the outcome of the election

[ManaCraft]

Who cares?  It was not your election.

Got it?  You want Europe to be stronger, to be less of a second string player to America?  Make the sacrifice, and pay for it.

Otherwise, your opinion is all just a lot of wind, like an EU minister's meeting!

Hmm...

You know, I remember you getting awfully mad at Jarulf(?) for inquiring about the workings of the US election system not so long ago. Given that you are obviously somewhat picky about how other people refer to your own country, I'd assume you'd be gracious enough to return the favor.

And for what it's worth, some of us actually do care what other people think, even if they're not registered US voters.


ManaCraft

[Occhidiangela]

[right][snapback]59114[/snapback][/right]

No, I did not presume you voted for Clinton, I was pointing out that when you drop bombs and do other warlike things, "innocents" often get killed. Funny, all those nice Europeans really got on board that Serbian thing, as did a bunch of nice Liberals here . . . different case, of course, as there was no risk to them. Ever heard the term Bully applied to America? Serbia was a text book case.

Since there is a war, your next point was rather . . . empty. Was war the only way to resolve the security situation in the Mid East? I have no idea, though I'd like to think not. It was the path chosen. Read the last fifty, or three hundred, years of history, and take a good hard look at how change tends to happen at the political level . . . internationally . . .

As to "insulting" I find it most insulting that those who do not carry the load think that they have a right to be supervisors based on . . . lack of ability to carry the load? Faded glory? A SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT?

You tell me.

Your right to an opinion I support. Completely. The European presumption of a right to comment on and sneer at my nation's political process, as mad as it is, will be met with such tools as I have in the kit. You bash my country, STFB.

Been to Europe. Nice place, warts and all. Funny, that's a lot like America. Or had everyone forgotten that interesting parallel?

And no, you will not be banned for disagreeing with me, though other Loungers may ask the both of us to knock it off. :P

Occhi

[Minionman]

I knew John Kerry wouldn't win, simply because middle America is so incredible ignorant.

If you want the world to think you are smarter than millions of your neighbors to the south, you are off to a bad start.  The next time you insult the wisdom of dozens of Lurkers, at least use proper grammar.

Why did Bush win?  Perhaps it's because legions of Americans are sick of being told what is good for them by the elitists who share your attitudes.

I've said before that when people call Bush an idiot, it reflects personally on those of us (rural, religious, or otherwise) who have entrusted him with the highest office in our country.  Perhaps I should thank you for skipping the middle man and calling us idiots more directly.
[right][snapback]59119[/snapback][/right]

I have a problem with the "middle America" too, mostly because it is a big huge stereotype. Yes, people in country areas are usually more religious than city areas, and more religious people tend to go more for "family values-anti gay-moral decay-kick enemy ass" type opinions, but there are plenty who don't. And someone who simply attacks the whole region of the country for being the way they are also seems really ignorant. I have a lot of family member who are in small towns in the great lakes area, most of the mwent for Kerry I'm told, and when I heard them talking it was about things like health care.

On a couple of side notes, when you say, "Middle America" the way it was used really should either be "rural/ country America", or "southeast and mountain areas, since those are the more religious areas it seems. Also, one of the reasons Liberal types seem to be loosing so much is because they are thought of as "elitist", and people who say things like this don't help. In order to win the elections, they have to find issues to get people fired up their way, not just complain about some areas of the country. A.K.A. complaining and dumping on these areas of the country is an easy way not to win elections.

[Cryptic]

Sigh. I’ve gotten into more near-confrontations in the past 24 hours than in the past 3 years. I’m going home to work on my BNM. Thanks to everyone (yes, everyone) for keeping the discussion heated, interesting and yet somehow constrained by propriety. I don’t like it anymore, don’t want it anymore, but this is a good thread. Have fun all.
;)

[Occhidiangela]

Hmm...

You know, I remember you getting awfully mad at Jarulf(?) for inquiring about the workings of the US election system not so long ago. Given that you are obviously somewhat picky about how other people refer to your own country, I'd assume you'd be gracious enough to return the favor.

And for what it's worth, some of us actually do care what other people think, even if they're not registered US voters.
ManaCraft
[right][snapback]59122[/snapback][/right]

Were I come from, friend Manacraft, it is called "repayment in kind." ;)

Having lived in Europe, and still subsidizing its security with my Tax Dollars, and having worked with, up close and personal, Europeans (for both better and worse) on any number of collective endeavours, my opinions are formed on considerably more than hot air, speculation, and image.

