|
Post by rikitikitavei on Nov 4, 2004 12:57:00 GMT -5
Does this mean a rastafarian can light up a doob? That is Religious expression.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Nov 4, 2004 13:27:24 GMT -5
And their BIGGEST fear must be homosexual terrorists... (That's kind of funny, in many different ways.) You forgot about their fear of single pregnant women.
|
|
|
Post by donkeykong on Nov 4, 2004 13:43:29 GMT -5
[quote author=IdahoBoy®® link=board=news&thread=1099496703&start=8#0 date=1099527617]
What about those who are considering moving to Canada after the elections? [/quote]
Good for them. Go to Canada. They can frolick naked with Robert Redford and the rest of the tree-hugging hippies who follow the "trend" in America to hate Bush. While they are there they can co-star with Redford in Michael Morons next film. Do you really care if they leave? NO!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2004 14:36:55 GMT -5
Well, it happened.
Somebody snuck into houses on the 1600 block of Lincoln Avenue in Columbus and organized the closets.
Gay Terrorists at large.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 4, 2004 15:53:39 GMT -5
Well, it happened. Somebody snuck into houses on the 1600 block of Lincoln Avenue in Columbus and organized the closets. Gay Terrorists at large. I'm glad your sense of humor is still in tact.
|
|
|
Post by VolleyTX on Nov 4, 2004 16:20:09 GMT -5
OMG.... I lived on Lincoln Avenue in Columbus 4 years ago! Seriously! How come no one came to help me organize my closets!
I'd become a gay terrorist..... except I don't enjoy organizing closets.
|
|
chunkymonkey
Freshman
My wife thinks I should change my moniker.
Posts: 58
|
Post by chunkymonkey on Nov 4, 2004 21:04:28 GMT -5
Here's a reality-check ... most of the political views on this v-ball site do not represent the majority of Americans. MAP: votes by counties. www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/BushCountry04Map.jpg[/img]I do think the Kerry v-ball fans on this site are thinking more deeply than most. Of the 48% who voted for Kerry, how many knew absolutely nothing and were simply bribed ... told how to vote ... or fell for Fahrenheit 911? (ie: Jay Leon's Jay Walking interviews). Certainly it's a small number ... but it reduces the 48% ... which, when then compared to this map, reflects that Kerry's Party is completely out-of-touch with the majority of America. If democrates want to win in four years ... they need to see that the Kerry/Kennedy/Hilliary side of the party is not gaining more blue. There is more red on this map than 2000.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2004 21:45:55 GMT -5
I don't know how you can say that.
1) Just look at the exit polls and then tell me which voters were paying attention and which were not.
2) There are morons voting on both sides, but W, BY FAR, carried the moron vote.
3) Just imagine if Bill Clinton had been President and al Qaeda had brought down the WTC Towers, the economy had lost as many jobs as it has, there had been as many corporate scandals as there have been, and we had INVADED another country on false pretenses resulting in the loss of 1,000+ American lives and 100,000+ Iraqi civilian lives--with NO END IN SIGHT. How many of those 55,000,000+ Bush votes would have gone to Clinton? Four?
They aren't paying attention or they are brainwashed by the Far Right Propaganda Machine. Or they are just plain stupid.
What I want to say to moderate Republicans is this: take a good long look at just who it is with whom you are crawling in bed. These people are wackos.
And the funny thing is Kerry was the moderate in this last election.
Finally, just who will run the country when W and his wackos are vacuumed up in the Rapture? Or, as I like to call it, God's Housecleaning.
|
|
chunkymonkey
Freshman
My wife thinks I should change my moniker.
Posts: 58
|
Post by chunkymonkey on Nov 4, 2004 22:26:54 GMT -5
I don't know how you can say that. 2) There are morons voting on both sides, but W, BY FAR, carried the moron vote. We agree that there are morons on both side ... still ... kinda of hard to present a case that the red on the map is brainwashed ... Wake up, R! How much influence did Gore and Clinton have since 2000? Gore was a "death-wish" to whoever he endorsed. Clinton couldn't swing his own state. Dean was a sound bite. Throw that group together--combined with Kerry/Kennedy and Hilliary--and you have a Party that can't figure out that the map is essentially red. No one thought Kerry was the best choice for President in 2002. He just got the role by default. But as of this week ... Dems don't get it. The liberal side does not represent the majority. www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/BushCountry04Map.jpg [/img]
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 4, 2004 23:22:44 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2004 0:20:06 GMT -5
A couple of things: those blue areas are highly populated--Bush still only won by 2-3%--and I totally disagree with your comment about the Dcrats.
John Kerry was no liberal, in spite of the fact Team Slime was able to brand him as such. He was the moderate in this race. The Dcrats don't need to "find religion", they need to find a way to convince the moderates in this country that their best interests are served not by the Religious Right but by the only moderate party left.
I don't know what it's going to take, but the Republican party has been taken over by these wackos who'd much prefer a Theocracy to a Democracy.
I agree that the Dcrats are hurt by the fact that the left--people like me--are forced to support them. The GOP has done a lovely job of branding us the scum of the earth. But I still contend that the Dcrats are the moderates. Given the two choices, why the heck would anyone vote otherwise?
I have no clue how the Dcrats change this. The brainwashing seems pretty pervasive.
|
|
|
Post by midwestfan on Nov 5, 2004 0:22:10 GMT -5
And the maps are substantively different how?
|
|
|
Post by UCSBVball on Nov 5, 2004 1:15:00 GMT -5
When Clinton won – the Republicans accepted it - win Bush wins the Democrats have trouble accepting it. I voted for Bush. I would have voted for Libermann or for Gephardt, but they did not play well to the press. The press liked Dean, and then they liked Kerry when he attacked Bush on Iraq. I disagreed with Bush on most things -- I agreed with him on Iraq and foreign policy. I dislike political correct and the press. I also am an atheist – so I guess I do not fit the profile of a Bush voter. Interest that that Kerry and the Democrats have 2 large blocks of voters which are not mentioned as block votes – one is 6 to 1 for Kerry (based on the LA Times today page A17), that block vote added 12 million votes to Kerrys total (less then 2 million to Bush’s total). Without that block vote the election would not have been close.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 5, 2004 8:06:21 GMT -5
And the maps are substantively different how? Oh, notice the nice neutral gray areas where neither party won a majority. Even though the total number of voters increased in this election to the highest level in decades the total number of combined votes in counties won by either candidate decreased by roughly 26 million. That's something I would think both parties ought to be concerned with as a potential trend for the future.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 5, 2004 8:08:19 GMT -5
When Clinton won – the Republicans accepted it - win Bush wins the Democrats have trouble accepting it. I voted for Bush. I would have voted for Libermann or for Gephardt, but they did not play well to the press. The press liked Dean, and then they liked Kerry when he attacked Bush on Iraq. I disagreed with Bush on most things -- I agreed with him on Iraq and foreign policy. I dislike political correct and the press. I also am an atheist – so I guess I do not fit the profile of a Bush voter. Interest that that Kerry and the Democrats have 2 large blocks of voters which are not mentioned as block votes – one is 6 to 1 for Kerry (based on the LA Times today page A17), that block vote added 12 million votes to Kerrys total (less then 2 million to Bush’s total). Without that block vote the election would not have been close. If what you mean by accepting Clinton's election victories was the Republicans repeatedly trying everything in their power to impeach Clinton then you're probably right in saying they accepted him.
|
|