What was the deciding factor?

[Tossica]

Yeah. It proves that using fear and repeating the same lies over and over and over again will work to sway the masses. It was a brilliant but completely unethical and fascist campaign.

[Durck]

Durck.

If you vote for Bush you are either a self serving dickhead or an ignorant twat. Which one are you?

Im an ignorant twat for thinking that you could do anything other than call me a name. Im a self serving dickhead for trying to show you your flawed rampant hatred, so that you may calm down.

You used to argue with conviction, using flawed but inspired verbs and nouns, and occasionaly a well placed adjective. Now you just ramble jumbled gibberish and call names. Its no wonder your hero lost, he was relying on the moron vote.

-Duck

[Tossica]

I got tired of arguing with ignorant hicks years ago. I am much more amused these days by calling names.

[Lyion]

Yeah. It proves that using fear and repeating the same lies over and over and over again will work to sway the masses.

Actually, all the fear and lies comes from the party of the ex cons and lawyers, who I happily lump together

The Democrats had thugs ransacking Bush-Cheney headquarters, stealing signs and slashing the tires of get-out-the-vote vans on Tuesday. In Ohio, they registered Mary Poppins and Dick Tracy. In South Carolina, Emily's List called Republican households and gave them incorrect information about the location of polling places. In Colorado, they traded voter registrations for crack cocaine. I mean, how low can you get?

The media campaigned heavily for the democrats with endless Abu Ghraib coverage, phony National Guard documents and, days before the election, false news reports that hundreds of tons of munitions had been looted in Iraq.

The cheating didn't stop. The fraudulent exit polls on Election Day were probably setup by democratic 527s. It is well acknowledged that people are more likely to come out and vote for a winner. Early exit polls showing Kerry the clear winner could be expected to depress the vote for Bush.

With such nasty, evil, hating groups, of which your bile and spew are a great representatiton, is it any surprise the educated, intelligent middle class came out to counter the urbanite massive deluded Kerry vote?

So, continue to be deluded. The low income, low IQ crew voted for the Democrats en masse, following their boy M&M, or Pimp Daddy. Meanwhile the intelligent suburban vote went for the only real choice.

[Durck]

As for the south, I suggest you compare the number of idiot bigoted rednecks you have in, say, Mississippi to how many you find near San Francisco or Boston.

-Arlos

Arlos, are you a racist? Or some snobbish left leaning elitist? If the majority of Americans, say one thing, and you say another. Who is right? You because of your superior intellect? Or perhaps, the majority, because of their beleifs?

This country comprises a larger demographic than Boston and San Francisco. And it might just be that, not all of them think like the left.

BTW, I agree with Lyion on his comment about the Democratic relying on the INNER CITY UNDEREDUCATED as a major part of their base. Despite the attempt as painting all of them as supremely educated non-biased intelligencia.

-Duck

[Arlos]

This country truly is moving more and more towards a fascist state. Just compare it to the steps Germany and Italy were taking pre-WW2. Massive deficit spending, pumping money to arms manufacturers, massive catering to the largest corporate entities, strengthening the executive branch, giving the populace some internal and external target of fear, and exploiting that fear to start taking away rights and freedoms in the name of "safety".

Hi, energy companies getting to make energy policy. Hi, mega-profits for arms manufacturers with close relationships to the Bush family. Hi, warhawk Neo-Con agenda. Hi, immediate access to Iraqi oil supplies for friendly oil companies. Hi largest pollution producers getting large say in environmental policy. Hi raising the "Threat Level" to muave or puce or whatever the fuck any time someone comes out with potentially damaging news. Hi Patriot Act and the even more draconian Patriot Act II.

Just watch, by 2006 or 2007 there will be talk about a constitutional amendment repealing the 2-term limit, to allow Bush to run again, since after all, "We're at war, and FDR got more than 2 terms!" That's on top of a new wave of right-wing radical activist judges, that he's going to get to appoint in this term anyway.