I may start a protest movement, soon.

"Bring the boys home, from Germany." Well, I guess that is already a work in progress. Good. And bad. The bad is that fewer children will have the chance to live in Germany while growing, which I did. Still go back, still love the place.

Cheers.

Occhi

[ManaCraft]

Don't like American politics?  No problem, stay in Denmark, it's a neat place with great people (to include yourself! :)  )

Don't worry, I'm not going anywhere. :P

Don't understand religion, do you, and its relationship to the social world that is politics?  Not surprising.  Europe, of course, never had any sort of governmental-religion relationship . . . *bursts out laughing so hard he spills his coffee*

Don't understand ... or just plain disagree with. Take your pick.

Admittedly I'm not familiar with all the historical background material you cite, and I'm sure I could bury myself under a huge pile of history books concerning the topics of religion and politics if I wanted. I'm not going to do that though. Instead I'll just stand by my opinion, which is that I do not support the idea of theocracy. People can vote based on their religion all they want for all I care, but when you begin to legislate based on religion you have a problem. And that's what I believe is happening in certain cases, such as with gay marriage.

As a sidenote, I'm not claiming that Europe is perfect (or has been historically) when it comes to religious governing, but I'm really not interested in turning this into a discussion about who's got the biggest pile of **** in their backyard.


ManaCraft

[Kharohz]

This may lead to flaming, but I just have to give my 2 cents (which I am sure you won't like, foreign or domestic)

Let me start off with the fact: I am openly ignorant, there are many things I do not know, and that I really don't care to know. But...

I understand that this is a forum, and questions like "Why did you vote for such and such....." coming from someone who lives in another country is fine, nothing wrong with curiosity. But it is starting to annoy me when people who aren't Americans complain, rant, and practically say everything but calling us stupid for "Our" choice. (That being the popular vote)

This is not Europe, this is not Canada, this is not (Enter Nation Here), this is America. Every country has a different thought process, we believe in different things, perhaps if you lived here, you might believe differently too. Of course even Americans believe differently, which of course is why we have this thing called voting, that is of course if you actually care to vote.

Everyone who votes may have a different reason why they vote, ranging from "I think Kerry is ugly, so I won't vote for him" or "Legitimate non-ignorant opinion here". It ranges widely. Granted a greater % of the nation probally votes out of ignorance. Who knows for sure.

Anyway, let me finially get to my point at hand. We have a saying here: "If you don't vote, don't complain." Which basically translates, "We don't want your opinion, and thus STFU ^^". Now if you CAN'T vote, being if say... You are from another country, then follow the same instructions..

Thanks!

I know that USA's actions can effect you guys, but unless you are currently on the border of IRAQ or other possible countries. Be quiet, worry about your own politics.

[Chaerophon]

This is not Europe, this is not Canada, this is not (Enter Nation Here), this is America. Every country has a different thought process, we believe in different things, perhaps if you lived here, you might believe differently too. Of course even Americans believe differently, which of course is why we have this thing called voting, that is of course if you actually care to vote.

Everyone who votes may have a different reason why they vote, ranging from "I think Kerry is ugly, so I won't vote for him" or "Legitimate non-ignorant opinion here". It ranges widely. Granted a greater % of the nation probally votes out of ignorance. Who knows for sure.

Anyway, let me finially get to my point at hand. We have a saying here: "If you don't vote, don't complain." Which basically translates, "We don't want your opinion, and thus STFU ^^". Now if you CAN'T vote, being if say... You are from another country, then follow the same instructions..

Thanks!

I know that USA's actions can effect you guys, but unless you are currently on the border of IRAQ or other possible countries. Be quiet, worry about your own politics.

Ok. Hope you enjoy it when your close-mindedness and unilateral thuggery land you in the thick of a nasty, nasty mess. Trust me, it will happen. Only a deeper understanding of WHY these complaints are so rampant and violent will preserve the vaunted American standard of life. Your country is already dependent on China and Japan just to stay afloat. The EU has a much healthier economic base that is rapidly overtaking your own. Times are a changing, and it's time for Americans to collectively pull their heads out of the proverbial Cold War oil sands. You ARE a part of the world.

