Its looking grim
 

George Adams notes:
As I said in a previous post, 51% of the voters in the country sent a message
to the remaining 49%, but they just don't get it, and based on your post, I
doubt they ever will.

I get the message perhaps, but not the great significance. What it should mean
is that the elected should work on the few items on which way more than 50%
agree need to be worked on, and avoid any radical ones which lead to the 50/50
divide, and go forward. I suspect that the bulk of the electorate on both sides
want protection from terrorists, simpler,fairer taxation and fiscal
responsibility. Addressing those three issues sensibly would win bipartisan
support. No one has a mandate to go forward with closing down Social Security
or other Federal Social programs, spending huge sums "democratizing" the
Islamic world or altering the Constitution just to clarify the marriage rules.
Some, I see with distress today, would seem to feel that they do. If the
attitude persists, the divisions persist. If we stay divided and constantly out
of consensus, we strike those that would harm us as sitting ducks.
Ultimately,we stay divided,and divisive, long enough, and we are dead in the
water. It is that simple. Now, George, what part didn't I get?
Tom

Its looking grim
 

George Adams notes:
As I said in a previous post, 51% of the voters in the country sent a message
to the remaining 49%, but they just don't get it, and based on your post, I
doubt they ever will.

I get the message perhaps, but not the great significance. What it should mean
is that the elected should work on the few items on which way more than 50%
agree need to be worked on, and avoid any radical ones which lead to the 50/50
divide, and go forward. I suspect that the bulk of the electorate on both sides
want protection from terrorists, simpler,fairer taxation and fiscal
responsibility. Addressing those three issues sensibly would win bipartisan
support. No one has a mandate to go forward with closing down Social Security
or other Federal Social programs, spending huge sums "democratizing" the
Islamic world or altering the Constitution just to clarify the marriage rules.
Some, I see with distress today, would seem to feel that they do. If the
attitude persists, the divisions persist. If we stay divided and constantly out
of consensus, we strike those that would harm us as sitting ducks.
Ultimately,we stay divided,and divisive, long enough, and we are dead in the
water. It is that simple. Now, George, what part didn't I get?
Tom

Its looking grim
 

From: (Tom Littleton)

I get the message perhaps, but not the great significance. What it should
mean
is that the elected should work on the few items on which way more than 50%
agree need to be worked on, and avoid any radical ones which lead to the
50/50
divide, and go forward. I suspect that the bulk of the electorate on both
sides
want protection from terrorists, simpler,fairer taxation and fiscal
responsibility. Addressing those three issues sensibly would win bipartisan
support. No one has a mandate to go forward with closing down Social Security
or other Federal Social programs, spending huge sums "democratizing" the
Islamic world or altering the Constitution just to clarify the marriage
rules.
Some, I see with distress today, would seem to feel that they do. If the
attitude persists, the divisions persist. If we stay divided and constantly
out
of consensus, we strike those that would harm us as sitting ducks.
Ultimately,we stay divided,and divisive, long enough, and we are dead in the
water. It is that simple. Now, George, what part didn't I get?


Well let's take a look. The majority seemed to feel that Bush would be more
effective against terrorism, and they like his tax policy. As far as fiscal
responsibility...well 2 out of three ain't bad.

Kerry's "plan", which was to keep the status quo, would likely shut down
social security. SS is broken and needs to be fixed. An option for younger
workers to partially privatize the plan is a step in the right direction.

The big reason for Bush's win was, according to the exit polls, voters simply
felt that he was a decent, moral man. Take a look at the 'celebrities' that
came out for Kerry. Moore, Franken, P-Diddy, 50-Cent. Are they your vision for
a better America?. I hope not, because you seem far too intelligent to think
like that.

Despite the view here that I am a Republican, I am actually unenrolled ( MA
term for independant) and, like my friend and neighbor, Tim J. vote a split
ticket. I would be delighted to see the democratic party of fifty years ago,
and would certainly vote for a Democrat for president, if that happened.

One thing that definitely needs to change is the snobbish elite view that all
Bush voters are ignorant rubes and yahoos. I number myself among those folks,
and I find some of the remarks made on this board to be personal insults, not
that it really matters. That attitude is doing as much to divide this country
as anything Bush & co. have done.

Rant mode off.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

Its looking grim
 

From: (Tom Littleton)

I get the message perhaps, but not the great significance. What it should
mean
is that the elected should work on the few items on which way more than 50%
agree need to be worked on, and avoid any radical ones which lead to the
50/50
divide, and go forward. I suspect that the bulk of the electorate on both
sides
want protection from terrorists, simpler,fairer taxation and fiscal
responsibility. Addressing those three issues sensibly would win bipartisan
support. No one has a mandate to go forward with closing down Social Security
or other Federal Social programs, spending huge sums "democratizing" the
Islamic world or altering the Constitution just to clarify the marriage
rules.
Some, I see with distress today, would seem to feel that they do. If the
attitude persists, the divisions persist. If we stay divided and constantly
out
of consensus, we strike those that would harm us as sitting ducks.
Ultimately,we stay divided,and divisive, long enough, and we are dead in the
water. It is that simple. Now, George, what part didn't I get?


Well let's take a look. The majority seemed to feel that Bush would be more
effective against terrorism, and they like his tax policy. As far as fiscal
responsibility...well 2 out of three ain't bad.

Kerry's "plan", which was to keep the status quo, would likely shut down
social security. SS is broken and needs to be fixed. An option for younger
workers to partially privatize the plan is a step in the right direction.

The big reason for Bush's win was, according to the exit polls, voters simply
felt that he was a decent, moral man. Take a look at the 'celebrities' that
came out for Kerry. Moore, Franken, P-Diddy, 50-Cent. Are they your vision for
a better America?. I hope not, because you seem far too intelligent to think
like that.