-Arlos

[Harrison]

Lol and his true conspiracy theory surfaces and rears its ugly head with teeth beared ready to scream "waaaah"

[Lyion]

I think your proximity to Hollywood has completely removed you from reality, Arlos.
But hey, you have a great future as a drama writer. Work on the plot and storyline, make some money, then you, too, can join the middle class and become a Republican.

[Arlos]

Way to ignore the rest of my point, Durck, and jump on my disdain for inbred bigoted rednecks. Yes, I do think that people who've gone through college and made it to the point of getting a masters or PhD are likely to be smarter than Joe Jim Billy Bob or his ilk, and is more likely to actually research into their vote instead of voting "For that thar Bush guy, cause he's a REAL man!" (yes, I heard exactly that quote from someone)

Now, care to address the REST of the statement? Or are you ignoring it because you CAN'T rebut it?

-Arlos

[Arlos]

Actually, before this Recession we're in that happened on Bush's watch, I made quite good money, thank you, and was just as liberal. Hell, it's not just me, go look at some of the statements from Warren Buffett, saying he thinks the tax breaks the rich get are unfair to the rest of the nation.

My speculation about the amendment is just that, but if you actually go look at history, and the rise of the fascista in Italy, and the nazis in Germany, there are some VERY clear parallels to what's happening in the US today. Go look. *shrug* Still, talk about that amendment wouldn't surprise me in the least. There was talk about it during Reagan's 2nd term.

-Arlos

[Dosi]

There's a reason why the Democrats pinned their hopes on ignorant young people who don't really understand the issues.

I completely agree with this statement. Democrats pinned hopes on ignorance of young people, Republicans pinned hopes on ignorance of Christian nuts, and the Republicans won. No matter who won, this election was won for the wrong reasons. In four years if the Republican congress and Bush haven't passed a single law putting morals or religion in our laws, I'll be happy to say I was completely wrong about Bush on this issue, but I'm going to be slightly more realistic about the situation for now.

[Lyion]

The problem is people do not vote based on issues. The democrats vote based on what some singer or film maker TELLS them.

The NRA votes on what that organization tells you.

In the intermediary, you have the intellectuals who have a bias, such as Arlos and I and we somewhat nullify ourselves.

Arlos proclaims the Republicans are the party of fear and racism, while he comes here and uses as his primary argument.... Fear and Racism.

Complete Irony.

[Arlos]

I voted on issues. Bush's stance on any number of them is diametrically opposed to mine, and he demonstrated extreme aggressiveness in his first 4 years at pushing his agenda. Given our current 2 party system, only Kerry stood a chance of defeating him, therefore I voted for Kerry.

Part of it is because fanatical right-wing religious nuts like Bush ignore consequences of their moral stances. Look at all of the issues that were taking place in the country when abortion was illegal. Backdoor stuff, people dying, ending up sterilized, infections, black market trade in unsafe surgery, travel abroad to get it done, etc. etc. Repealing abortions would simply mean a return to those conditions. It doesn't make the demand go away, it just drives it underground, which means large upswings in crime rate, more money out of pocket for citizens to pay for jails around the issue, etc. Same sort of thing we've seen with the "drug war" that hasn't lessened demand by 1 iota, all it's done is create the same sort of criminal black market that existed in the 20s for alcahol. Asinine.

And again, legislating based on Christian Morality is in DIRECT contravention to the intent of the founders. I repeat: read Jefferson. He wrote the Bill of Rights, methinks he knows better than ANYONE else the intent behind each of the points, and the "wall between church and state" is HIS words, not mine. Therefore, electing someone based on his church is something that goes away from the intent of the founding fathers of this nation.

edit: Disliking stupid people is racist now, lyion? Er, OK.... And so is being afraid of the direction of the country is heading is also bad? Er, OK.... And that's the same as, say, Cheney telling people that if they vote for Kerry that it means they're going to get bombed by terrorists again? (which he DID do.)

