So much for the healing process

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:06 am

"President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda."

http://tinyurl.com/5abr5

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:17 am

You really should see a doctor if that hardon for lefties still hasnt gone down. You could be damaging the sensitive tissues down there.

Really, all you do is bash the left. Dont you have anything better to do?

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:33 am

Actually, I agree with that quote, and it's the primary reason I voted against Bush. While everyone here was debating terrorism and Iraq (separate topics, of course

), I was worrying about these other issues. I figure we're fuxxored on terrorism no matter who is in office. Anyway, Bush IS evangelical and I always figured he reigned himself in during term 1, but now that he's got nothing to lose he can get around to some real "country changing."

Regarding healing, in most situations it's the winners who need to offer an olive branch. I don't recall offhand if Bush took any steps 4 years ago to start the healing (maybe he did?). I think this time he should maybe take a hint from Guiliani and put a Democrat in the cabinet, just as (Guiliani said) Kennedy and Clinton put token Republicans in their cabinets.

As for my own part, I'm well on the way to healing at least my own psyche. I'm surprised to find myself not angry, because how can you be angry that half of your country disagrees with your worldview? I'm just resigned to 4 more years of what *I* consider backwards movement but as Goob said in another post, none of it truly affects me personally. It does affect future generations, but heck maybe I won't have kids.

I made peace with Bush personally last night in a dream (true story). I was chilling with some friends and Bush stopped by and hung with us for a while and he was actually pretty cool to talk to, and when he left I said "thanks for stopping by, Mr. President." And I didn't hate him, now that I'm awake I realize I don't hate him, I just disagree with him.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:33 am

woodchip shut the ★■◆● up.

what are you accomplishing with a thread like this.

JUST WHAT?!

as predictable and boring as a traffic light.
this whole exercise is so fucken stupid and the next will be just the same.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:15 am

My my, you libs are a sensitive bunch. I don't see how I slammed anyone. If there is going to be a healing process towards national unity then writing crap editorials like the above has to cease. Cosidering all that was done by the likes of Ted "Gin Bottle" Kennedy, Nancy "PMS" Polosi and Tom "Mouth Daschle...I think the olive branch has to be extended by the radical left also. Bush has already stated that he is willing to work with the dems.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:47 am

President Bush isn't a redical, the person who wrote that article is. They get to hating christianity so much.. they're not worthy to be called Americans. Stupid lawless twisting dogs. They (you?) don't hesitate to defame the faith that was held by many of the founders of America.

The fall of Social Security-type programs isn't a radical agenda, it's about decreasing dependance on the government. The government controls you to the degree that you depend on them (wouldn't you say that's accurate?).

"Barriers between church and state": What barriers, besides the ones that those radicals put there (recently) in the first place because of their hatred for christianity?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:18 am

Krugman is a moron.
He worries that Bush and Co. are "eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare"...

Those programs are suffering from a terminal cancer right now, a cancer known as 'program managed by government' or as we say down south 'That's what happens when the fox is guarding the henhouse'.

Bush is the first president to publically acknowledge the fact that social security is going broke and he's the first to propose radical changes to try and fix it.
All other politicians who have faced the issue were cowards both repub's and dem's.
No one can deny Bush is right about the impending demise of the system and yet the Dem's demigogue the issue and prop up Kerry who said he would do nothing to change it even though he had acknowledged the fact that it would be broke soon!

So this guy Krugman offers you more of the same worn out democrat scare tactics and no one has the balls to call him on it.

Well Krugman, you f#^@king ostrich --[/me grabs groin]-- take your head out of the sand and bite me you loser!

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:24 am

The healing process will go on. It will go on without those who refuse to participate, but it WILL go on.

- Sirian

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:29 am

Genghis wrote:I made peace with Bush personally last night in a dream (true story). I was chilling with some friends and Bush stopped by and hung with us for a while and he was actually pretty cool to talk to, and when he left I said "thanks for stopping by, Mr. President." And I didn't hate him, now that I'm awake I realize I don't hate him, I just disagree with him.

