see how well Bush did with a good majority of the electoral
votes,
and a whopping 3.5 million more in the popular vote. He didn't beat
Kerry; he
kicked the mush out of him.



I wouldn't classify that as a 'mushing', Dave. That was actually the closest
election (except for the other one) since Carter beat Ford in 1976. Here are
the differences (from the Federal Register site)
http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...ge/scores.html :

1996: Clinton def. Dole by 7,774,396
1992: Clinton def. Bush by 5,805,911
1988: Bush def. Dukakis by 6,890,000
1984: Reagan def. Mondale by 16,878,000
1980: Reagan def. Carter by 8,417,992

And considering that the amount of votes cast was much smaller in all of
those elections, the differential of this weeks vote was actually pretty
tiny. "Mushings" are what Reagan dealt Mondale. Gave him two black eyes, if
the pictures are any indication.


--riverman

Its looking grim
 

Larry L. writes:


What are you afraid of, btw?


...specifically pertaining to this election, the reduction of separation
of church and state as political payback ... i.e. having my "religious
rights" threatened by the "religious Right"

The sky might fall too. d;o)
The president doesn't make the law, and only the people can add to the
Constitution, so the separation of Church and State clause will remain
throughout your and my lifetimes.

Its looking grim
 

Myron writes:

1996: Clinton def. Dole by 7,774,396
1992: Clinton def. Bush by 5,805,911
1988: Bush def. Dukakis by 6,890,000
1984: Reagan def. Mondale by 16,878,000
1980: Reagan def. Carter by 8,417,992

And considering that the amount of votes cast was much smaller in all of
those elections, the differential of this weeks vote was actually pretty
tiny. "Mushings" are what Reagan dealt Mondale. Gave him two black eyes, if
the pictures are any indication.


--riverman

Aw, comeon..... I want a mushing!

It *was* the first majority vote since 88, however.