-Arlos

[Dosi]

The problem is people do not vote based on issues. The democrats vote based on what some singer or film maker TELLS them.

The NRA votes on what that organization tells you.

In the intermediary, you have the intellectuals who have a bias, such as Arlos and I and we somewhat nullify ourselves.

Arlos proclaims the Republicans are the party of fear and racism, while he comes here and uses as his primary argument.... Fear and Racism.

Complete Irony.

In presidential elections you have 4 groups: left wingers, right wingers, educated voters, and ignorant voters. Left wingers will always vote for a Democrat; right wingers will always vote for a Republican; educated voters vary dependent upon important issues facing them (this is where most 3rd party votes come from); and ignorant people vote for the candidate who can turn them out in the most numbers on certain issues.

Exactly my argument. It just pisses me off to no end that people in this country aren't upset about why this election was won, not who it was won by. :P

[Harrison]

It is impossible for you to know the real reasons the bulk of voters voted really...you can believe what you want though.

[Durck]

Way to ignore the rest of my point, Durck, and jump on my disdain for inbred bigoted rednecks. Yes, I do think that people who've gone through college and made it to the point of getting a masters or PhD are likely to be smarter than Joe Jim Billy Bob or his ilk, and is more likely to actually research into their vote instead of voting "For that thar Bush guy, cause he's a REAL man!" (yes, I heard exactly that quote from someone)

Now, care to address the REST of the statement? Or are you ignoring it because you CAN'T rebut it?

-Arlos

So what your saying is, if your a PHD, you would live in Boston or San Francisco and never in the South? And you would only vote democrat?

So I guess.... the following....
Univerisity of Tennessee, Purdue, Oklahoma, UT Austin, Texas A & M, North Carolina, Florida, U of Miami, Florida State, Auburn, Lousiana State, Tulane (Super Smart Kid School) etc etc etc etc etc.... aren't real universities with sitting professors?

Aren't those some of the most powerful schools in the nation. Maybe not Ivy League. But with some of the most impressive Law School programs in the United States (P.S. Most Politicians start out as Lawyers) Aren't they all in the south. They have what, maybe 1000 professors teaching at them each? Or did I miss something when I was getting my degrees.

On my block, I have 3 Professors living on it. They voted for Bush.

As for the rest of your statement, your basing your ideology that the country is being overtaken by an extremist right, out of Fear. You think that the religous right is trying to convert you. You think that you are going to be force fed religion. I agree with you on one small part, this country needs to maintain seperation of Church and State. But some of the greatest liberals in this country pray. Kerry said at his concession speech, "God Bless America" And I bet he might have even prayed Tuesday Nite. Its a fact of life. I got to church, most of the people I know go to church, and I bet a few would even think I was a pagan for drinking beer and playing Everquest from time to time. But that does not MAKE me or them, right wing conspiratists. It just makes us convicted in our beleif of god.

Your belief that the state should not allow a theocracy is accurate. But your misplacing your overtly gripping fear of some extremism religous movement, with the fact that millions in this country DO PRAY, DO GO TO CHURCH and DO MAKE DECISIONS based on their BELEIFS. Its a fact. And despite your idiology, it will not be changed unless we all became atheists.

-Durck

[Durck]

There's a reason why the Democrats pinned their hopes on ignorant young people who don't really understand the issues.

I completely agree with this statement. Democrats pinned hopes on ignorance of young people, Republicans pinned hopes on ignorance of Christian nuts, and the Republicans won. No matter who won, this election was won for the wrong reasons. In four years if the Republican congress and Bush haven't passed a single law putting morals or religion in our laws, I'll be happy to say I was completely wrong about Bush on this issue, but I'm going to be slightly more realistic about the situation for now.

Dosi,

Your view is simplistic. Republicans won because more people agreed with them than the democrats. And their 72 Hour Project mobilized a voting force that far outweighed the democrats. The Dems relied on its 527s which are NOT ALLOWED BY LAW to report to the Party. The Republicans ran their get out the vote campaign themselves. They were extremely effective, winning in many counties first time republican wins.

