Election Day

[raditz]

It's finally here, we will know who the next president of the United States of America will be soon. .

I'm hoping for Bush, but the race is close and it could go either way. I'd like to keep this post on the short side so I won't go into detail about what I think of Kerry, but if Kerry is elected as our next president, I will do my best to support him. Let's hope that the election goes very smoothly this time around.

[raublekick]

I'm truly glad that you are willing to support Kerry if he wins. It just pisses me off that the majority of Republicans are completely anti-Kerry based on things that happened in the early 70's, but if someone brings up Bush's not-so-perfect past it suddenly is irrelavant.

Unfortunately I can't say I will supoort the Bush administration if he were to be reelected. Sounds hypocritical, but Kerry doesn't have 4 years of prior job experience to judge him by. I gave GW a chance for 4 years, and I feel it's time to give someone else a chance.

[johnny]

a couple months ago, i was pretty certain that bush was going to be a one-term president, but now i'm almost expecting him to win (though he probably wouldn't win by much).

how many times do you guys plan to count the votes this year? i'm tired of hearing about this election every day, and would like for it to be all done today please. ;)

[Plain Old Jane]

a couple months ago, i was pretty certain that bush was going to be a one-term president, but now i'm almost expecting him to win (though he probably wouldn't win by much).

how many times do you guys plan to count the votes this year? i'm tired of hearing about this election every day, and would like for it to be all done today please. ;)

as many times as it takes, if bush wins... france is looking pretty good as a new home....

[thecreeper]

going home and voting for kerry...i am anxiously awaiting the results tonight.

[raublekick]

i'm fairly confident that Kerry will win. all the polls show a deadlock, but the polls exclude unlikely voters. who are the unlikely voters? young people like us, most of whom support kerry. as long as younger voters get their asse out there (which again, i'm confident) Kerry should have it,

[sharkz]

Kerry's gonna win.




The redskins lost. :wink:

[Marshall]

I voted for Kerry and I think he will have alot more support than initially thought because MTV is blatantly anti-bush. That didnt make me decide kerry but I happened across one of their "political" shows last night and every single issue showed clips from kerrys speech being generically for whatever they are trying to push and Bush being generically against it.

One of the issues was drug laws. They showed some clip of Kerry saying "These prisons are being filled up wiht people that have not committed non-violent crimes." Very generic. Then they showed bush saying something along the lines of "I am for the war on drugs" or something. The clips didnt really pertain to anything being discussed but it made it look like it.

[johnny]

i'm declaring gore the winner

[GT2000]

"The New Soldier".

Too bad the book has been kept covered up and costs $500.

[thecreeper]

this country is stupid.

[raditz]

i feel sooooooooooo relieved. i'm curious as to who cid voted for now though. probably kerry, seeing as how everyone at this board thinks that kerry would have made a good president except for me.

[thecreeper]

im curious as to why you think that stupid pompous ass would be good for this country.

restrictions on women's right to choose, increased powers of the patriot act and thus less privacy in your life, increased warring with Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, as well as stirring up hate around the world with our ignorant politics and world policing. not to mention a far divide in the very rich and very poor, shrinking job market due to shipping jobs like the ones i am going for overseas, and the complete control of the house and senate by the republicans.

yes, this is a wonderful fucking day.

[Cid]

I voted for Kerry, not because I like him, but because I think Bush is a fuck.

The people who are PRO Bush (and I say PRO, meaning "hardcore" Bush heads) are mostly your christians, who believe that abortion is the devil, gays are the devil, blacks are the devil, women are the devil, fooz ball is the devil...you get the idea;) Now, there is nothing at all wrong with having a strong faith...nothing at all. But I do not (NOT) believe that it has ANY place in governing a country. That's why the A-Rabs seem so fucked up; they do insane fucking things in the name of "god". I just see the leader of a country as a role model, not a preacher. You can't fairly govern a monotheistic electorate with "faith based initiatives"...you just can't...it won't work...it can't work...it never ever ever will work.

If I were a wealth, hard core christian, and a member of the NRA I may see things differently. Now, there is nothing WRONG with that type of person...it's just not me, and I don't agree with their liberty-impeding right-limiting agendas. To each their own, but I would never tell people how to live their lives. Our president, would...and does.

[raditz]

asdfasdf

[johnny]

you raise a good point, raditz.

[Plain Old Jane]

cant believe that ass-clown won...

oh well, not my fault, MY STATE WENT DEMOCRAT.... 55% democrat, 30% assclown.

moving to france, see you guys in hell...

[Plain Old Jane]

I mean how the fuck did this happen. farenheit 911 and all the bad choices he's made, his in your face faith politics! WHAT THE FUCK! I DONT FUCKING BELIEVE THIS! HOW CAN PEOPLE THINK HES GOOD!?! NO! I LIKE CHEESE!! WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON! MY CHEST HURTS NOW! WTF! OMG! BBQ!!!!!

[Plain Old Jane]

WHAT IN THE HOLY FUCK ARE PEOPLE THINKING!

I take that back...