The majority of these votes for Bush were votes for single-minded self-determination. Fear and xenophobia have gotten him another four-year term. Self-determination is one thing and going it alone is something else altogether. The time is rapidly approaching at which America WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO GO IT ALONE. It doesn't seem possible, but trust me, it is. You are a declining hegemon. You can remain prosperous and rejoin the international community as a kind of 'superior equal', or you can continue your unilateral race to the crash site. Canada will be dragged along with you. Britain might jump out just in time. I thought that maybe the time had come, and that the people would realize what was really going on in the world. I guess I hoped for too much. Seems that it will take the utter decimation of the American world-standing for change to come, but it WILL come.

Here's hoping that this unreasoning fear doesn't drive AMERICANS, not just their administration, to endorse actions that they may come to regret in the coming century. I'm very saddened by last night.

[[wcip]Angel]

Who cares?  It was not your election.

Got it?  You want Europe to be stronger, to be less of a second string player to America?  Make the sacrifice, and pay for it.

Otherwise, your opinion is all just a lot of wind, like an EU minister's meeting!

Occhi
[right][snapback]59103[/snapback][/right]

To play devil's advocate for a moment:
From a European point of view, many (I've spoken with) feel that electing a president of the US, means electing a leader of the free world. Given that you've already stated that the US acts as a world leader, I won't assume you'll disagree with me. Basically, "we" feel that American campaigns are taking place all over the world, not just within the US.

Do we appreciate it when our big brother comes to our rescue? Sure, we'd never make it without you. Do we sometimes feel we ought to have a say in it? Perhaps.

I'm not into politics, so perhaps I shouldn't have said something at all, but please realise that I am only trying to offer a different point of view. To reiterate, the feeling I get from speaking with my fellow Europeans, is that we're not in any way jealous of America being the only remaining superpower, but seeing as America has a dominant role in the world we live in, we'd like to partake in deciding who should have that role.

Going back to being my own advocate:
I realise it's not our election. I really do, but somehow I can't shake the feeling that the next four years will impact on us all, and therefore I find the justification to voice my opinion. I know it's arrogant, and I know it's useless. What would *I* care if a few million greek stated on an Internet message board how our leaders are useless and weak? I'd be offended, even though I do not support said leaders; simply because the greek have no saying in how we run our country.

The only difference is, I suppose, from an ignorant and naïve point of view, that "America" stretches beyond the geographical boundaries that make up the country.

[FoxBat]

I've said before that when people call Bush an idiot, it reflects personally on those of us (rural, religious, or otherwise) who have entrusted him with the highest office in our country.  Perhaps I should thank you for skipping the middle man and calling us idiots more directly.
[right][snapback]59119[/snapback][/right]

Idiot or not, I do find it dubious that anyone uses the word "trust" in the same sentence containing a synonym as "politician," which is also a synonym for "professional liar." Kerry in his elitism was talking down to lies and overgeneralizations quite often as any viable politician must. Bush, well I think the last 4 years are proof enough.

Bush could very well be an idiot, but one masterfully puppetiered by a regieme with policy changes you find agreeable. Should this change your vote?

Denouncing the ignorance of the middle-american belt is one thing, but you better be ready to have your canidate of choice take some serious heat. There ain't no-one this high up in politics that is anything but filthy, and presidents furthermore get to claim the credit and blame for things they personally have very little to do with. Those that believe in shiny politicicans that believe and do what they say, well I find it hard to show the tact for those so divorced from the facts.

[FoxBat]

I know that USA's actions can effect you guys, but unless you are currently on the border of IRAQ or other possible countries.  Be quiet, worry about your own politics.
[right][snapback]59130[/snapback][/right]

I suppose this might make sense if there were no such things as international trade, politics, warfare, and globalism. I guess some Americans don't believe such things exist.

[JustAGuy]

Ignorant is not realizing all values are based on nothing but some sort of "faith" oin the end.

That's not true. Faith is, to quote the dictionary, "a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". Your statement insinuates that people derive their values from something other than logic, that they must rely on something else to determine what is right and wrong.

My beliefs were learned from observation of the world and are ever evolving. My values are based in reason. Science and that which is provable dominate my beliefs. My values stem from causality; I know not to kill because I would go to jail, or be killed myself (I put myself in danger). It's the fear of reprisal. Also the fact that I am kind-hearted stops me from doing nasty things. I don't do things that are evil because of my moral compass. It's not a faith that my moral compass will tell me what I am doing is right or wrong, it's knowledge that what I am doing is right or wrong, my compass just affirms it. It just so happens that what I know about how to live my life coincides with how I feel about it. No faith in anything is required.

