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.

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.

Its looking grim
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:

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.

Over the past few days, I've heard three different conservative
evangelical Christians on radio talk shows maintain (in all seriousness,
apparently) that the wording of First Amendment DOES NOT specifically
prescribe a separation of church and state.

So if a President sharing this interpretation were to appoint three or
four Supreme Court justices with the same views.....

JR

Its looking grim
 

John Russell writes:

Over the past few days, I've heard three different conservative
evangelical Christians on radio talk shows maintain (in all seriousness,
apparently) that the wording of First Amendment DOES NOT specifically
prescribe a separation of church and state.

So if a President sharing this interpretation were to appoint three or
four Supreme Court justices with the same views.....

In the first place, I don't think Bush would go for that. And secondly, the
sky will fall before that happens.

Where are you now?

Its looking grim
 

John Russell writes:

Over the past few days, I've heard three different conservative
evangelical Christians on radio talk shows maintain (in all seriousness,
apparently) that the wording of First Amendment DOES NOT specifically
prescribe a separation of church and state.

So if a President sharing this interpretation were to appoint three or
four Supreme Court justices with the same views.....

In the first place, I don't think Bush would go for that. And secondly, the
sky will fall before that happens.

Where are you now?

Its looking grim
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:

In the first place, I don't think Bush would go for that. And secondly, the
sky will fall before that happens.

Funny, that's what I would have said about you takin' singing lessons....
g

Where are you now?

Back in beautiful Bend, Oregon. Turns out 30 months was about all I could
take of the UN's particular brand of bureaucracy...

JR

Its looking grim
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:

In the first place, I don't think Bush would go for that. And secondly, the
sky will fall before that happens.

Funny, that's what I would have said about you takin' singing lessons....
g

Where are you now?

Back in beautiful Bend, Oregon. Turns out 30 months was about all I could
take of the UN's particular brand of bureaucracy...

JR

Its looking grim
 

"JR" wrote

Over the past few days, I've heard three different conservative
evangelical Christians on radio talk shows maintain

That stuff will rot your brain JR, careful


Are you in Bend, Oregon .... if not how did I get that idea?

if so, I keep maning to get up there and fish those likes .... Crane Prairie
sp?) and Hosmer? and I think you have a spring crik or two near there

Its looking grim
 

"Larry L" wrote

I keep maning to get up there and fish those likes

doh, "meaning to get up there and fish those lakes
.... the connection between my brain and my fingers seems to be slipping
away .. thar it gooes nowe

Its looking grim
 

Larry L wrote:

"JR" wrote

Over the past few days, I've heard three different conservative
evangelical Christians on radio talk shows maintain

That stuff will rot your brain JR, careful

Yeah, and these were just the NPR variety.... ;)

Are you in Bend, Oregon .... if not how did I get that idea?

if so, I keep maning to get up there and fish those likes .... Crane Prairie
sp?) and Hosmer? and I think you have a spring crik or two near there

Yep. Lots of fishing up here, both lakes and rivers. The spring creeks
you're probably thinking about are the Metolius and Fall rivers. Nice
waters, beautiful surroundings, but they don't look much like the classic
spring creeks like Silver Creek or the Paradise Valley or Cumberland
Valley streams. You ever out this way, give me a ping on roff
beforehand. I don't fish lakes much these days..... maybe it's time to
break out the float tube, see if it still holds air.....

JR

Its looking grim
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
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.



That's true. Clinton missed getting 50% of the popular vote by 45,944 votes
in 1996.

--riverman

Its looking grim
 

"JR" wrote in message
.. .
Dave LaCourse wrote:

In the first place, I don't think Bush would go for that. And secondly,
the
sky will fall before that happens.

Funny, that's what I would have said about you takin' singing lessons....
g

Where are you now?

Back in beautiful Bend, Oregon. Turns out 30 months was about all I could
take of the UN's particular brand of bureaucracy...

Damn, I'm jealous. I'm planning on headed up towards Bend or Medford this
summer to look for property. I've almost had enough of this international
thing, myself. This school is a missionary school; in fact I heard the nurse
say to the History teacher that Bush won because they prayed for him to, and
praydelow! it worked.