NO!! WHAT THE FUCK!!
According to CNN, more MEN voted for bush, more WOMEN voted for Kerry! ITS ALL YOUR FAULT! FUCK!


footnote: fucking less than a quarter of the population of the US voted... fuckers, I hate the south now... yea... I hated it before, but now I REALLY hate it...

[Plain Old Jane]

WHAT THE FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Plain Old Jane]

ya know what, why should I leave, he's the one that sucks!

[Mike]

Jep, stop pretending like you're not part of the problem. Stop threatening with that bullshit that you're going to move to France, or Canada, or wherever the liberal masses decree they're moving to. If you really don't want to be here, then nobody is preventing you from moving. You live in a country where you can control how much money you make, make some more money, buy a plane ticket, and move.

I voted for Bush, though, it didn't matter, as I live in the most liberal state in the Union. While I obviously wanted Bush to win, I wouldn't have even minded had Kerry won... As I would just have to deal with so much less bullshit from my colleagues. The part of me that cares about America is pleased that Bush won, the part of me that cares about myself is somewhat stressed... just because day in and day out I have to put up with the bullshit that comes with living in Massachusetts, going to a private college, and being a teenager.
Mike

[Mike]

I hate the south now... yea... I hated it before, but now I REALLY hate it...

http://www.osmar.net/mike/2004countymap3.gif

Yeah, damn the South ... and ... the rest of the geopolitical landscape of the United States.
Mike

[johnny]

are the white blocks areas that were won by an independent, or is that image incomplete?

[raublekick]

the funny thing about it is that it looks like Bush slaughtered, which isn't the case. Obviosly for Kerry to be even remotely close, the blue areas have to be extremely high density populations.

That in itself raises some issues with me. One of the biggest factor of this election was "morals" (i.e. voting to take peoples rights away (i.e. WTF are we back int eh 1950's?)). People who voted for Bush are generally the "moral" people while Kerry voters were the "anti-moral" people. Since Kerry voters reside in the high denisty areas, it can be deduced the the people who are for gay rights and women's rights are the people who live around diverse people, and actually have to see and deal with lots of different people. Bush voters live in rural areas where they only have to deal with "their kind". It's this sort of intolerant BS that pisses me off, mostly the fact that in this day in age people can actually vote to hurt other people.

[Plain Old Jane]

Jep, stop pretending like you're not part of the problem. Stop threatening with that bullshit that you're going to move to France, or Canada, or wherever the liberal masses decree they're moving to. If you really don't want to be here, then nobody is preventing you from moving. You live in a country where you can control how much money you make, make some more money, buy a plane ticket, and move.


now you know that isnt true, as americans we like to tell eachother that america has no caste aspect, that we have full vertical mobility in the whole gammut. The truth is that there is most definitly a caste aspect to our society, the very poor stay poor, and the most extreme portions of the rich, stay rich. We like to tell ourselves that we can get there some day, but we never will. And with Fuhrer Bush in power again, your going to see a lot more legislation that raises that lowwer-lowwer caste bar rise, your going to see the fall of the middle class, and your going to see that 1 percent of the rich caste people get even richer. And your going to see a LOT of the kids who voted for Kerry(or werent old enough to vote), die in wars they never believed in.

I'd be FULLY willing to go bush if someone could give me a honest reason why, but in four years, I havent heard one. Just stuff about his faith, how he's going after terrorists, how we're liberating iraq, and his stupid tax plans that failed big time.

and mike, theres only four million more votes for bush than kerry, and its THAT much space to fill that gap, that map cant be entirely accurate.

[edit] I'm also not going to venture to guess just how I'm part of the problem... I WAS kidding about the france thing, I'd prolly move to belgium or amsterdam (where they have souls...). But I swear if you meant my gender issues... I will hunt you down and have sweet rough sex with you.

[Stormy]

My vote didn't matter:
http://sbe.vipnet.org/nov2004/085.htm

What really upset me with this election was that Bush won the masses with his stance on issues of morality; gay marriage and abortion, mainly. These are both steeped very much in an ethic code that is biased towards religion. Such issues shouldn't really be a part of a candidate's ideology due to separation of church and state (i.e. in France, marriage is something dealt with by the church, whereas "living conditions" (say a platonic brother and sister living together for an extended period of time) are dealt with by the state). In such a circumstance, the siblings would receive the same benefits as a married couple, without having to find "life lasting love." If we applied that same solution to gay union, and simply left "marriage under God" to the church, there wouldn't be a problem. Instead of discussing issues like the oil reserve in Alaska, Bush's aversion to legislation concerning regulation of automobile polution (both of which affect, not only the US, but the world as well) or the unequal tax cuts, he got most people's votes because he prays every day, and his wife used to be a librarian.

There are obviously exceptions to this (I see Mike as being one of them), as my friend Stephen has shown me. He voted Bush for national security, not because he likes to go to Church.