Reason is a great tool, but but it serves no purpose without direction.

So, where do we get the direction? Some choose religion to guide them. I choose what directly applies to me; my own survival, in a dignified manner (after all, we are in a civilized society). The fact that I am kind-hearted also paints my outlook. People have their own choices to make regarding that.

Ill give anyone room to disagree with my values(although I may not respect them), but people who are take nonsense positions and do it rudely as Justaguy did, deserve scorn and anmity from my perspective.

Such is the wonder of a free society. One is free to agree, disagree and to offend whom he/she pleases. So I leaned heavily on the religious bit, and in doing so it came off very rude. It's understandable that such a view comes off as offensive or rude. It happens, no big deal to me. You can be as hostile to me as you wish, that's the beauty of a democratic society.

My view is simple. Religion is a crutch. It answers the difficult questions for you, tells you what to do, and how to do it, all in one convenient package. That's my view, and that's not going to change.

To claim as though my position is nonsensical is false. I've examined my own existence, and I've derived that aforementioned position. I'm sticking with it, unless something comes along that blows my whole mindset away. If that were the case, then it's self-examination time once again. I can understand how someone would be unwilling to change, especially when they've devoted their lives to something that is potentially incorrect, but it's hard to respect a religion when there's so much evidence to the contrary, cold hard irrefutable evidence at that.

I answered a question, albeit very verbosely, but I did. The question posed was: "why did [Americans] vote for Bush?" Not being from the United States, I could only derive an answer from the available data; my conclusion is that Bush won by directing his campaign at the religious right. I threw in some jabs at organized religion (namely evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity, because I believe differently from what they believe) because many people, as I do, believe that the world is less safe with George W. Bush in office. Bush made is seem that his preemptive strike without provocation or evidence was an act that made the world safer. Some people voted for him under the pretense that he was indeed solely responsible for making the U.S. and the world safer. It is arguable that the world is more dangerous now, after the Iraq debacle.

You speak of rationality -- those that voted for Bush because of Religion didn't use a proper rationale. They simply voted for him because he appeals to their skewed sensibilities. That's not another jab at religion (Christianity), their morals and sensibilities are skewed toward the faith they believe, just as a Mulsim has his/her morals and sensibilities skewed to another direction by their faith. Bush exploited the Christian vote, as he should, to win the election. The United States has a large population of Christians, and by appealing to them, he clearly garnered more votes than last time. Kerry put forth a good platform, one based in logic and a sound strategy to rectify the problems of the current administration. The problem is, he didn't have enough personality, or that aura of having "god" on his side. Bush is clearly very religious, and that resonated with the voters. It worked very well for him.

Bush also had an excellent campaign, despite it being so negative. It distresses me when politicians resort to negative campaigning, but it clearly works. Carl Rove should be commended for shaping the will of the people as he has. I applaud the work he has done, as it is a testament to his craftyness, but it is distrubing to see him use his ability for the side of big business.

There's a clear conflict of interest between Cheney and Haliburton, and Bush and the Saudis. There was also evidence of voter fraud in the last election, and more conflicts of interest. They use scare tactics (see the terror alert bar) to get the people to do as they wish. They use those tactics to get favourable legistlation to pass (see the Patriot Act). They invaded a country that did not provoke America and had no tie to the 9/11 terrorists. I suppose the War in Iraq isn't a mistake, it's more of an attack on a sovereign nation to further a hidden agenda, something that is compeltely intentional. A vote for Bush says that it's ok, and to keep up the good work. Doesn't it?

[JustAGuy]

I knew John Kerry wouldn't win, simply because middle America is so incredible ignorant.

If you want the world to think you are smarter than millions of your neighbors to the south, you are off to a bad start.  The next time you insult the wisdom of dozens of Lurkers, at least use proper grammar.

There are a few things that I've never done. I've not called Bush an idiot. I never claimed to be smarter than anyone. I also don't claim to be the most informed individual on the face of the planet either. I actually think George Bush is an excellent politician, otherwise he wouldn't be in office. To some people, he is very likeable, an everyman, someone who resonates with the public (again, middle America). I also think he's despotic, and not looking out for your security, but rather his own interests.

I have simply stated that middle America is ignorant. Go down there and talk to them, you'll see that for the most part, I'm correct. There are bright, intelligent, thoughtful, and informed people down there, but sadly they're few and far between. Not everyone can be winners. With that said, the majority isn't always right, either.

