the outcome of the election

[Occhidiangela]

The enconomy would not have improved simply because he'd pull out of the war. Justfiable war = fixes economies. The problem is that the Iraq war is not a justifiable war.

Those two thoughts don't fit together: If justifiable, then good for an economy. Sorry, logic bad.

What are you drinking, and may I have a glass?

No war fixes an economy. War is bad for economic activity, for trade, and increases the national debt over all. Typically, a post war period is marked by recession/depression, at least for the short term. The temporary boom during a war pops when it is over, or at least tends to. Justified or not hardly enters into it. You seem to be mixing morals and economics. Not always a good way to frame a discussion.

The Trickle-down effect; taxing the rich would not have paid off of the national debt, but rather, tax cuts to the rich would theoretically stimulate the creation of jobs, leading to more spending (what Bush is doing). Honestly, I don't think it matters one way or the other, since things will only be getting worse for everyone.

Sure, entropy is inevitable, why didn't Alan Greenspan think of that every day for the past 12 years? Hell, I quit, everything is just gonna suck, and "I am a victim of circumstances." (Note Sarcasm) Pardon me while I vomit.

Why does one want to become the president in the first place? Why does one want to do anything? Money, of course.

Nope. Try Ego and power cravings, perceived power to change the world, or part of it, and a belief that one will do better than the last guy, or the other guy. I'd guess ego is the big driver. That, and the prospect of getting lots of fat groupies.

All I can say is THANK GOD/ALLAH/JESUS/JEHOVA/VISHNU/EINSTEIN FOR TERM LIMITS.

Note: I don't think Einstein was involved in the term limits bit; God, if around, is other wise employed; Jesus would suggest "render unto Caesar;" and Vishnu hardly cares, since the duration of any term is so short on the cosmic scale.

Term limits seem to work, yet lack of term limits worked well enough in the case of FDR. Case dependent.

I knew John Kerry wouldn't win, simply because middle America is so incredible ignorant. They see, "GW Bush, the War President" and it gets them hard. The others see "GW Bush, the Protector of the World" and say, "we're safe because of GW. I'll vote for him". The businessmen see "GW Bush, Our Buddy, Looking Out For Us" and vote for him because, well, he IS one of them and is looking out for them.

Did you mean incredibly ignorant? That's what I think you meant. You do realize that any number of very rich businessmen, example George Soros, supported Senator Kerry? Right?

The religious (ignorant) people see "GW Bush, Crusader For God, Smiter of Pagans" and vote for him that way. The evangelical and fundamental religious types are the worst (best?) when it comes to gathering votes; Bush says, "gays = bad so no marriage for them, life = sacred therefore no stem cell research and no abortion" and they eat it up. What pisses me off is that there are so many of those people in the U.S., it's almost infathomable. All these people following something so ridiculous -- my rational mind can't comprehend such blind faith.

Hmm, your rational mind. Oxymoron.

"Vincini, I don't think that word means what you think it means." :lol:

I could wax philosophical for hours, or I could go on a tirade about Religion and how it was used as a form of government in the past and is not completely and outmoded. It's only use now is to pacify the public.

Hey, wait, I've read that before, some hairy dude named Groucho Marx, no sorry, Karl Marx, laid down a similar sound byte. "Religion is the opiate of the masses/people" or some such thing. By the way, Faith and Religion differ subtly. I note that any number of folks practice a religion, have a deep and abiding faith, and live incredibly active and vital lives without being "pacified." Care to comment? I refer, of course, to Liberation Theologists. Yes, you have to look it up!!!!

Where was I?

Circling Uranus? ;)

So yeah, Bush won because of his broader platform and campaigning. He played to the ignorant and religious (those terms are synonymous in my view) and won because of it.

Interesting. I am now decreed by you to be religious and ignorant. Last time I checked, I was an Independent, not a Christian, and am reasonably intelligent, even experienced.

You notice, the places that Kerry won were all liberal areas, like New York, California and Nevada.

UH, yeah, since he ran as a liberal. Makes a bit of sense.

Those places realized that Bush made mistakes and it was time for him to go. Really, though, if you make a huge public mistake, you get fired. That's how it goes. Happens to CEOs all the time. The People didn't fire Bush. Bush either really superbly tricked those ignorant people, or they just really didn't like John Kerry. I like to call Bush Voters, "Violently Ignorant". A vote for Bush validates his impetuous action, his incredibly, superlatively impetuous action.

Oh, so now I am violently ignorant. Thank you, I will keep that in mind. You might want to keep that in mind if you ever leave your cacoon. Or, you might want to smoke some weed with a slightly lower THC content. Or, you might want to go and suck a wolverine's farts.

You might instead recall that for the job of President, when one votes to fire someone, see Pres Johnson or Carter, or Pres Bush the Elder, you at the same time HAVE TO VOTE TO HIRE SOMEONE ELSE. One may then be left with a real challenge if one's gut feel is that doing so will put someone less desireable -- than the one who you might be itching to put on the street -- into office.

Furthermore, liking Senator Kerry is not a sign of intelligence, merely a sign of liberal point of view, or a sign of disliking President Bush: the latter was the prime basis of the Democratic Platform in the first place. What did they offer me to vote FOR? I know what they offered me to vote against.

What really bothers me is that since his actions have been validated, he is free to do it again. What oil rich country is next, hmm? I don't know, but it's probably not Saudi Arabia... Maybe they will invade Alberta!

Fascinating use of alleged logic. Don't quit your day job. We already robbed Alberta's most valuable resource, Wayne Gretzky. Blame Janet Jones and money.

The next attack on America will be from a militant super-power, not a terrorist group. Ugh, 4 more years of listening to Bush say "New-cue-lar". I just want to slap him in the mouth when he does that little "hyeh hyeh hyeh" laugh...

Militant super power. Name one. And then you went and mixed topics in one thought, losing coherence. Use better weed, or stick to LaBatt's.

This president makes me want to move to Australia so when North Korea nukes the hell out the U.S., I won't be bathed in the fallout (I'm awfully close to New York...). Hey mates, put the shrimp on the bar-bee and all that, I'm comin' down there!

But would they put up with you? How many Australians do you know personally? The one's I know would classify you as a whack job. While I am at it, please enlighten me: What does one call an illegal Canadian immigrant? A LaBatt's back? A Back Bacon? A Toque Termite? Padback? Playmate of the Year? :P

My apologies for the long post. I'm a bit miffed and needed to vent. At least I didn't do my religion rant, that one would be at least ten thousand words.

My condolences on your inability to reason. When the dope wears off, perhaps that will improve. Bloody Mary for breakfast is my recommended cure.

OBTW, this is a paid political announcement: you don't have the right to be miffed over our election, eh? The Americans, in their own special way, picked their president, as they do every four years.

Deal with it, and quit acting like a whining maggot.

And for pity's sake, man, share more of that weed with your friends: they will appreciate the trip to Never Never land! :blink:

Occhi