[raditz]

meh, gotta keep editing my posts so i can stay out of this.

asdfasdf

[Mike]

now you know that isnt true, as americans we like to tell eachother that america has no caste aspect, that we have full vertical mobility in the whole gammut. The truth is that there is most definitly a caste aspect to our society, the very poor stay poor, and the most extreme portions of the rich, stay rich. We like to tell ourselves that we can get there some day, but we never will. And with Fuhrer Bush in power again, your going to see a lot more legislation that raises that lowwer-lowwer caste bar rise, your going to see the fall of the middle class, and your going to see that 1 percent of the rich caste people get even richer. And your going to see a LOT of the kids who voted for Kerry(or werent old enough to vote), die in wars they never believed in.

YOu mentioned that the very poor stay poor and that the incredibly rich stay rich. Well, you missed the largest segment of our population: the middle class, who typically weign and wax between lower, middle, and upper class. WHen I said that YOU have the opportunity to make as much money as you want, then, legitimately YOU do. I don't think that you're in the poorest class of citizen. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you are desparately poor and instead of buying food or struggling to afford heat, you can buy a computer, a broadband internet connection, and hundreds of dollars of sexual cosmetics--or whatever. It's quite apparent that YOU can make as much money as YOU want to make. I did not say that "THE POOR" can make as much money as they want to make, I said you, and from my understanding of you, YOU must have the ability to get $350 and get a one way plane ticket to Europe. Sure, it won't be first class, but, hey, to sit in first class would be anti-democratic.

A libertarian or republican model for economy is that which does not discriminate. The discriminations and the hitches in our economy that hold back individuals--hold back the poor from climbing out of poverty--are the discriminate systems created by "progressive liberals" (who are now more entrenched in the past than any other time) who want to make divisions between people. They want to give free money to black, job-less, despondent urbanites... because they want to keep those people jobless and despondent. They want to put those people in dire situations where they cannot climb out of ... so they give them free money, they perpetuate their laziness, and inturn, the people NEVER get out of the ghetto, but they ALWAYS vote Democrat.

I'd be FULLY willing to go bush if someone could give me a honest reason why, but in four years, I havent heard one. Just stuff about his faith, how he's going after terrorists, how we're liberating iraq, and his stupid tax plans that failed big time.

His stupid tax plans didn't fail big time. Why do you think that jobs went down in 1999, and throughout the first two years of his first reign as president? Because the rich--the corporate business owners--were still being fucked by taxes. Who do you think creates jobs? The rich, corporate business owners. You don't see the $2 ho on the corner of Main St. making jobs... You see the corporate businessman making jobs. They can only make jobs if they have money. We had an incredible surplus that was unstimulated... there was no stimulation in our economy, so naturally, it dropped.

You're looking for an "honest reason" why to "go Bush." First, I'm not asking you to "Go Bush," because that is beyond the capability of somebody who gets their information from MoveOn.Org, DemocraticUnderground.com, or Bono from U2 (not saying that you necessarily do, but over the years, I've noticed that it's impossible to sway anybody from their opinion when they're getting their information from the extremes. Just like those who get their information from Rush, you can't budge them).

If you want an honest reason, I probably can't give you one from your own perspective, because your perspective of honesty is far disconnected from the perspective of honesty that I have, or that President Bush has. I would consider it honest to admit that abortion is murder [though, apolitical], I would consider it honest to stimulate the economy, and I would consider many other things honest. However, considering that you're probably a relativist (based off of conversation we've had in the past), I doubt that you would tend to agree with me.

and mike, theres only four million more votes for bush than kerry, and its THAT much space to fill that gap, that map cant be entirely accurate.

The map is not entirely accurate, because most of the counties of Maine went republican, and many of the greys that were not filled in were information that had not been divulged, or was not considered accurate. The rest is very accurate and is based off of the same information that can be accumulated by the public, from lawful websites. It doesn't mean that all of those counties went 99% Bush and 1% Kerry, they could be 50/50 percentage wise, with the majority going Bush. It's just a majoritive map. Not only that, but the massive populations are in urban centers--and those are accounted for. The West Coast of California, Seattle, the Missisippi River basin, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, much of Connecticut, Urban Maine, half of New Hampshire, all of Vermont... New York City.

[edit] I'm also not going to venture to guess just how I'm part of the problem... I WAS kidding about the france thing, I'd prolly move to belgium or amsterdam (where they have souls...). But I swear if you meant my gender issues... I will hunt you down and have sweet rough sex with you.

Assuming that you're a democrat, you, like many democrats, are looking for excuses for why they lost--Men voting Bush, 23% of the population voting, the South, "Fuhrer Bush", perpetuating the liberal propaganda lies (the bit about the middle class disapearing, kids who voted for Kerry dying in wars [the democrats wrote HR-163, the Republicans are the opposition to that bill]), and delegitimizing the opinions of the majority of Americans ("Just stuff about his faith, how he's going after terrorists, how he's liberating iraq, his stupid tax plans"). See, what's wrong with the Democratic party today is that they're not willing to shake things up to get their power basin back. Clinton, while the strongest democratic politician in the last 30 years, fucked the party... because of the way that the party perpetuates itself. Every Democratic candidate tries to play off of the successes of past successful democrats--Kennedy did it with FDR, LBJ did it with FDR, Clinton used Kennedy, Kerry used Clinton. It only works when they're citing a strong president who is seen well in history. THe Democrats had to scrap to rebuild a strong image, because the image of Bill Clinton has tarnished throughout the last six or seven years (this coming from a strong Clinton supporter, always have been, always will be). When a candidate cannot make a name for himself and become his own entity, and he is forced to build off of the character of a man who's character was more in question than any president in 35 years, he almost eliminates his chances completely from succeeding.