You know, as much as I hate the guy and his policies, I bet hed be a riot to drink with. All my other left-leaning friends think so too.

So, maybe Bush should just throw a big kegger on the white house lawn? I'd show up.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:45 am

all this healing process talk is getting totally out of hand. i mean doesn't anybody have a job? a child? a friend? a date?

i had dinner with an admitted liberal (which doesn't bother me, i can be friends with people of many ideologies) last night. then we went to meet some of her friends at a coffee shop. they were whoppin it up about bush and his policies. i'm fine with that but i explained that it's friggin tiresome after a while. i mean the election just ended and i don't want to hear everyone prove how well versed they are in the art of slamming something that they can't, don't, or won't control.

get laid you sad sad people. her and i just left the place after 15 minutes and suckled on each others emaciated bodies all night.

healing process? we don't even live in a democracy for the love of delusion.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:37 am

If there is going to be a healing process towards national unity then writing crap editorials like the above has to cease.

What we have now is the big kid on the playground (republicans), and the little kid (democrats). The dems have no power. Genghis is right, the repubs have to offer that olive branch. The little kid is getting beat up and can't fight back, so he cusses out the big kid behind his back via editorials.

It is the republicans job to now heal the nation, they have the power. You can't ask the little kid to forgive while you are taking his lunch money.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:54 pm

Regardless of the guy's other issues, I do agree with him that "closing the cultural gap" is the wrong idea, and was sort of the point I was trying to make in the Leggos thread.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:31 pm

Well, according to bush, the democrats are the ones that are supposed to budge in order to heal. I wonder if woody feels the same

Bush said I am willing work with people with the same goals. He then went on to talk in a very scary way about continuing his policy of spreading democracy in the middle east.

Translation: I am going to continue invading countries, if you want to be on my train I will welcome you on. Otherwise, cya!

I do consider bush a radical. His war policy to me is quite radical and divides our country and the world. Whether you want to judge the word radical is good or bad based on whether you agree, the idea that he is radical is pretty hard to argue against. It's a new threshold for proof in attacking a country, a new threshold for reasons.

It really is Bush who has the opportunity to heal the rift. With so many people in the country considering him a liar, he has lost trust. The ball really is in his court to win the dems over. Do you expect the dems to just siddle up to bush because he won 51-48?

If Bush actually wants to unite, he will sprinkle some democrats in his appointment, revert back to "the buck stops here" and take accountability, and offer up moderate conservatives for the supreme court.

Of course he can also do the exact opposite by trying to tackle Roe V. Wade, continuing to divide the country on gay marriage, invading more countries, and giving tax cuts for the rich.

Blaming democrats now for the division is pretty silly. We're a republican run country right now, and Clinton is now lost as an excuse. Virtually everything that happens in the next 4 years (right or wrong) will be attributed to bush and the republicans. They can choose to shoot for the middle and unite the country, or stick to the far right.

We'll see.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:03 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Those programs are suffering from a terminal cancer right now, a cancer known as 'program managed by government' or as we say down south 'That's what happens when the fox is guarding the henhouse'.

Social Security is failing because it is a ponze scheme. By there very nature, they are doomed to fail. That is why they are illegal in any other context other than social security.

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:39 pm

Birdseye wrote:If Bush actually wants to unite, he will sprinkle some democrats in his appointment, revert back to "the buck stops here" and take accountability, and offer up moderate conservatives for the supreme court.

Of course he can also do the exact opposite by trying to tackle Roe V. Wade, continuing to divide the country on gay marriage, invading more countries, and giving tax cuts for the rich.

Blaming democrats now for the division is pretty silly. We're a republican run country right now, and Clinton is now lost as an excuse. Virtually everything that happens in the next 4 years (right or wrong) will be attributed to bush and the republicans. They can choose to shoot for the middle and unite the country, or stick to the far right.

We'll see.

Or Bush can ignore your straw man options and go with "none of the above".

