1990LS400 Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 OK, my turn... It is important to remember how very close this election was. Bush won (depending on the results of the recount in Ohio funded by the Libertarian party) with most of his support coming from less densely populated areas of the U.S. Look at the county-by-county voting statistics for a much better picture of how areas of the U.S. supported Bush and Kerry. I think you will be very surprised. Heck, even I won 70% of the vote in our last highly contentious homes association election. Bush's 51% win certainly was not a mandate from the American people. Bush's 51% win means that just less than half of Americans wanted someone else to be President. And I am in agreement with (almost) all of Steve's (SW03ES) views on the matter. That's a first! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW03ES Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Very much so, Bush's problem is that he operates like he's a Clinton or a Reagan, presidents who very much had the will of the American people behind them. He only won the election by 51%, and his approval rating continues to run beneath 50%. Half the people in the country like this guy, on a good day. He talks about this re-election like its some huge victory for him, he actually won the popular vote this time, guess thats a victory. He has proven time and time again that he simply doesn't care what the other half thinks. THATS why I feel he's a poor president. Look at his latest chosen appointment for head of the FDA. Some christian fundamentalist that can be quoted saying birth control is abortion and that women suffering from PMS should read the bible and pray more. Is this the guy that even 1/2 the American people would choose to have the say over what new drugs and technologies become availiable to us? Does this forshadow bad things about these supreme court judge appointments, you bet. When there's a case of reported suicide because a president wins re-election, something is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denslexusgx470 Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 LMAO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartkat Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Sour grapes boys. Bush won by the first clear majority since 1988. He also carried in the biggest party increase in congress since 1936. You all just gotta learn to live with it. Here's your TS card, good for a free visit to the chaplain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake918 Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Moore didn't lie, he presented his version of the truth. ← Which is a very obscured version of how things happen. One can edit and doctor up things to support any argument they want. I saw part of his film on a university movie channel here. I've been wanting to see it, but I refuse to support him in anyway i.e. renting his movie. I saw the last hour or so, and the scene where all of the Iraqi children were playing on the swings and monkey bars happier than pigs in s**t. Then, you here him say something to the effect of...how are they threatening us?? I literally lmao!! Its also common for Bush supporters to imply that people that don't like the President are unpatriotic. Its that kind of bullheaded imperialism that makes me so afraid of Bush. Keep going on like that, one day the world's gonna rise up and put us in our place. ← Just as it is depressing to hear all of these democrats say oh my god another 4 years, how did that iddiot get re elected, we are totally f**ked, how could the American people be so stupid?? An attitude like this is not conducive to getting anything done. Sorry, but liberals are guilty of the same offense...same song, second verse... It is important to remember how very close this election was. ← 3.5 million votes is hardly a close election. When there's a case of reported suicide because a president wins re-election, something is wrong. ← Not really, that's just a stupid person that obviously has some kind of mental problem. I really don't like Kerry, but I'm sane enough to not blow my brains out if he would have won the election. Sour grapes boys. Bush won by the first clear majority since 1988. He also carried in the biggest party increase in congress since 1936. You all just gotta learn to live with it. ← Exactly!! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyofOne Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 You might also remind her that we are still stupid and we like it. Yours in liberty and good humor, Bartkat :D :D ← LMAO @ Bartkat :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW03ES Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Sour grapes boys. Bush won by the first clear majority since 1988. He also carried in the biggest party increase in congress since 1936. You all just gotta learn to live with it. Here's your TS card, good for a free visit to the chaplain. ← Thats because its the first time there's been a true two party election since 1988. Don't buy into that line, its just spin by the Bush folks. I'm not saying he didnt win, he clearly won, but he didn't blow the doors off anything, the election was very close. Which is a very obscured version of how things happen. One can edit and doctor up things to support any argument they want. I saw part of his film on a university movie channel here. I've been wanting to see it, but I refuse to support him in anyway i.e. renting his movie. I saw the last hour or so, and the scene where all of the Iraqi children were playing on the swings and monkey bars happier than pigs in s**t. Then, you here him say something to the effect of...how are they threatening us?? I literally lmao!! Very true, but he's still not lying. The worst thing you can accuse him of is propagandizing. Just as it is depressing to hear all of these democrats say oh my god another 4 years, how did that iddiot get re elected, we are totally f**ked, how could the American people be so stupid?? An attitude like this is not conducive to getting anything done. Sorry, but liberals are guilty of the same offense...same song, second verse... Its not depressing, thats politics. Its insulting when Bush supporters, the Bush administration, and Bush himself accuse people of being unamerican because they question his motives and decision. Its our job and our right as citizens to question the decisions of our president. If anything its the Bush people who are unamerican for calling our patriotism into question because we're doing our duty. He's the president, not the king. The whole point of America is we're free to like him or not and should be free from persecution because of our views. 