The Democrats get beat more often than not, and when they succeed, they try to repeat that success--but nothing works in replication. They've got to stop looking for external reasons why they lost and accept that the Democratic idealogues are wrong and they MUST Change in order to get reelected, or to grab back some of the power that they've lost.

By pointing fingers at anybody but your own party, you're part of the problem. If the democratic party wants to succeed, it has to change, and it has to change to reflect the opinions of the American people. The rumors of Hillary in '08 just mean that our presidency will be ruled by the Republican party until 2012.
Mike

[Mike]

Stormy, I agree with just about everything you wrote, but I think that we look at it from a different perspective. When the majority voted for Bush, and a strong percentage of those numbers were the "moral majority," Bush being president is expressing the will of the people, and this being a government of the will of the people ... It makes sense to involve morality.

The separation of Church and State doesn't apply to a President's morality, because we all get our morality from somewhere. It would be equally as unjust to not recognize morally derived from a religious perspective, because, boiled down to it, it all just becomes people sharing ideas, and not much else.

While I am a very strong Christian, I am pro-choice (from a politician's perspective; wholely against abortion morally), against Gay Marriage (from a politician's perspective, not from the perspective of my morality), and I don't go to Church much at all. My votes for Bush came from Republican tax ideology, national security, some other things that would take too long to explain, and my stark opposition to John Kerry, as I've lived under him for my entire politically-relevent life and would distrust him with the reigns of the United States.
Mike

[johnny]

meh, gotta keep editing my posts so i can stay out of this.

asdfasdf

not that i have any problems with some posts that say "asdfasdf" (see one of my previous replies :)).. why do you have to stay out of this? say what you want.

[raditz]

maybe i will post something after i gather enough resources to make a legitimate post defending my ideas, but until then, what i've learned from this site is that it's futile to argue with anybody about anything. i'd rather just be frustrated with peoples opinions than to be frustraded with the reaction to my post.

at least for now.

[Cid]

I don't understand why it has to be an "argument". I mean, I have my thoughts, and you have yours...cool. Whatthefuckever.

I'm not "pissed" that Bush won, and I'm not going to go kill myself or anything. Clearly there are people who think that the whole national landscape would have changed had kerry won...where, really, it wouldn't. Gay marriage bans would have passed, even had Kerry won; and there are plenty of Republicans in the senate to stop him from changing that. Rich people would have gotten taxed a little more had Kerry won, but I don't think that would have affected many of us...unless you could "the trickle down effect...it trickles down, see".

I think you're just being a big whiny pussy by editing your posts, Rad. If I took back every stupid thing I've ever posted...I think I'd have like 12 non "asdf" posts. If you don't have good reasons for your vote now, then how you can you possibly be so strongly convicted in your choice? It seems like you voted Bush because you're ideology made you, or you were brought up that way...but it doesn't really seem like you have your own honest feelings on the matter...if you're not even willing to express them to your friends.

I'm not the most political guy, I just don't agree with the way Bush goes about some things. I don't like his religion based babble...I shouldn't HAVE to like it. I shouldn't have to feel like an outcast in my own country because I don't give a fuck if God blesses the USA.

[Plain Old Jane]

YOu mentioned that the very poor stay poor and that the incredibly rich stay rich. Well, you missed the largest segment of our population: the middle class, who typically weign and wax between lower, middle, and upper class. WHen I said that YOU have the opportunity to make as much money as you want, then, legitimately YOU do. I don't think that you're in the poorest class of citizen. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you are desparately poor and instead of buying food or struggling to afford heat, you can buy a computer, a broadband internet connection, and hundreds of dollars of sexual cosmetics--or whatever. It's quite apparent that YOU can make as much money as YOU want to make. I did not say that "THE POOR" can make as much money as they want to make, I said you, and from my understanding of you, YOU must have the ability to get $350 and get a one way plane ticket to Europe. Sure, it won't be first class, but, hey, to sit in first class would be anti-democratic.

not sure what you were going for here, all I got was that I'm not poor... and that I lack lower class perspective... (fair enough)

A libertarian or republican model for economy is that which does not discriminate. The discriminations and the hitches in our economy that hold back individuals--hold back the poor from climbing out of poverty--are the discriminate systems created by "progressive liberals" (who are now more entrenched in the past than any other time) who want to make divisions between people. They want to give free money to black, job-less, despondent urbanites... because they want to keep those people jobless and despondent. They want to put those people in dire situations where they cannot climb out of ... so they give them free money, they perpetuate their laziness, and inturn, the people NEVER get out of the ghetto, but they ALWAYS vote Democrat.

can you cite an example of "free money" for me?