A moderate conservative would be wise for the first nominee. If the Dems shoot down a reasonable choice, they'll be walking right into a trap.

Bush has expressed a position that supports the RIGHT of choice but seeks to minimize actual abortions as much as possible. Since that is what he said he would do, he had darn better do it, or all but the radical right will turn against him.

Sprinkling Democrats into his cabinet would be a waste. It's not as if left-leaning partisans ever gave him credit for his first cabinet: African-American secretary of state and national security advisor and education secretary, latino secretaries, a healthy mix of moderates and diehards.

Quite the opposite of crediting Bush, many on the left have insulted Powell and Rice et al, calling them tokens, calling them sellouts, calling them slaves even. The bitterness on the far left is a virulent poison that is slowing killing off the entire Democrat party.

Did Bush get credit for asking Democratic Senator Moynihan to chair an effort to come up with new options for fixing Social Security? No. Did he get credit for the African AIDS initiative? No. Did he get credit for making education his first priority in office? No. Did he get credit from the left for ANYthing moderate or conciliatory that he undertook? No.

The Dems had their chance to cozy up to Bush and they blew it. Bush laid it all on the line in this election, spelled out his plans (something Kerry never did), and ran on what he actually believes in. Now he has a mandate, at least in so far as what he actually talked about during the campaign. Now that the people have spoken, a majority have backed the President's vision. He OUGHT TO feel validated and go forward to do exactly what he told us he was going to do.

Token cabinet members? Screw that horse hockey and pick the best person for the job. See, this is the difference between liberals and conservatives. The liberals prioritize appearances. Conservatives priortize results.

As for "the buck stops here", that sounds good in principle, but in reality, anything he says can and will be used against him by the media. It is just not wise to lament his faults in the open. The important thing is to take responsibility for them behind the scenes, to learn from mistakes, to correct problems.

Bush actually believes in the campaign promises that he made: keeping taxes low so that small businesses will thrive better; enforcing standards in our schools so that the education lobby has to undergo a bit of "the buck stopping" at their desks; actually fighting terrorism, instead of just talking about doing so; holding to account those states who sponsor and harbor terrorist networks; etc.

The Democrats have NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER on the matter of accountability. This is, after all, the party of Mr. "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman... Miss Lewinsky" and Mr. "Depends on what the definition of is is." Ha. Accountability, what a laugh.

John F. Kerry could not even collect himself enough to vote "aye" to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for invading Kuwait. Left wingers don't understand the meaning of accountability. They wouldn't know what it was if if bit them on the @$$.

- Sirian

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:53 pm

Sirian wrote:Token cabinet members? Screw that horse hockey and pick the best person for the job. See, this is the difference between liberals and conservatives. The liberals prioritize appearances. Conservatives priortize results.

My thoughs exactly. Well said.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:59 pm

Can you feel the healing?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:01 pm

Are we talking about healing the fact that the Republicans have the majority, or healing some of the division in government?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:35 pm

On the issue of "token" racial members, I assume that was not directed at me because I didn't imply such a thing. I just suggested throwing in some democrats.

Or Bush can ignore your straw man options and go with "none of the above".

None of the above--so he is not going to be governing in any sort of political frame? I suggested him either making a genuine attempt at going with some middle of the road policies or he can make no attempt and stick to his own conservative agenda. You say none of the above, but it's got to happen somehow. What is your answer?

Sprinkling Democrats into his cabinet would be a waste.

For the healing, right, right...

As for "the buck stops here", that sounds good in principle, but in reality, anything he says can and will be used against him by the media.

Nice dodge. He didn't take credit for the Iraq war intelligence screw-ups. He shifted the blame and you can't admit he made a single mistake. Keep blaming Clinton and others

Bush actually believes in the campaign promises that he made: keeping taxes low so that small businesses will thrive better

Ahh, I love wild speculative armchair economic theory. I would like you to specifically point out how his tax policies help small business. I can make an extremely strong if not damning argument for a significantly better policy founded upon basic economic principles.