That grammar bit, that's a cheap shot. I always do my best to proof read and use proper grammar. You can be sure that the next time I insult your "wisdom", I'll be sure to check my spelling.

Why did Bush win?  Perhaps it's because legions of Americans are sick of being told what is good for them by the elitists who share your attitudes.

"I don't like being told what to do, so I'll do the opposite!"

You liken the American public to a four-year old. Reverse psychology on the entire country? Come on now. And my attitude was a bit crude in the original post, sure, but that's because many, MANY people haven't bothered to examine their lives, whereas some would argue that that is the point of living.

I've said before that when people call Bush an idiot, it reflects personally on those of us (rural, religious, or otherwise) who have entrusted him with the highest office in our country. Perhaps I should thank you for skipping the middle man and calling us idiots more directly.

Take it however you like. Regarding Bush, you get what you pay for, right?

[Minionman]

I picked Kerry.

Good for you, you voted. YAY!

On the economy and thiis foreign policy stuff, I didn't see one person or the other standing out, and I don't think it really matters either way.  National security seems to depend mainly on people doing the work in the army, FBI, etc. 

May I point out to you that the foreign policy and the security things, are all driven by resources ( in terms of what is possible, which does not necessarily mean that all decisions optimally use resources) and that your tax dollars support those.  The economy can be influenced somewhat by policy, but not completely.  



I disagree with you there, they could either of them really screw it up.  As to how "right" any President can get the economy, one wonders.



Please be better informed in 2006 and 2008.  It will make your vote more informed, and you better at peace with your decision one way or another.  My take on education at this point is that public education has become a massive political battleground, since about school bussing, probably before, and it has not ended.  Its core function seems to get lost in the battle.  Bad news.  Neither candidate offered me a vision I believed.

The main reasons I went one way were Bush's gay marriage and stem cell views, and in general the way he talks about those "family values" and "moral decay" related stuff.  Abortion itself I don't care that much on, but other related issues I have stronger feelings.

At least you are strongly for a few issues that matter to you, and I personally support your concern in re a nonsensical position on the stem cell issue.  Me, I am in favor of abortion as a choice, but I refuse to let Abortion be an issue on which I base any political decision.  I consider it a medical and spiritual (human spirit,  not religion) decision made by the parties concerned who did that sex thing.  The government needs to get out of it.

There are a few issues that I don't seem to really fit anyone on.   Gun laws I think should be left up to states or particular areas, whether this mucks up laws or not is up for grabs.  Taxes, social security, and healthcare I 'd probably come up with different stuff than what most people are saying.

While you are coming up with different stuff than what most people are saying, could you say some of it here?   :lol:   One can get tired of seeing the same old thing, a few fresh view points would be most welcome, by me in any case.  Maybe you do have the next great idea! 

Occhi

Edited due to massive badness.
[right][snapback]59121[/snapback][/right]

Cool it a little about 2006 and 2008. I only got really interested in elections/politics in general in the past year or so, and only got into this election in the last few months, so I'm snew at this. Two/four years gives me some time to get the hang of things and learn some more about people.


O.K., I'll admit it, on the "different ideas" subjects I mentioned, such as taxes and such, I have a lot of researching things to do, which may or may not get done. On other issues: So far I have the bit about gun control. On strategies with drugs, I think either it should be state by state or some drugs might be legalized and than taxed by alot. Drug use may or may not go up depending on education, ads, or just something else in the mix. Import taxes on oil might be a way to get more money while hopefully not annoying oil regions, helping environmental people with something they want, and some people would like that idea of controlling imports. Yes, this one does seem to have big problems like that people would hate the higher prices for oil products, there a probably a lot of people who actually need a lot of fuel no matter what need fuel, and that free trade people woudn't like it, some countries might do the same thing. This one is the wildest one. The gun laws again I think should be done state by state, or even county by county, although this might cause problems with people getting guns in one state than going to another with more gun control and commiting crimes.

On health care, taxes and social security, I'll support anything that seems to work the best, whether it's government, buisiness, mixed, or something else I don't really care.