His stupid tax plans didn't fail big time. Why do you think that jobs went down in 1999, and throughout the first two years of his first reign as president? Because the rich--the corporate business owners--were still being fucked by taxes. Who do you think creates jobs? The rich, corporate business owners. You don't see the $2 ho on the corner of Main St. making jobs... You see the corporate businessman making jobs. They can only make jobs if they have money. We had an incredible surplus that was unstimulated... there was no stimulation in our economy, so naturally, it dropped.

yea, they did fail. Bush cut taxes to big business by a lot already, and jobs are still dissappearing... Bush gave "tax relief' to america, by giving a tax break of (on average) 50,000 to the rich, and about 600 to middle class. I'll give him that, he gave middle class 600 bucks, but his legislation raised fees by over 20 billion. His medical legislation alone gives more to pharmacuetical companys than anyone else. Americans spend 14% of their income on medical bills, and studies show a rise of 7% a year (due in part to the medicare bill)

Bush had a fantastic oppurtunity to use the surplus that clinton left behind towards the earned income tax credit program, one that would give proportional tax credits to blue collars and impoverished people, and help them move out of lower class. But he used it to propogate his failed tax cuts. He cut off his retreats and we (the middle class) have to cover the cost.

The map is not entirely accurate, because most of the counties of Maine went republican, and many of the greys that were not filled in were information that had not been divulged, or was not considered accurate. The rest is very accurate and is based off of the same information that can be accumulated by the public, from lawful websites. It doesn't mean that all of those counties went 99% Bush and 1% Kerry, they could be 50/50 percentage wise, with the majority going Bush. It's just a majoritive map. Not only that, but the massive populations are in urban centers--and those are accounted for. The West Coast of California, Seattle, the Missisippi River basin, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, much of Connecticut, Urban Maine, half of New Hampshire, all of Vermont... New York City.

I meant that the map should be based on score difference, bush won by about 3 percent of the popular vote, and only 12 electorals. The map is geographically correct, but geopolitically, the east and west coasts should be much bigger, and the space in between should be much smaller. but, we're splitting hairs here

Assuming that you're a democrat, you, like many democrats, are looking for excuses for why they lost--Men voting Bush, 23% of the population voting, the South, "Fuhrer Bush", perpetuating the liberal propaganda lies (the bit about the middle class disapearing, kids who voted for Kerry dying in wars.

The middle class IS dissappearing, downsizing continues and CEO salaries keep increasing by the hundred thousand, and the wages keep decreasing. Outsourcing is increasing, Jobs are decreasing. War spending is increasing, debt... is also increasing. The only good thing I can see coming of this is the corporatization of gov't (which is the inevitable next step. but from what I can tell, the neonate is severing its ties, which either means its stupid, or preparing to dine and dash and leave us with the bill.) Bush's policies are favoring this cycle.

By pointing fingers at anybody but your own party, you're part of the problem. If the democratic party wants to succeed, it has to change, and it has to change to reflect the opinions of the American people. The rumors of Hillary in '08 just mean that our presidency will be ruled by the Republican party until 2012.
Mike

extrapolating the answer before we even ask the question is the sign of an assumptive mind. Lets go over just what "the problem" is...

[Mike]

not sure what you were going for here, all I got was that I'm not poor... and that I lack lower class perspective... (fair enough)

I wasn't going for that. My original post said that you would have a means for getting out of the country, as you're in the middle class and have an opportunity to succeed. You took this as meaning "EVERYBODY" has a chance in the United States ... and I stressed, yet again, that I was talking about "YOU." Hence the word "you."

can you cite an example of "free money" for me?

Welfare. And don't pretend like nobody is cheating the welfare system. It happens more often than not.

yea, they did fail.

No, they didn't, and you only assume so because you have an innate hatred for Bush. You don't begin to see the effects of economic strategies until several years after they're implemented, hence why the economy took a turn in 1999, and continued throughout the first two years of Bush's first term. By the end of Clinton's second term, he had done nothing to stimulate the surplus, figuring that he could ride on its self-perpetuating success.

Clinton didn't "leave behind the surplus", he inherrited a growing economy that continued to grow, and then, due to his lack of stimulation, began to fail. You can cut taxes to as many blue collared poor people as you want, but the only thing that will get them out of poverty is increased jobs and their will to do well.

The middle class IS dissappearing, downsizing continues and CEO salaries keep increasing by the hundred thousand, and the wages keep decreasing. Outsourcing is increasing, Jobs are decreasing. War spending is increasing, debt... is also increasing. The only good thing I can see coming of this is the corporatization of gov't (which is the inevitable next step. but from what I can tell, the neonate is severing its ties, which either means its stupid, or preparing to dine and dash and leave us with the bill.) Bush's policies are favoring this cycle.