The Democrats have NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER on the matter of accountability

I don't think either of them have much for credibility, but just because the other side has none is no excuse to have none yourself.

So far I am hearing talk of "healing" but no effort. Essentially the republicans just want to impliment their own agenda, damn people who disagree. I didn't expect anything less, but spare me the "healing" calls.

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:45 pm

Birds wrote:On the issue of "token" racial members, I assume that was not directed at me because I didn't imply such a thing. I just suggested throwing in some democrats.

Of course it was directed at you. Please follow this logic.

1) Bush filled his first cabinet with a variety of people, including those of minority racial or ethnic heritage, but the Dems give him NO credit for it.

2) You suggest Bush add a certain type of person to his second cabinet FOR THE PURPOSE of gaining credit from the Dems.

3) I think you must be smoking the pungent weed again, because clearly you are failing to process the first point. There's no reason to reach out in the cabinet because no matter what he does there, it won't be good enough. Why won't it be good enough? Because he's got that (R) beside his name, and some folks can't see past that no matter what happens. Since those are the very people that he would be reaching out to, he'd be wise to ignore them and find a better way to reach out to someone who may actually reach back.

Birds wrote:I suggested him either making a genuine attempt at going with some middle of the road policies or he can make no attempt and stick to his own conservative agenda.

Those aren't the only two options.

Birds wrote:What is your answer?

The president should pursue what he told us that he would pursue. He should be willing to listen to the other side and try to compromise on some of their concerns, but NOT at the expense of the core vision of what he said he is going to do.

You act as if he can only run far to the right or move all the way to the center. He doesn't have to do either. After all, the agenda he spelled out during the campaign won him support from a majority of the electorate. ON THOSE ISSUES, and within the framework he has already spelled out, he should do both. He should stick to his vision on the big picture but be willing to compromise on some of the details, to win broad support and get some things done.

Birds wrote:Ahh, I love wild speculative armchair economic theory. I would like you to specifically point out how his tax policies help small business.

* Most small businesses in America pay taxes via the same laws and rules that apply to individuals. These small business include sole proprietorships, partnerships, Subchapter S corporations, and more.

* Small businesses create 70% of the new jobs in our economy today.

* Tax relief for "the rich" is also tax relief for hundreds of thousands of small businesses who pay taxes on the individual schedule. Easing their burdens allows them to expand their business, which means they add more jobs.

It's time for the Democratic Party to wake up and smell the voters. Class warfare is a worn out theme. Liberals keep going back to that well over and over and over and getting their clocks cleaned for it. Sure it plays well in union halls, with blue collar workers who WANT to believe in that vision, but out in the suburbs and rural areas, away from the big corporations, most folks actually know small business owners and WANT them to be successful. In many small towns, they are the only employers around.

The death tax, the marriage penalty, capital gains taxes... The tax and spend liberals are wrong. That dog don't hunt no more. Well, maybe it does in the ivory towers on the far left coast, but it doesn't hunt in middle America.

- Sirian

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:57 pm

Oh and while we are at it, some food for thought. Here is a county by county red/blue breakdown of election results. (Source: hannity.com)

Look at all of that red!

- Sirian

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:00 pm

Bush filled his first cabinet with a variety of people, including those of minority racial or ethnic heritage, but the Dems give him NO credit for it....because clearly you are failing to process the first point. There's no reason to reach out in the cabinet because no matter what he does there, it won't be good enough

Just Wow.

You think the democrats should be on their knees thanking Bush just for picking black people or something? That we some how forget that they are indeed extremely conservative just because they are black?

What credit is it exactly that you think we should give Bush?

My problem with Bush isn't that I think he is a racist, my problem is that I think he is radically conservative.

So I don't understand what credit I am suppose to be giving him for adding people with a "variety of minority racial or ethnic heritage?"

You are way off on what you think the democrats want.

Siran wrote:Look at all of that red!