--riverman

Its looking grim
 

Its looking grim
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:

... 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". ...

Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it untrue.

It was sheer genius to have a "gay-marriage" referendum on the
Ohio ballot. That bit of genius in Ohio (and 10 other states)
insured that fundamentalist dimbulbs who hardly ever vote because
they rightly consider themselves too stupid to vote would turn
out in record setting droves. And they did.

A poll conducted just before the election revealed that 75% of
Shrub supporters believed that Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11.
With a great big PHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhbbbbbbbbbbbbbbt !!!
to the Shrub voting roffians who are doubtless among the 25% of
Shrub voters who DO have a clue, your guy was elected by rubes,
boobs, and fundamentalist bible-thumping morons. No doubt about it.

And if you think four more years of this administration is just
so much business as usual you're as stupid as the other 75% of your
fellow morons.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Its looking grim
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:

... 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". ...

Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it untrue.

It was sheer genius to have a "gay-marriage" referendum on the
Ohio ballot. That bit of genius in Ohio (and 10 other states)
insured that fundamentalist dimbulbs who hardly ever vote because
they rightly consider themselves too stupid to vote would turn
out in record setting droves. And they did.

A poll conducted just before the election revealed that 75% of
Shrub supporters believed that Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11.
With a great big PHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhbbbbbbbbbbbbbbt !!!
to the Shrub voting roffians who are doubtless among the 25% of
Shrub voters who DO have a clue, your guy was elected by rubes,
boobs, and fundamentalist bible-thumping morons. No doubt about it.

And if you think four more years of this administration is just
so much business as usual you're as stupid as the other 75% of your
fellow morons.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Its looking grim
 

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

Mark

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
om...
Dave LaCourse wrote:

... 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". ...

Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it untrue.

It was sheer genius to have a "gay-marriage" referendum on the
Ohio ballot. That bit of genius in Ohio (and 10 other states)
insured that fundamentalist dimbulbs who hardly ever vote because
they rightly consider themselves too stupid to vote would turn
out in record setting droves. And they did.

A poll conducted just before the election revealed that 75% of
Shrub supporters believed that Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11.
With a great big PHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhbbbbbbbbbbbbbbt !!!
to the Shrub voting roffians who are doubtless among the 25% of
Shrub voters who DO have a clue, your guy was elected by rubes,
boobs, and fundamentalist bible-thumping morons. No doubt about it.

And if you think four more years of this administration is just
so much business as usual you're as stupid as the other 75% of your
fellow morons.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Its looking grim
 

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

Mark

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
om...
Dave LaCourse wrote:

... 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". ...

Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it untrue.

It was sheer genius to have a "gay-marriage" referendum on the
Ohio ballot. That bit of genius in Ohio (and 10 other states)
insured that fundamentalist dimbulbs who hardly ever vote because
they rightly consider themselves too stupid to vote would turn
out in record setting droves. And they did.

A poll conducted just before the election revealed that 75% of
Shrub supporters believed that Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11.
With a great big PHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhbbbbbbbbbbbbbbt !!!
to the Shrub voting roffians who are doubtless among the 25% of
Shrub voters who DO have a clue, your guy was elected by rubes,
boobs, and fundamentalist bible-thumping morons. No doubt about it.

And if you think four more years of this administration is just
so much business as usual you're as stupid as the other 75% of your
fellow morons.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Its looking grim
 

"JR" wrote in message
.. .
Dave LaCourse wrote:

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.

Over the past few days, I've heard three different conservative
evangelical Christians on radio talk shows maintain (in all seriousness,
apparently) that the wording of First Amendment DOES NOT specifically
prescribe a separation of church and state.


They were right. It doesn't. You should read it some time.

Mainstream Protestantism.....in it's multifarious variations....has been the
de facto official religion of the United States since before the Bill of
Rights came into being, and it still is. You ever look at a piece of U.S.
currency?.....the part where it says, "In God We Trust?.......well, you can
bet your ass that ain't Yahweh, Allah, Siva, some born again Virgin, or
Quetzalcoatl.

As a matter of fact, an enterprising scholar could, with a minimum of
effort, find some very interesting material on the treatment meted out to
followers of any of the above at various times in our great nation's
history.