Irrelevent to what I had written.
You're stuck in the mentality of two years ago.
Wages are not going down, they are increasing. source1 (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Nov-06-Sat-2004/business/25191552.html), source2 (http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1195), source3 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/06/MNGHL9NBU91.DTL)
Outsourcing has decreased in the last 8 months--though if it's the companies perogative to outsource, let them do so. I'd love to see those jobs in the US, but I'm sure that some 20-year-old Indian guy would love to see jobs in his neck of the woods, too--and I don't known the corporation, the CEO does. If he decrees he wants to move, I'm not going to tell him not to. I'll find another job.
Jobs? 337,000 new jobs in October. source1 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/06/MNGHL9NBU91.DTL), source2 (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/10111480.htm), source3 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041106/RECONCAN06/TPBusiness/Canadian), source4 (http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1283712004), source4 (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/115651/1/.html)
Debt, yes, has increased. War spending has increased. Unfinished sentences have also increased.

extrapolating the answer before we even ask the question is the sign of an assumptive mind. Lets go over just what "the problem" is...

Everybody has assumptive minds, don't pretend that you don't.

I explained "the problem" and then you went off on things that haven't been true for more than a year. Maybe if you didn't interpret comments the way that you want to see them, you would have seen "the problem." The problem is that the democrats have lost all of their majoritive power in the United States and will continue not to have that power until 2012, because they are in denial. THey're looking for excuses for how the Republicans are cheating them out of power, and they're perpetuating their failure. They're pretending as if those Americans who voted for Bush are less than they are, and then, in turn ignoring them for another four years. They only potential candidate who seems like the person could carry the party is another Northern Liberal. The Northern Liberal hasn't won for the Democratic party in 45 years, and even then, there were scandals and questions surrounding that election... that decided the results.

I'm sure that you'd admit the complete self-destruction of the Democratic party as "a problem." I sure would.
Mike[/url]

[Cid]

Ya know, I just realized something. Political discussion sucks balls. It's great to have your own view, but just coming in here and being all "I'm completely right, and you're completely wrong" is just stupid. You guys are bickering like 2 little bitches...like you're going to convince someone of your views. It's great to think that you have it all figured out, and that no one can agure with you because you're the smartest most politcally educated person on earth...but you don't, and you're not...so let's all just talk about dreams or board themes or just go back to not posting like we do every other month of the year.

[Stormy]

and I'm not going to go kill myself or anything

I'm sure you were alluding to it, but...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/07/ground.zero.suicide.ap/index.html

[raublekick]

heh, i said it would be incredibly radical if someone killed themselves on the steps on the whitehouse after GW got elected again, but the WTC site works too.

[Mike]

Ya know, I just realized something. Political discussion sucks balls. It's great to have your own view, but just coming in here and being all "I'm completely right, and you're completely wrong" is just stupid. You guys are bickering like 2 little bitches...like you're going to convince someone of your views. It's great to think that you have it all figured out, and that no one can agure with you because you're the smartest most politcally educated person on earth...but you don't, and you're not...so let's all just talk about dreams or board themes or just go back to not posting like we do every other month of the year.

Well, I was going to play the hypocrite today, but you beat me to it. You know as well as anybody else does that you bicker more like a bitch than anybody else around here.

I guess I forgot that my job is to make posts that you find aesthetically pleasing. Remember, nobody's forcing you to read either of our posts. It's pretty fucking obvious that a long, drawn out reply in a thread that has to do with politics is going to be of that nature... So it'd be pretty easy to miss.

Usually I don't give a shit about when you whine about the activities of other members around here, but don't tell me that I don't have the answer, and then pretend that you do. You're not full of political-message-board-virtue, don't pretend to be Socrates.

[thecreeper]

well one thing we can all agree on, i have an erection.

[Cid]

That's a good point, Mike; I AM Socrates.

And a little bitch.

I love you.

[raublekick]

You can try to play the "it's easy to ignore these posts" card, but I'll counter with the "what the fuck else is there to read here?" card.

[Mike]

That's a good point, Mike; I AM Socrates.

And a little bitch.

I love you.

I'm glad that you lack the ability to support your claims. It's obvious that you didn't read our posts--that doesn't bother me--but don't pretend like you did, and then pretend like our posts are hurting you in some way.
----
You can try to play the "it's easy to ignore these posts" card, but I'll counter with the "what the fuck else is there to read here?" card.

http://www.thetesttube.com/bored/faq.php

[Plain Old Jane]

kay, now I understand your view, thats all I wanted, you raise some valid points, but your line items are as equally biased as you understand mine are. Also, I try not to have an assumptive mind, and I think your assumptions about my life make you look like a jerk, but again, I understand why, cuz you are a jerk -- and I can live with that. I DO NOT make assumptions that you are a conservative dick, because I dont have concrete proof that you are (only the circumstantial fact that you post like one sometimes.). Please dont make assumptions about me, just because I'm queer, doesnt mean I'm a liberal, I didnt like kerry, but I voted for him because he wasnt ACTIVELY campaigning against my civil rights, I'm sure you can understand that and appreciate my viewpoint on it.