Yes, and he still only won by a few % points. So that must mean that when people are all grouped together in large cities with other people--where they can get to know a variety of different people, observe people living a variety of different life styles, hear a variety of viewpoints, exchange a variety of ideas--they tend to vote democrat!

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:16 pm

Sirian wrote:Look at all of that red!
- Sirian

look at all the places i wouldn't bother hold a conversation beyond the 6th grade reading comprehension level of all national newspapers.

whoa! what a joy!

"the vikings might be moved to los angles."

i might as well blow my head off... because you ★■◆●ing morons are so involved in the rouse that we will never pinpoint the "shinny object - thank you dedman" let alone live in a world that we can agree on. we will make no effort to practice the art of compromise. we will MAKE you live within our walls.

what a fuckin waste of intelligence.

wait... i can't type "waste of intelligence" because you all have proven yourself by quoting sources no one can confirm.

SPANG!

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:24 pm

Goob wrote:What credit is it exactly that you think we should give Bush?

My problem with Bush isn't that I think he is a racist, my problem is that I think he is radically conservative.

See? You're making my point.

Bush selects an extremely moderate Republican to be secretary of state -- a figure well liked and widely respected not only in our country but around the world -- and you still call Bush "radically" conservative.

Why should Bush waste time trying to appease folks like you with token Dems in the cabinet? No matter what he does, you'll call him a radical.

when people are all grouped together in large cities with other people--where they can get to know a variety of different people, hear a variety of viewpoints, exchange a variety of ideas--they tend to vote democrat!

How dare you imply that folks living outside the urban megopolis centers don't know a variety of people, don't hear a variety of viewpoints, and don't exchange a variety of ideas? What's next? Implying that the rubes in flyover country only voted for Bush out of bigotry and homophobia?

- Sirian

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:42 pm

TheCops wrote:look at all the places i wouldn't bother hold a conversation beyond the 6th grade reading comprehension level

OK, first of all, the word "I" is always capitalized.

Secondly, while you are so self-righteously insulting others for typographical or grammatical errors, you should know that you left out an entire word from your sentence. Can you find it by yourself, or would you like me TO help you out with that?

Thirdly -- and I realize this is a subtle point, but if you are more intelligent than all those folks in the red areas who can barely scrape together a SIXTH grade eduction (according to you), then you ought to be able to comprehend it -- most professional writers agree that spelling out the words is more effective than using numerals.

Fourthly, sentences begin with capital letters.

Fifthly, "you all" is not proper usage.

Sixthly, you have mismatched pronouns. That should read "you have proven yourselves".

Finally, I must say that I am deeply impressed with your command of the English language. Please inform us as to where you were schooled, so that we morons can apply, in the hope that we may benefit from the kind of education that you have put on display for us tonight. Thank you.

- Sirian

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:47 pm

You completely dodged my question.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:47 pm

Sirian wrote:What's next? Implying that the rubes in flyover country only voted for Bush out of bigotry and homophobia?

- Sirian

That's exactly what they believe!
They just don't get it. The internals of the polls taken should clue them in but they are in full denial.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:56 pm

After so much over-the-top denigration of Bush and his conservative/moderate base (which continues unabated) it's as if the new Left message is *appease us so we can pretend you didn't really win (and we didn't really lose) or else we'll keep saying nasty things (well, even nastier if we can think of any) about you.* Pfft. I believe we're witnessing the Shock > Denial > Anger > Acceptance sequence stalled temporarily between Denial and Anger. I doubt much healing can commense until the Left arrives at Acceptance.

Hopefully cooler heads will emerge than those that have been speaking for the Left during this past year. The narcissistic orgy of disrespect needs to stop or no compromises will be reached simply because none will be possible in the current climate. We need to patiently educate each other to find our middle ground. Malicious generalizations won't get us there.

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:06 pm

Sirian wrote:
TheCops wrote:look at all the places i wouldn't bother hold a conversation beyond the 6th grade reading comprehension level
*big response here*

- Sirian

One thing you should know is that you should never take seriously anything Meatpuppet says.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:03 am

I have a question: If that graphic is true (overwhelming support for Bush), then why did we have 51% of the votes to Bush, and 49% to Kerry? What's with the huge divide?

