[Mike]

Originally Posted by NorthernCross

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