Its looking grim

Bill Kiene wrote:

If and when our Muslim friends are successful in getting a nuclear bomb off
in a major US city it will all take care of it's self.

Automatic WWIII

--
Bill Kiene


I hope such a thing never happens , but should it ............
I don`t think it will be WW111 ...... The US has just alienated
itself from the rest of the world . they`ll have to fight this one
their own J

philski writes:

I have always been an independent. I knew my vote in Idaho would be
nothing more than a protest vote because I do not like Bush. I
particularly do not like Cheney. He lacks integrity. (not that Kerry has
an abundance of it either- )

I believe that is the problem with the Dem Party this time around: They
selected someone who they thought could beat Bush, not someone who they thought
would be a good president. Lots of people voted for Kerry because of their
dislike of Bush. That ain't no way to run a railroad. Pick a viable
candidate, someone without all the luggage that Kerry carried (questionable VN
service, questionable actions after VN which probably lengthened the war, a
Senator without a good record in Congress, a billionaire wife who looks like
Tootsie and can't keep her trashy mouth shut, and the blunder of all blunders,
picking Edwards as his running mate). It was a train wreck waiting to happen.

You do not vote because you hate someone; you vote because you think your
candidate is the best qualified.

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
philski writes:

I have always been an independent. I knew my vote in Idaho would be
nothing more than a protest vote because I do not like Bush. I
particularly do not like Cheney. He lacks integrity. (not that Kerry has
an abundance of it either- )

I believe that is the problem with the Dem Party this time around: They
selected someone who they thought could beat Bush, not someone who they
thought
would be a good president. Lots of people voted for Kerry because of
their
dislike of Bush. That ain't no way to run a railroad. Pick a viable
candidate, someone without all the luggage that Kerry carried
(questionable VN
service, questionable actions after VN which probably lengthened the war,
a
Senator without a good record in Congress, a billionaire wife who looks
like
Tootsie and can't keep her trashy mouth shut, and the blunder of all
blunders,
picking Edwards as his running mate). It was a train wreck waiting to
happen.

You do not vote because you hate someone; you vote because you think your
candidate is the best qualified.

Goddamn, you are a sick maggot.

Wolfgang
who quails for humanity as long as this kind of filth breaths and breeds.

irate (Dave LaCourse) wrote in
:

Pick a viable
candidate, someone without all the luggage that Kerry carried
(questionable VN service, questionable actions after VN which probably
lengthened the war, a Senator without a good record in Congress, a
billionaire wife who looks like Tootsie and can't keep her trashy
mouth shut, and the blunder of all blunders, picking Edwards as his
running mate). It was a train wreck waiting to happen.



Dave-

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.

Scott

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.)

"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 ... )

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?

"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"

"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"

"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