I think the conservatives in here need to wipe off that little bit of DNA still on the side of their mouths.

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:18 am

Ferno wrote:If that graphic is true (overwhelming support for Bush), then why did we have 51% of the votes to Bush, and 49% to Kerry? What's with the huge divide?

The divide isn't that evident.
This accurately shows the Democrats vs Republicans.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 8:29 am

Skyalmian wrote:This accurately shows the Democrats vs Republicans.

And that also illustrates why the talk of 'red states' are stupid or 'middle america is full of religious whacko's' etc. etc. is way out of line!

One thing they should realize is the liberals are concentrated in certain places and many of those places get a disporportionate representation in the media so they have bought into the false assumption that their 'loud' voice is evidence that they are the majority and they clearly are not.

Also the highest population areas of voters who support the liberals are urban, low education, low income, fractured familys, etc. etc.

Poor people are being pimped by the elite liberals and everyone knows pimps don't deliver the goods...they take the goods and blame the man.

The democrats are out of touch and right now it sounds like they are scrambling for a scapegoat.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:07 am

Skyalmian wrote:
Sirian wrote:
TheCops wrote:look at all the places i wouldn't bother hold a conversation beyond the 6th grade reading comprehension level
*big response here*

- Sirian
One thing you should know is that you should never take seriously anything Meatpuppet says.

thank you sky.

and for the record... there is a man with a white beard that is giving GWB commands from "the heavens" drawing the whole world into conflict. it is written.

and why is that sirian guy going for the grammar attack anyways? i mean it's not going to change the fact that i don't know, or care to know, who he is.

i hope that sentence passes the test... if not i have a shotgun and a 4th grade grammar book... but you all know i'll choose the easier route. SPANG!

★■◆●ing internet homos.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:15 am

roid wrote:woodchip shut the **** up.

what are you accomplishing with a thread like this.

JUST WHAT?!

Evidently Roidy, by the quality of the posts...quite a bit.

Genghis is right, the repubs have to offer that olive branch. The little kid is getting beat up and can't fight back, so he cusses out the big kid behind his back via editorials.
It is the republicans job to now heal the nation, they have the power. You can't ask the little kid to forgive while you are taking his lunch money.[/quote]

Didn't Bush try that at the start of his first term? If memory serves, Bush went and worked with Ted Kennedy to get a education bill passed and what did it get him from the good senator? Some of the most vitriolic hate mongering around. So why should Bush "suckle up" to the Dems like Cops does with his girl friend? Like Cops taste in women, the democrats are just as emaciated. Since when does the victor seek the loser's well wishes? If the trend in democratic losses continue apace, they will be reduced to such a state that the national govt. will become a one party system. Condoning such editorial hate mongering shows the nation that the democrats really cannot eschew discord in favor of national unity even in time of war.

Birdseye wrote:Well, according to bush, the democrats are the ones that are supposed to budge in order to heal. I wonder if woody feels the same

See above

Gooberman wrote:You think the democrats should be on their knees thanking Bush just for picking black people or something? That we some how forget that they are indeed extremely conservative just because they are black?

Ummm wrong Goob. I don't think anyone here would say Colin Powell is a "extreme conservative". Quite the contrary. Powell should be held as a shining within the black community. Yet what happens? Harry Belafonte does a denigrating whack job by saying Powell "Lives in da house of da Massa". Funny how we see no people of color in the top echelons of the Democratic Party.

Gooberman wrote:What credit is it exactly that you think we should give Bush?

Well for one there has been no attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Perhaps you do not accede that this matters?

Gooberman wrote:Yes, and he still only won by a few % points.

Those points represent a larger number of voters than even Reagans landslide victory. You have to remember that this election saw the largest voter turnout ever.

TheCops wrote:look at all the places i wouldn't bother hold a conversation beyond the 6th grade reading comprehension level of all national newspapers.