The fact that the current pig in chief has sold out that very mainstream
Protestant consitiuency for the transient votes of the even more easily
manipulated lunatic fringe should be viewed as a probably short term
aberration. He certainly isn't the first to do so.....any more than he is
the first to successfully capitalize on the stupidity of the social,
economic, political, and philosophical lunatic fringes. ****, he isn't even
the first to convince tens of millions that he has some sort of religious
leanings himself. After all, the American public IS easy to fool. Hell,
tens of millions of them......bloodthirsty swine that they are.......have
managed to convince themselves that THEY have some sort of religious
leanings.......no, it's TRUE! :)

That said, Tom Gibson was right......probably. After all, it can't happen
here, right?

Wolfgang
ya gotta laugh, ainna?

Its looking grim
 

"JR" wrote in message
.. .
Dave LaCourse wrote:

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.

Over the past few days, I've heard three different conservative
evangelical Christians on radio talk shows maintain (in all seriousness,
apparently) that the wording of First Amendment DOES NOT specifically
prescribe a separation of church and state.


They were right. It doesn't. You should read it some time.

Mainstream Protestantism.....in it's multifarious variations....has been the
de facto official religion of the United States since before the Bill of
Rights came into being, and it still is. You ever look at a piece of U.S.
currency?.....the part where it says, "In God We Trust?.......well, you can
bet your ass that ain't Yahweh, Allah, Siva, some born again Virgin, or
Quetzalcoatl.

As a matter of fact, an enterprising scholar could, with a minimum of
effort, find some very interesting material on the treatment meted out to
followers of any of the above at various times in our great nation's
history.

The fact that the current pig in chief has sold out that very mainstream
Protestant consitiuency for the transient votes of the even more easily
manipulated lunatic fringe should be viewed as a probably short term
aberration. He certainly isn't the first to do so.....any more than he is
the first to successfully capitalize on the stupidity of the social,
economic, political, and philosophical lunatic fringes. ****, he isn't even
the first to convince tens of millions that he has some sort of religious
leanings himself. After all, the American public IS easy to fool. Hell,
tens of millions of them......bloodthirsty swine that they are.......have
managed to convince themselves that THEY have some sort of religious
leanings.......no, it's TRUE! :)

That said, Tom Gibson was right......probably. After all, it can't happen
here, right?

Wolfgang
ya gotta laugh, ainna?

Its looking grim
 

From: Scott Seidman


That will be discussed to death over the next few weeks. I didn't
understand it Tuesday, and I don't understand it now.

You just don't get it, do you? You sit around with you're liberal friends and
you all preach to the choir, and you can't, in your wildest dreams, imagine
that you guys are now in the minority.

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

That is a big reason that Bush won. A majority of voters in this country are
sick and tired of the snobbish liberal elite, looking down on the citizens who
live in "flyover country"

Perhaps fear of hassle by 3,500 "watchers"
kept dems away from the polls in Ohio. Maybe Diebold guy really did
manipulate computer voting sites to hand Bush the election, like he said he
would.
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.
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.

See, that's the typical liberal attitude...it had to be someone else's fault,
and anyone who thinks different is kidding themselves. If you want to fix it,
get over yourself, and help to rebuild the Democratic Party int what it once
was, and give the voters a viable candidate.

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.


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: Scott Seidman


That will be discussed to death over the next few weeks. I didn't
understand it Tuesday, and I don't understand it now.

You just don't get it, do you? You sit around with you're liberal friends and
you all preach to the choir, and you can't, in your wildest dreams, imagine
that you guys are now in the minority.

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

That is a big reason that Bush won. A majority of voters in this country are
sick and tired of the snobbish liberal elite, looking down on the citizens who
live in "flyover country"

Perhaps fear of hassle by 3,500 "watchers"
kept dems away from the polls in Ohio. Maybe Diebold guy really did
manipulate computer voting sites to hand Bush the election, like he said he
would.
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.
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.

See, that's the typical liberal attitude...it had to be someone else's fault,
and anyone who thinks different is kidding themselves. If you want to fix it,
get over yourself, and help to rebuild the Democratic Party int what it once
was, and give the voters a viable candidate.

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.


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
 

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