On "values", I think the most important social/moral issues are equal opportunity and tolerance, which people do talk about, and the ideas of getting people to work hard, teaching good decision making, learning to save money, those types. They don't seem to get brought up much, so people in general seem neutral on how important they are, or maybe I just can't see around me to well. The last two are ones that people haven't seemed to mention. I don't think "values" such as drugs and sex should be regulated except maybe in extreme cases, since that doesn't show people how to analyse things and make good decisions on them, these values shuld be learned, and it wastes money. In all fairness, I don't think the government can do anything about these values, and I can't either, so they are just opinions. What I can make decisions based on opinions is just in things like gay rights and stem cell research.

Yes there is some irony in me talking about analysing things and than not alalysing the election much. I guess I'll be working on that.


Also, on a side note, this is by far the fastest growing thread I have seen ever on the lurker lounge. Wow. It actually added posts while I was reading and posting, most of the time threads grow pretty slowly.

Edit: slightly cleared up some paragraphs

[Ashock]

Hi,

Seeing that the lounge doesn't have exactly such a thread yet, I thought it was time to start one. We could have all discussion over the result of the vote at this neat place.

As time goes by, George W. Bush seems to emerge victorious from this presidential election. Indeed about 250000 provisional ballots must still be counted, but John Kerry needs a major trend reversal to preserve his chances.
(see www.cnn.com)

My question to all that voted for Bush would be:

Why did you vote for him? What reasons influenced your decision? I'm really interested. Here in Europe (more precisely: Germany), most of us can hardly comprehend that choice. Please let us not turn this into flame bait, and try to restrict yourself to a short statement of 5 to 10 lines.

I'm not cagey about my own opinion: I would have chosen Kerry. Likewise would have 2/3 - 3/4 of all Europeans, as surveys show.

Thanks, Fragbait
[right][snapback]59026[/snapback][/right]

It was a choice between 1)getting drizzled on, but eventually getting dry and 2)getting hit by lightning.... repeatedly. I chose option 1) - Bush.




-A

[Minionman]

It was a choice between 1)getting drizzled on, but eventually getting dry and 2)getting hit by lightning.... repeatedly. I chose option 1) - Bush.
-A
[right][snapback]59141[/snapback][/right]

Getting hit by lightning is so much fun though. I love it. :P

[--Pete]

Hi,

That's not true. Faith is, to quote the dictionary, "a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".[right][snapback]59136[/snapback][/right]

But it *is* true. Logic just lets you draw inferences from statements. It preserves the truth value of the axioms but cannot tell you if the axioms are 'True' (i.e., absolute verities). It can, however, tell you that there is something wrong with the axioms by permitting you to prove contradictory conclusions. Which, by the way, is why most rational people take their religion with whole heaps of salt -- all religions contain huge contradictions.

However, science is little better. The axioms are tentative and change often (however, the changes are usually of the 'refinement' type rather than the 'contradiction' type). The very concept that nature is 'knowable' is an unprovable axion. Indeed, Kant gave an excellent argument that in the final analysis we cannot 'know' anything since our means of knowing are the same as what we know, leading to a circular situation.

Thus we all start with some fundamental assumptions, such as the existence of a universe to know anything about. Such as the existence of natural "laws". Such as our ability to know and understand those "laws". Such as causality. And homogeneity. These are things we take on 'faith'.

The only difference between science and religion is that when one of the axioms of science is shown to be wrong, scientists replace it (after much argument) with something with more subtle errors (however, at each iteration, there are some optimists who think they've finally arrived at the "Truth"). When that happens in religion, the proponents of that religion simply insist that what looks wrong is right but is a test from god. I think they're fooling themselves, but they might well be right. If a capricious god indeed made and rules the universe, then all science is useless and logic does not apply.

--Pete

[smithy]

Oh yeah?, well I actually voted for Kerry because Bush beat up my little brother (It's very hard to beat molesting a grandmother, you win this one).  :)

This certainly is true.  I am around a lot of anti-Bush people, instead of thinking of, say, congress races or how to win the next time, they mostly seemed to be whining.  And than the Bush/Republican people in general I know also seem to talk about "socialist" instead of why certain programs won't work.  It is a pain.
[right][snapback]59120[/snapback][/right]

I voted for Kerry because his wife is hotter than Dubya's. :)

No offense intended.

Smithy

[smithy]

  I also realize that I may be banned soon for daring to call you out on this flagrant misuse of your deserved reputation. 
[right][snapback]59114[/snapback][/right]

Hmm.... Cryptic sounds a lot like heretic... burn the witch!

Smithy

[Guest]

Not that you care about my opinion, but you did lay that out impressivly well.