3.5 million votes is hardly a close election. But as you Bush people so produly hailed in 2000, its not the popular vote that wins the election, its the electoral vote. This election was won by one state, Ohio and it was won by 150,000 votes. But for the sake of argument lets look at the popular vote. Bush recieved 59,459,765 votes, Kerry recieved 55,949,407 for a total of 115,409,172 votes cast for Bush or Kerry. Bush won by a margin of 3,510,358 votes, thats 3.4%. Those are the facts, as reported by CNN and with some math being done by me. Now, here's Bill Clinton's re-election in 1996. THIS is a clear mandate. Clinton recieved 47,402,357 votes, Dole recieved 39,198,755 votes for a total of 86,601,112 votes cast for Clinton or Dole. Clinton won by a margin of 8,203,602 votes, or 9.5%. And Ronald Reagan's re-election in 1984. Reagan recieved 54,455,075 votes to Mondale's 37,577,185. Total of votes cast, 92,032,260. Reagan won by a margin of 16,877,890 votes, or 18.3%. Another historic re-election, Richard Nixon in 1972. Nixon recieved 47,169,911 votes to McGovern's 29,170,383 for a total of 76,340294 votes cast. Nixon won by a margin of 17,999,528 votes, or 23.6%. So see here, this is election data from the last 3 successful re-elections in our history, leaving out the third party candidates. No spin here. THESE are mandates, these people had the support of the country behind them. They were ratified by much larger margins than their first elections, were re-hired. We've got Clinton with 9.5%, Reagan with 18.3% and Nixon with 23.6%. Now, these people didn't neccisarily win by a landslide either. Nixon won in 1968 by only 510,000 votes, and he'd already been defeated by JFK in 1960 by a mere 118,000 votes. Yet Nixon's victory in his 1972 re-election was a huge huge increase. Bush may think he has a mandate, and Bush supporters may pretend he's got a mandate by throwing around terms like "first clear majority since 1988" while ignoring the real reason thats so, but he doesn't. 10% is a mandate, 3% is not. As for the congressional seats, many of them were won for the republicans because of creative redistricting. Take Texas for instance, the republican leadership in texas redistricted the state so that republican incumbents and democratic incumbents were fighting each other in republican controlled areas. Very sneaky. There are multiple lawsuits that should eventually make it before the supreme court to decide how that redistricting can be done to close that control loophole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartkat Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Thats because its the first time there's been a true two party election since 1988. Don't buy into that line, its just spin by the Bush folks. I'm not saying he didnt win, he clearly won, but he didn't blow the doors off anything, the election was very close. I am Bush folks. You all can spout democrat talking points all you want, but it ain't gonna change a thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amf1932 Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Right on SW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW03ES Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Thats because its the first time there's been a true two party election since 1988. Don't buy into that line, its just spin by the Bush folks. I'm not saying he didnt win, he clearly won, but he didn't blow the doors off anything, the election was very close. I am Bush folks. You all can spout democrat talking points all you want, but it ain't gonna change a thing. ← I'm fully aware you're Bush folks, hence why you're spouting that spin. I'm saying I know its BS. And you couldn't have possibly read my post that quickly, meaning you have no intention to counter any of the arguments I've made. There's no counter argument to be made to what I've presented here because its cold hard numbers, no interpretation at all. So all you can do is write it off as "democratic" BS. And figure this one out, I'm a republican. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartkat Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Thats because its the first time there's been a true two party election since 1988. Don't buy into that line, its just spin by the Bush folks. I'm not saying he didnt win, he clearly won, but he didn't blow the doors off anything, the election was very close. I am Bush folks. You all can spout democrat talking points all you want, but it ain't gonna change a thing. ← I'm fully aware you're Bush folks, hence why you're spouting that spin. I'm saying I know its BS. ← If you read what you wrote, you'll see that you told me not to buy into the Bush folks line. You all can go ahead and whine now. This thread was started in good humor and intend to leave it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW03ES Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Unless I'm mistaken you're not a member of the Bush administration, hence don't buy into the spin they're selling because it isn't legitimate. In a 3 candidate election there is RARELY a majority, so why wouldn't this be the first clear majority since 1988? Its the first race since 1988 with only two national candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW03ES Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Bear in mind I'm not saying he didn't win, he definately won. I'm just saying he and his supporters need a reality check if they think they've got a mandate, they don't. He's such an arrogant you know what he's going around acting like he won the election by 30%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denslexusgx470 Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Bear in mind I'm not saying he didn't win, he definately won. I'm just saying he and his supporters need a reality check if they think they've got a mandate, they don't. He's such an arrogant you know what he's going around acting like he won the election by 30%. ← Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexusfreak Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Has anybody seen Fahrenhype 9/11 that counters Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 movie? I guarantee many peoples minds will change on the subject of President Bush. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW03ES Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 No, but I'd like to. My guess is though its just as propagandist as Moore's movie, just the other way. The truth about Bush probably lies somewhere in the middle. My feelings about Bush began well before Farenheit 9/11 came out though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VBdenny Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 It was a tough loss. At this point slightly less than half of us know the extent of that loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amf1932 Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Has anybody seen Fahrenhype 9/11 that counters Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 movie? I guarantee many peoples minds will change on the subject of President Bush. B) ← This movie has made me appreciate Michael Moore with a new fervor. Not because of his political views, but because he knows how to make an interesting film. This film loses focus 10 minutes in to the film and jumps around from there on. About half of the movie is irrelevant to the rest of the movie. I enjoy documentaries and wasn't expecting as much comedy as one of Moore's, but I expected some interesting points to be made. There weren't. There was nothing that jumps out at you, or any revelations to be made. This movie would have been more effective as a 10 page report. The points made to discredit Moore have no effect at all. There's an entire segment on the fact that he changed the format of a newspaper article that flashes by the screen, that no one would read. Most of the movie isn't even about discrediting Moore, as most would lead you to believe. It's about saying how great of a leader President Bush is. Not in conjuction with disproving Michael Moore's statements, but getting off the point completely. Which would be great if that's how it was advertised. I'm all for positive campaigning instead of just discrediting the other guy. But stay focused. Michael Moore didn't say how great any of the democrats were in Fahrenheit, because it would take away from making his points about Bush. Basically, the movie was made to discredit Michael Moore. This, like most attacks on a movie, just add to the money the movie makes. Don't watch this movie unless you feel the need to sit through an hour and a half of bad film-making. The reason why Moore's films are so popular is because they entertain, not just the political aspects. I seriously hope that the conservatives can get someone who can actually make a good film while making a point next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VBdenny Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 and then Buffalo actually gets a touchdown.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKperformance Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 lol i don;t know the name of the movie but as it is just retalliation i will wait till pbs or something shows it. I also did not like bush well before Mr moore and 9/11. I am quite happy being on this side of the border where ti is safe and quiet . Canada is the country for me. Funny part is i was watching a comedy show the other night and it was saying canada and the US are like drinking buddies going to the bars. At the end of the night the drunk friend thinks someone is trying to stare him down. So he starts a fight gets the place in a mess and the buddy has to come over sort it out say sorry and help clean up while taking the friend home. I prefer to be the Canadian pacifists who show up to help others when they need it, not tell anyone how ,what or when they should. Respect is a 2 way street US foreign policy is one way and it is not helping anyone. Another funny point that has been made thousands of times is when the IRA was bombing the *BLEEP* out of brits where was america then. Thoses terroists where around along time also and probably got mroe news coverage, but their is no oil in the monarchy now is their. ................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartkat Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Perhaps the Brits should have formed a coalition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexusfreak Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 The funny part about Michael Moore is in 2000, he was supporting Ralph Nader!!!! :whistles: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew_McNally Posted November 15, 2004 Author Share Posted November 15, 2004 Another funny point that has been made thousands of times is when the IRA was bombing the *BLEEP* out of brits where was america then. ← some of the biggest contributors to the IRA were Americans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew_McNally Posted November 15, 2004 Author Share Posted November 15, 2004 Another funny point that has been made thousands of times is when the IRA was bombing the *BLEEP* out of brits where was america then. ← some of the biggest contributors to the IRA were Americans - clearly the IRA were the acceptable face of terrorism ← Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartkat Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Another funny point that has been made thousands of times is when the IRA was bombing the *BLEEP* out of brits where was america then. ← some of the biggest contributors to the IRA were Americans - clearly the IRA were the acceptable face of terrorism ← ← Right. As I remember one or two of those IRA fugitive guys came over here and was raising money. I thought that was terrible. It appears that was going on for a long time though. Timeline1918 December Sinn Fein captures 48% of popular vote and 73 of 105 Irish seats in elections for Westminster parliament. Last election held prior to partition of the island. 1919 January 21 Sinn Fein MPs meet at Mansion House, Dublin, constituting themselves as first Dail Eireann (Irish Parliament) and declaring Irish independence. Until George Mitchell and Bill Clinton managed to get some sort of settlement during 1998 and 2000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.