PunBB

The voting is not over!

Ah, yes ... grace and civility.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Ah, yes ... grace and civility.

excellent

I voted for the last option because it reminded me the Bush agenda is, not unlike a bathroom stall, full of shit.

By the way, I guess you ignored all the posts where we Democrat supporters said that if Kerry managed to lose this, the party would have to seriously reconsider its strategies and its leaders. With everything that has happened under Bush, there was NO EARTHLY WAY we should have managed to lose, even with all the brainwashed ignorant Christian conservatives voting for Bush. This was a colossal failure on our party's part.

grooveless touque Wrote:By the way, I guess you ignored all the posts where we Democrat supporters said that if Kerry managed to lose this, the party would have to seriously reconsider its strategies and its leaders. With everything that has happened under Bush, there was NO EARTHLY WAY we should have managed to lose, even with all the brainwashed ignorant Christian conservatives voting for Bush. This was a colossal failure on our party's part.

The "Whine du Jour" bit is a joke, obviously, but is directed at Democrat spokespeople, not the left-wing voting populace.

A Democrat Failure? Yes, but the failure occurred during the nomination process, not the race itself.

And, while some of the religious right are 'blind & brainwashed', please don't be so condescending to think that such a condition is exclusive to the Republican constituency. My eyes are wide open, and I can see plenty of it rampant among Bush bashers. The assumption that anyone who disagrees with the liberal perspective must have 'blinders' on is arrogant, obtuse, and overtly hypocritical in the sense that liberals consistently bemoan the perceived condescension on the part of conservatives.

I'm not saying they were exclusive to the Bush camp. I worded it obscurely and you're right to point that out. But tens of millions of those belonging to the religious right DO vote for Bush and the Republicans, and their numbers are a staggering base to overcome. Those are millions of votes that Bush could count as being "in the bag".

Neil nailed it right on the head. The difference between the Repubs and Dems is our intra party squabbles are less public and nastier than the Dems can get. Aside from the more extreme religious conservatives, Repubs basically agree on alot of things, whereas the Dems have a harder time because of the numerous factions that make it extremely hard for a moderate Dem to get the nomination. Kerry pretty much won the nomination because Dems were in an "anybody but Bush" and "electability" mood and failed to consider Kerry's inability to convince the general populace that he had a clear, facile rationale for leadership.

grooveless touque Wrote:But tens of millions of those belonging to the religious right DO vote for Bush and the Republicans, and their numbers are a staggering base to overcome. Those are millions of votes that Bush could count as being "in the bag".

Now there's a statement I can completely agree with....

Here I go ruining the near-harmony of the past few posts, but the reason it's hard for the Democrats find it hard to express the unity the Republicans do because the Democrats speak for the country's sick, the poor, the minorities, and so forth. We have a party that believes the greater good of the nation is served by using taxes to try and create a system as close to equitable as possible. The Democrats don't have a "go to curch and pray for lower taxes" mentality, and that right there sums up the unity the Republicans show. In short, it's easy to be unified behind a facade of selfishness. Everything in the Bush agenda is selfish and egotistical. The Democrats speak for people who don't get a voice in the Republican government.

A friend of mine said: if Ohioans lose 250,000 more jobs over the next 4 years, they deserve it. I go back to the John Stuart Mill quote-

"It is not true that all conservatives are stupid, but it is true that most stupid people are conservative"

grooveless touque Wrote:A friend of mine said: if Ohioans lose 250,000 more jobs over the next 4 years, they deserve it.

See, you make a snap judgement that the 250,000 Ohio jobs lost are the responsibility of the Republican administration (Bush). I would contend that the rigorous demands of the labor unions (which are the handiwork of the Democrats) are what is truly responsible for scaring the bulk of these jobs away.

grooveless touque Wrote:I go back to the John Stuart Mill quote- "It is not true that all conservatives are stupid, but it is true that most stupid people are conservative"

Neil, the funny thing is that here in the US, this quote would be the type of thing you'd hear conservatives chuckling over, but obviously, the words 'conervative(s)' would be replaced by 'liberal(s)'....

I dunno, your average voter from the Old South has to be pretty stupid, and they all go for Bush. In Alabama things are as bad as they could possibly in a first-world country, but people are so militant about taxes that they refuse to help themselves. And of course now it's too late, it's a downward spiral, because now the societal framework can't support any kind of jobs that might revive the state somewhat. It was the aversion to taxes, at ALL COSTS, that virtually bakrupted the state and now they have nothing. Now I know it's a poor area anyway, but so is Newfoundland and I dare say a poor Newfie gets by better than a poor Southerner.

grooveless touque Wrote:I dunno, your average voter from the Old South has to be pretty stupid, and they all go for Bush. In Alabama things are as bad as they could possibly in a first-world country, but people are so militant about taxes that they refuse to help themselves.

You seem to be reaching more and more with each post, Neil. First, what proof do you have to say something like "the average voter from the Old South has to be pretty stupid" If I were Steve Dame and you were a consevative, I would brand that as a racist statement (I know it isn't a racist statement, but it is a colossal overgeneralization). And to solidify your point you make another harsh overgeneralization by singling out Alabama and saying things there are "as bad as they could possibly in a first-world country". They might be poor as dirt, Neil but they are free....free to vote, free to work, free to preserve their culture and practise the faith they choose.

And how do you explain the Mountain West? Are they "stupid" too? Because it's a Bush ® stronghold as well. And I think, as far as the regional mentality goes, westerners would be indignant if they were so carelessly branded with that tag.

Yeah, Californians aren't vain, image-obsessed, or at all 'phony' either, I guess. No, they're cream of the cerebral crop, right?

edit: I was hoping to get this in before anybody responded. I am not "reaching"; I was making a point about the Bush tax philsophy that some people cling to...see below...

Note: I am probably overstepping my bounds by invoking specific states and circumstances. Just because I care so much about American politics at the national level doesn't really mean I give me the "absolute" right to throw around knowledge and opinions about people and what's wrong with them. I don't mind talking about liberals and conservatives, but I don't want to piss off American board members by having them feel I'm getting too personal with certain demographics.

All I was trying to do is make a point about the paralyzing fear of the tax-and-spend system that has worked so well for countries like Canada and Sweden. We have our own problems to contend with, but I don't feel any of them are a result of tax-dollar investment in public infrastructure. The "me, here, now" attitude that virtually all Bush voters adopt is recklessly selfish and the half-trillion-dollar-plus deficit is evidence of its ultimate unsustainability.

I agree with Grooveless.....btw your knowledge of American politics is pretty impressive.