Karl Rove, may not be liked, but you cannot deny he is a political genious.

And I will say, if you think the Republican party is some mad Religous Nut House of "Branch Davidians", then well... you've bought into the common liberal spin that if your religous, you must be republican, and you must be an extremist.

Answer this question, if Bush won 51% of the vote, why did the "Gay Marriage" Agenda votes, almost all pass with 65-75% margins? Are there NOT SOME DEMOCRATS that think the same on this issue? Or, did we stuff ballot boxes?

-Duck

[Durck]

Just watch, by 2006 or 2007 there will be talk about a constitutional amendment repealing the 2-term limit, to allow Bush to run again, since after all, "We're at war, and FDR got more than 2 terms!" That's on top of a new wave of right-wing radical activist judges, that he's going to get to appoint in this term anyway.
-Arlos

Nevermind, that the same thing was mentioned about Clinton. I'm probably a lot older than you, and this has come up a few times.

It won't pass. It's a part of our culture now.

But good conspiracy theory.

-Duck

[Arlos]

Durck, I don't care what people do on sundays. Go pray, I don't care. Pray in your private life all you want. That's none of my business whatsoever. Good for you that you have a faith. Have a belief in god, that is your absolute right. Show me where I have EVER argued against anyone, even politicians, being able to hold private religious beliefs.

My argument is now, and has ALWAYS been that it is unconstitutional, and against the very founding principles of the country to try and move those private religious beliefs into the realm of public policy. You may believe abortion is immoral. Others do not. What gives YOU the right to force your beliefs onto those other people by trying to have it banned? You don't believe in abortion, don't have one, or try and dissuade a female you know considering one on a personal level. No one is coming to your house and FORCING anyone to have abortions. Legislating a ban on them, however, *IS* interjecting religious beliefs into public life, and IS trampling on the rights of people who believe differently than you, because it's forcing people with different beliefs to conform to yours.

As for "extreme religious movement", do you deny Bush is an evangelical? He's said so himself. Are you denying that the Moral Majority, Pat Robertson and their ilk have a lot of power in the current Republican party? If you do, you're not looking very hard. Bush came out and said he wanted to transition most social services over to churches. How is that maintaining a seperation of church & state?

As for colleges: Purdue's not in the south. Is Stanford in the south? How about UCLA? Berkeley? Columbia? Cornell? Yale? Harvard? MIT? Cal Tech? Methinks that someone graduating from Harvard Law is a bit higher up the food chain of graduation cred than someone from Florida State.... Sure, Florida State, Miami, Auburn, etc all have a better football team than Harvard, but since when does football have a damn thing to do with education?

-Arlos

Edit: I have no clue how old you are, I'm 34, so I've been around long enough to see a fair amount.

[Lyion]

Purdue is in Indiana, the midwest and firm Bush country.

Ivy League colleges are overrated and you know it. California colleges are likewise, overrated.

Our President has degrees from Yale and Harvard. What were you saying about those colleges again?

The rest of your statement is your own personal angst towards religon. Show me any policy Bush has enacted that fits your extreme viewpoints.

[Arlos]

Er, how many Nobel winners has Florida State produced, compared to MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, or Cal Tech? Louisiana state? Hell, would all of the colleges that Durck listed COMBINED equal the amount from one of those other schools? Oh yeah, they're SO over-rated.

-Arlos

[Berton]

This is for Arlos:

_______________________Bush__________Kerry
No High School (4%) ______49%___________50%
H.S. Graduate (22%)______52%___________47%
Some College (32%)______54%___________46%
College Graduate (26%)___52%___________46%
Postgrad Study (16%)_____44%___________55%
Your claim about the lower education levels skewing to Bush are unfounded. By your standards people with college degrees are "lower education levels". Take a look at your voting buddies Mr. Post grad... no high school diploma... odd that would seem to be the lowest educated group... yet they voted Kerry... quite odd since by your standards only the truely intelligent voted for Senator Kerry.