Despite the view here that I am a Republican, I am actually unenrolled ( MA
term for independant) and, like my friend and neighbor, Tim J. vote a split
ticket. I would be delighted to see the democratic party of fifty years ago,
and would certainly vote for a Democrat for president, if that happened.

One thing that definitely needs to change is the snobbish elite view that all
Bush voters are ignorant rubes and yahoos. I number myself among those folks,
and I find some of the remarks made on this board to be personal insults, not
that it really matters. That attitude is doing as much to divide this country
as anything Bush & co. have done.

Rant mode off.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

Its looking grim
 

Scott writes:]

That will be discussed to death over the next few weeks. I didn't
understand it Tuesday, and I don't understand it now. Some of it has to do
with the Republican campaign tactics (just like with the Gore near miss).

Yeah, campaign tactics like bitching and moaning about Bush's NG record,
Michael Moore's film, every whacko in Hollywood calling Bush dumb, the false
papers produced by CBS and the false story produced by the NY Times, the DNC
envoking the dreaded "draft" word. Hell, with all of that, I am surprised that
Bush won.

Jacking up the alert level every time Bush did something embarrassing might
have helped.

???? Don't remember that. Couldn't have been that noticeable to everyone.


Making Farmer Brown scared that a bomb might go off at his
Wally World might have helped.

Don't remember that one either.



Perhaps fear of hassle by 3,500 "watchers"
kept dems away from the polls in Ohio.

Uh, the "watchers" were from *both* parties.

Maybe Diebold guy really did
manipulate computer voting sites to hand Bush the election, like he said he
would.

Riiiiiiight! And you, an edumacated man, believe it. Tsk, tsk, tsk.


Hell, having nothing else going for him, maybe simply keeping the
war going through the election was enough to push him over the top-- I
fully believe him capable of wagging the dog, just like you always
suspected that of Clinton.

Ah, but Clinton *did* wag the dog. Several times. An aspirin factory. A
camel and a tent. And how can we forget nation building in Kosovo.

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.

A few percent is hardly a mandate, especially when you think about how
vehemently Bush's opposition hates him. He won by one chunky state, and
don't kid yourself into thinking he did better.

Look at the map that John Russel referred to. It's an impressive win,
especially when things were going very badly for him. And, remember, he is the
first majority president since his father.

Your Democrat ideology is showing. Snedeker is gonna get ya.

Its looking grim
 

Scott writes:]

That will be discussed to death over the next few weeks. I didn't
understand it Tuesday, and I don't understand it now. Some of it has to do
with the Republican campaign tactics (just like with the Gore near miss).

Yeah, campaign tactics like bitching and moaning about Bush's NG record,
Michael Moore's film, every whacko in Hollywood calling Bush dumb, the false
papers produced by CBS and the false story produced by the NY Times, the DNC
envoking the dreaded "draft" word. Hell, with all of that, I am surprised that
Bush won.

Jacking up the alert level every time Bush did something embarrassing might
have helped.

???? Don't remember that. Couldn't have been that noticeable to everyone.


Making Farmer Brown scared that a bomb might go off at his
Wally World might have helped.

Don't remember that one either.



Perhaps fear of hassle by 3,500 "watchers"
kept dems away from the polls in Ohio.

Uh, the "watchers" were from *both* parties.

Maybe Diebold guy really did
manipulate computer voting sites to hand Bush the election, like he said he
would.

Riiiiiiight! And you, an edumacated man, believe it. Tsk, tsk, tsk.


Hell, having nothing else going for him, maybe simply keeping the
war going through the election was enough to push him over the top-- I
fully believe him capable of wagging the dog, just like you always
suspected that of Clinton.

Ah, but Clinton *did* wag the dog. Several times. An aspirin factory. A
camel and a tent. And how can we forget nation building in Kosovo.

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.

A few percent is hardly a mandate, especially when you think about how
vehemently Bush's opposition hates him. He won by one chunky state, and
don't kid yourself into thinking he did better.

Look at the map that John Russel referred to. It's an impressive win,
especially when things were going very badly for him. And, remember, he is the
first majority president since his father.

Your Democrat ideology is showing. Snedeker is gonna get ya.

Its looking grim
 

Mark writes:

Oh well, so much for that Labrador fishin' trip.

SPLORK

Post of the week.

Its looking grim - OT
 

George Adams wrote:

Well let's take a look. The majority seemed to feel that Bush would be more
effective against terrorism, and they like his tax policy. As far as fiscal
responsibility...well 2 out of three ain't bad.

How does one separate Bush's fiscal irresponsibility from his ruinous,
regressive tax policy or from his hugely costly, totally unnecessary
war--a war that hinders rather than aids the fight against terrorism?

JR

Its looking grim - OT
 

George Adams wrote:

Well let's take a look. The majority seemed to feel that Bush would be more
effective against terrorism, and they like his tax policy. As far as fiscal
responsibility...well 2 out of three ain't bad.

How does one separate Bush's fiscal irresponsibility from his ruinous,
regressive tax policy or from his hugely costly, totally unnecessary
war--a war that hinders rather than aids the fight against terrorism?

JR

Its looking grim
 

"George Adams" wrote in message
...

...Take a look at the 'celebrities' that
came out for Kerry. Moore, Franken, P-Diddy, 50-Cent. Are they your vision
for
a better America?. I hope not, because you seem far too intelligent to
think
like that...

One thing that definitely needs to change is the snobbish elite view that
all
Bush voters are ignorant rubes and yahoos...

Hm.......

Wolfgang