You've given me something to think about, I'll post political bullshit when I have something new to say, for now, lets get back to the penis jokes and making fun of hex.

[johnny]

You can try to play the "it's easy to ignore these posts" card, but I'll counter with the "what the fuck else is there to read here?" card.

unforunately, mike's card had a higher power level or it had the force or something, and it beat your card.

[Plain Old Jane]

NERDS!

[Mike]

Jep, I don't assume that you're a liberal based on your sexual preference, or your transgendered-ness, I don't care about that, and I never brought it up in this discussion ... because that shit just isn't relevent to me. I assumed that you were liberal because of the three or four posts that you made back on page two, with the big fonts, talking about how 'it' happened, and that nonsense.

I'm also not a prick, but I am a conservative-prick. When it comes to my conservatism, I'm quite prickish, but that's because I live in the most liberal state in the union, attending a Liberal Arts college. People in other parts of the country might not get the same conservative-hate that is up here, so I've had to strengthen my arguments with the same personal, non-factual shit that is wrought in the typical liberal argument. It's a sin... but I've been desensitized to it.

If you'd like, I'll let you perform a transgender thing to me, and we'll call it even.
Mike

[raublekick]

You can try to play the "it's easy to ignore these posts" card, but I'll counter with the "what the fuck else is there to read here?" card.

unforunately, mike's card had a higher power level or it had the force or something, and it beat your card.

obviously you didn't see that i had a "STFU" enchantment on it, provideing a +10 'tude attribute.

[Plain Old Jane]

Jep, I don't assume that you're a liberal based on your sexual preference, or your transgendered-ness, I don't care about that, and I never brought it up in this discussion ... because that shit just isn't relevent to me. I assumed that you were liberal because of the three or four posts that you made back on page two, with the big fonts, talking about how 'it' happened, and that nonsense.

I'm also not a prick, but I am a conservative-prick. When it comes to my conservatism, I'm quite prickish, but that's because I live in the most liberal state in the union, attending a Liberal Arts college. People in other parts of the country might not get the same conservative-hate that is up here, so I've had to strengthen my arguments with the same personal, non-factual shit that is wrought in the typical liberal argument. It's a sin... but I've been desensitized to it.

If you'd like, I'll let you perform a transgender thing to me, and we'll call it even.
Mike

naw, I'm sorry you have to live in an area that has policies contradicting your own. You prolly have good reason to feel thusly. Lets just call it even and continue rueing the day that humans actually concieved of organized gov't...

[johnny]

You can try to play the "it's easy to ignore these posts" card, but I'll counter with the "what the fuck else is there to read here?" card.

unforunately, mike's card had a higher power level or it had the force or something, and it beat your card.

obviously you didn't see that i had a "STFU" enchantment on it, provideing a +10 'tude attribute.but u still couldnt handle it

[Cid]

Well, Mike, I never said I read your posts; though I did.

It's clear that you're a political mastermind, and have every angle worked out...you should run for office. I just think you sound like a complete ass the way you, unbendingly, argue for one side; and aren't capable of hearing anything other than your own greatness.

I didn't know it was my job to suck your dick. I thought that, if you didn't like my post, you could just overlook it. I just remarked how stupid it seemed to argue over something that, clearly, isn't going to change anyones mind here. That's all I did, I commented on something that seemed a little ridiculous....I'M AN ASS. But you, in your all knowing benevolence, decided I was "being Socrates"...how witty...you cad!

Maybe if you took your head out your ass you could realize that you're just as capable of not reading posts as I am.

you sure are cock face.

[Mike]

Your logic doesn't hold.

I didn't know it was my job to suck your dick. I thought that, if you didn't like my post, you could just overlook it.

Maybe if you took your head out your ass you could realize that you're just as capable of not reading posts as I am.

I don't expect anybody to suck my dick. While I'm sure that most people here don't want to read some daft political argument between a neocon and a progressive liberal, nobody else interjected themselves into our argument, and hence, I didn't send remarks to anybody else. I'm sure that some of the other members don't like an argument between a lib/con, but they didn't make it their duty to criticize two members for having such a discussion. If you ignore the discussion, chance are, it will fade away and everybody will forget about it. By showing your displeasure, you're just heightening the argument that you have such disdain for.

I just remarked how stupid it seemed to argue over something that, clearly, isn't going to change anyones mind here.

Had you posted that, I wouldn't have thought twice about it, let alone reply to you. Instead, you decided that you were inherently better than Jeperel and Myself... Which you very well may be, but the fact that you criticized me of thinking the same way, seemed a little hypocritical. The remark about you being Socrates is because you're playing the "nobody knows" card, and while you may have fun trying to convince others of your virtue, I don't like to do that. You can criticize me of thinking that I'm right, but I won't deny that... because why else would I argue with anybody if I didn't think that I was right? You're mascuerading under the guise of ignorance, when you're doing the same thing that you criticize me of.

you sure are cock face.

... good job.

[raublekick]

Jesus Christ...

[thecreeper]

seriously, this bitchy bullshit is getting ridiculous.