Make note to self:
Tattoo "Jim Beam" on my penii so Cops will have an excuse to suck up to me next time we "Meat".

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:30 am

Also the highest population areas of voters who support the liberals are urban, low education, low income, fractured familys, etc. etc.

Yes, this would completely explain all those 'liberal professors'. Because only complete retards get their Ph.d's. Thank you Will, I get it now.

Woodchip: That is not a post that you can chop into pieces and anwser each sentence on its own. Siran made the comment that "Bush filled his first cabinet with a variety of people, including those of minority racial or ethnic heritage." Then told us we give him no credit for it. I asked him what credit are we suppose to give him if they are all conservative, and what does their race have to do with anything? You can try and paint Powel as liberal as you want but you can't put a (D) by his name.

Woodchip wrote: Funny how we see no people of color in the top echelons of the Democratic Party.

As high of an office as the democrats hold by elections, has Obama. I don't believe that the republicans have any publically elected officials in as high an office as Obama. So your statement is just completely wrong.

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:37 am

TheCops wrote:why is that sirian guy going for the grammar attack anyways?

Quickest way to point out that the pot was calling the kettle black. Your remarks are incoherent and crass.

TheCops wrote:it's not going to change the fact that i don't know, or care to know, who he is.

n00b

- Sirian

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:43 am

Goob, I wasn't painting Powell as a liberal. You were painting him as a radical conservative though.
Also, since when is Bush required to put democrats on his cabinet? Having said that, there is talk of Rudy Gulliani being given a cabinet level position. Will that suffice? I think you misconstrue Sirians reply. Bush has placed a far greater cultural representation in his cabinet than any other democratic administration ever has.

As to Obama he was elected by the people and not appointed by the democratic party higher ups. I trust you understand the difference.

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:47 am

Goob wrote:Yes, this would completely explain all those 'liberal professors'.

Pathetic.

Will's point is correct. Huge blocks of Democratic votes are coming out of the inner city areas. This is the answer to Ferno's question, how can all those counties lean red and Kerry still get 47-48% of the popular vote.

Skyalmian's map is also useful, in some ways more useful than mine because it conveys more total information, but the map I posted is important to understand as well.

EVEN IN BLUE STATES like California, Oregon, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, and Michigan, most of the counties lean red. They might be doing so by small margins in many cases -- 51/49 is nearly a statistical tie -- but the fact remains. Almost everywhere outside of the urban centers is Bush Country, at least in the last two elections.

Democrats used to play in small towns and rural areas, but almost universally, they don't do so any more. Why is that? I think that would be a useful question for the Democrat Party and its faithful to ask themselves. Taking "TheCops" approach isn't going to help you. Following George Soros, Michael Moore, and Jesse Jackson isn't going to help you. Believing that anybody who disagrees with you "must be" stupid isn't going to help you either. It's time for a more serious dialogue. A lot of folks on the right are willing to talk with you, but only if you drop the vitriol and come to the discussion table as peers.

- Sirian

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:49 am

Woodchip, we don't have the power to appoint anyone as high as Obama! And you are right, Bush has no obligation to put democrats/liberals in any position of power. But instead of "healing" it will get worse.

One thing I think we agree on, the ball is in the Bush.

Siran: Again, you completely dodged my questions. I am starting to really miss Lothar

, at least he would come right at me. This attacking randomly from all directions is making me dizzy. And yes, I have made several posts in other threads that it is time for the democrats to concede on some issues. I agree with you here.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:59 am

Goob, let me try one more time as you seem to be missing the point. I am talking about appointments by democrats to either cabinet level positions when a democrat is president or who is operating at executive levels within the part such as Terry McCauliff. John Kerrys proposed cabinet if he won the election had no people of color in a significant position.

No we are not in agreement as to who's court the ball bounces. After all the references to Bush as a moron and akin to Hitler, I think the liberals have to extend the olive branch instead of grinding it up and smoking it (not inhaling though)