115.5 million people turned out to vote this year 51% of them voted for Bush. Turning out the vote did not work for the Democrats and worked for the Republicans. Call it fear, idiocy, or whatever but the majority of the voters have spoken.

If you vote for Bush you are either a self serving dickhead or an ignorant twat. Which one are you?

I am neither sir.

You are a hypocritical bastard Toss. In your opinion anyone who does not agree with you is an idiot or a right wing radical? You are no better than O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Buchanan. You spew your left wing agenda and anyone who does not come up along side your views is a retard. Guess what? 51% of the voters don't agree with you. Turns out you, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, and Jenneane Garafalo were the minority all along.

This election is over. The majority of Americans have spoken, and in what is quite possibly the largest voter turnout percentage since 1960. Like it or not George W. Bush is OUR President for the next 4 years. If I can survive 8 years of Clinton you can survive 8 years of Bush.

[Lyion]

There are many very good colleges and universities. Are you inferring those are the only good ones, Arlos? Is this more of your democratic elitism and racism?

I thought Harvard and Yale were only rich people's school, since Bush obviously wasn't smart enough to go there, right?

I went to Caltech. Its overrated. Have you been to any of the schools you listed, Arlos, or is this more elitist propaganda?

And you wonder why every two years your party loses more and more support.

[Dosi]

Dosi,

Your view is simplistic. Republicans won because more people agreed with them than the democrats. And their 72 Hour Project mobilized a voting force that far outweighed the democrats. The Dems relied on its 527s which are NOT ALLOWED BY LAW to report to the Party. The Republicans ran their get out the vote campaign themselves. They were extremely effective, winning in many counties first time republican wins.

Karl Rove, may not be liked, but you cannot deny he is a political genious.

And I will say, if you think the Republican party is some mad Religous Nut House of "Branch Davidians", then well... you've bought into the common liberal spin that if your religous, you must be republican, and you must be an extremist.

Answer this question, if Bush won 51% of the vote, why did the "Gay Marriage" Agenda votes, almost all pass with 65-75% margins? Are there NOT SOME DEMOCRATS that think the same on this issue? Or, did we stuff ballot boxes?

-Duck

The view is not simplistic, the explanation of it is. I said there are 4 different types of voters: left, right, educated, and ignorant. Christians fit into all of these groups, I am not denouncing religion. Let's break down just the ignorant voters. Realistically, statistically, and historically ignorant young people vote Democrat, and ignorant Christians vote Republican. The fact that the gay marriage measures passed by more than Bush won the vote can easily be explained by the fact that it is one issue, that issue is important to almost all Christians; the choice for President should divide the Christians and have absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. My point is that the ignorant Christians voted for Bush, because of his stance on gay marriage or abortion; educated or set-party Christians voted because of their beliefs in issues that will affect them. The fact is more ignorant Christians showed up to vote for Bush this year, this can be seen in exit poll trends and voter turnout in gay marriage measure states. Anyone who showed up this year just to vote for the reasons of banning gay marriage or abortion voted for Bush, anyone who showed up this year just to vote for the reasons of not liking the war in Iraq voted for Kerry. They're both ignorant votes cast and they both pushed the tide of the election for the wrong reasons.

[Arlos]

I had seen different numbers before, Berton. Possibly the ones I saw were wrong. If so, I retract that argument, and I'm sorry for not checking into it further before I made it.

I don't retract the argument that MOST people in the country did NOT vote based on issues, and I heard far more of the "We're voting for Bush because he's a REAL man!" from the republican side (yes, that's real quote) On the Democrat side, I did hear an awful lot of "we're voting for Kerry because we hate Bush". That at least indicates SOME knowledge of his policies and the direction he's taking the country, at least enough to know you want no part of it.

I also think voting for someone simply on the basis of his religion is ALSO retarded, since as I keep harping on, Religion is *NOT* supposed to be related to governance AT ALL.

-Arlos