[johnny]

if this "bitchy bullshit" is bothering you, i would suggest that you not read this thread, and not reply to it. it will die faster that way.

:idea: i'm getting lots of use out of these emotercons this morning

[Plain Old Jane]

seriously, this bitchy bullshit is getting ridiculous.

::stands in the corner playing with a ball and paddle::

98...

99...

fuck...

::looks up::
oh... sorry...
::walks out of the topic::

[raditz]

this is why i just keep my mouth shut. if i thought that anything i have to say would be taken seriously and not just something people can pick apart and attack, i would say it.

[johnny]

then you've gotta attack them right back.

nobody likes anybody else here anymore, anyways.

[Plain Old Jane]

I'll post political bullshit when I have something new to say, for now, lets get back to the penis jokes and making fun of hex.

When Ronald Reagan took over the presidency in the early 80s, he proposed that supply side economics would give america a huge boost in economy and provide enough momentum to repay debts within, "1 to 2 years", what actually happened? The plan failed, by giving the largest tax breaks to the rich and working against the underclass pay structure, he cost the american people and average of 250 billion a year.

When Bush sr, took over in the late 80s', following the same suit as his predesesor, he amplified the effect, leading to an annual deficiet of nearly 350 billion a year.

When Clinton took over, he intentionally reversed these formulas bush and reagan used and from 1992 to 2000, caused the largest sustained economic growth in US history. Mostly due to reduced taxes to the lower and middle class and higher taxes to the wealthy. It created 18 million new jobs, the largest growth ever recorded, and the US economy was booming with a 236 billion surplus.

Taken from those experiences, one would lean towards the economic policy that actually worked and learn from the mistakes that did not.

But when Bush jr took over in 2001, what happened was markedly different; he took back to supply side economics and gave GENEROUS multiple tax cuts to the rich. And in just ONE term managed to turn a 236 billion dollar surplus into a 500 billion dollar deficiet! The largest economic plummet recorded in history.

Bush defended his plan by blaming the "Clinton Ressesion" and The war on terror for his record loss. But economic projections revealed that if the clinton plan had continued, the surplus after ten years would have been close to 5.6 TRILLION dollars.

But what did the future look like for the Bush plan? Well, I'll tell you, not bright, in the first days of his taking office, Bush skimmed 1.3 trillion off the top of the 5 trillion dollar budget and gave it back to "the american people" but most went to the wealthy, while the middle class saw only about a 600 dollar increase in income. Like in the past of supply side economics, this did not boost the economy.

In his 2000 speech in chicago, bush promised not to touch the 2.5 trillion clinton set aside to repair the stark problems in the social security system. But in his first year of taking office, he broke that promise and spent all but nearly 1 trillion dollars, and within another year the social security budget was gone. Debt would run into the future and would lead to privitisation of the Social Security system, but not before it made most people already 20-30 years into the system penniless for all their labor.

One would like to believe that it was all these wars we are fighting that is vacuuming up the american peoples money, but a bipartisan congressional commitee revealed that bushes tax cuts and homeland security spendetures are actually THREE times the amount of money we are spending at war.

Economists believe that most of the deficiets can be attributed toward a slump in the economy and the bush family way of dealing with problems... Throw money at it.

By 2003, our national budget had fallen to almost negative 3.1 trillion dollars. Thats right, we have less than nothing, we wish we had no money in the bank. And while most republicans whine over Tax and Spend democrats, spending increased 3x as much as when clinton was in power. (on line items like missle defense systems that dont work and missions to mars.)

Overall Bush has left us within one term a 5 trillion dollar debt and a complete turn around of the economy of about 11 trillion dollars in just ONE term.

My point is not to dwell on it, although I dont see a problem with griping over it considering that if I merely hold a one dollar bill, I'm richer than the united states, and that the social security cash I'm puting into the system will do absolutly nothing for me when I retire.

My point is that several million people made a huge mistake in november.

[thecreeper]

My point is that several million people made a huge mistake in november.

oh, i know.

i've kinda decided to just stop giving a shit for awhile, because i need to focus on other parts of my life, and some dumbass president doesn't directly affect my calc 2 grade.

we'll see how things are in another 4 years.

[raublekick]

my calc 2 grade is worth $1600 to me right now :(

i think the main problem with the Bush family "throwing money" at their problems is the way they do it. see, they only use $1000 bills or higher (yeah, they have higher, but we'll never see them). They need to use $1's. If they bundled a bunch of $1's, they could do some damage with a wad of $100-1000. Or even better they could use change.I mean come on, a tank that should big sacks of quarters could do some damage.

[thecreeper]

i liked henry rollins solution for peace in the middle east:

what we should do is drop half the Ramones CD's over Iraq and they'll realize that we aren't bombing them. They will listen to the Cd's and say, 'hey this is some pretty good shit.' then they will ask us, 'hey do you have anymore of those ramones' cd's?' and we will answer, 'why yes, here is Rock n Roll High School and Rocket to Russia. If you agree to stop fighting, you can rock out to the rest of these.'

Problem solved.