OFFICAL ELECTION DISCUSSION

[bigmac]

BTW, you won, can you at least be mature enough to show the man some respect and use his proper name. I haven't once referred to Bush as a big fat moron, and believe me I've wanted to. [/quote]
No "I" didnt win Bush did, and I predicted that.
No I dont have to show Skerry any respect, he didnt earn it or deserve it.
You just did, why did you hold back so long?

 

[PuroBrat]

Yes, and the population didn't change at all did it? Care to explain how Clinton won by over 14 million votes in his two elections and bush won by only 3 million in his two? Or maybe how Clinton got a total of 749 electoral votes and bush has only 540-560? Who was decisive?

No doubt about it, Clinton won decisively. If that doesn't show how stupid Americans can be, I don't know what does. ???

 

[PuroBrat]

BTW, you won, can you at least be mature enough to show the man some respect and use his proper name. I haven't once referred to Bush as a big fat moron, and believe me I've wanted to.

No "I" didnt win Bush did, and I predicted that.
No I dont have to show Skerry any respect, he didnt earn it or deserve it.
You just did, why did you hold back so long? [/quote]
There may be Nothing in a persons character that shows more childishness, than intentionally calling someone by the wrong name. :angry:

 

[gawntrail]

A win is a win.

Regardless of a mandate or not.............to the victor goes the spoils.

The Democratic Party must now regroup and find a way to redefine themselves. Trotting Hillary out there in '08 will not be a good idea WITHOUT some serious thought. She is not the answer to the Democratic party's problems. Not that Hillary would not be a good candidate, but just not in the aftermath of two failed election bids against a rather weak Republican candidate.

Power to the people..........and that middle class 3rd party is starting to sound better and better.

M. Gipson

 

[AVB]

Nixon won by 18 million in 1972, what does that say? ???

 

[vewyphishy]

Yes, and the population didn't change at all did it? Care to explain how Clinton won by over 14 million votes in his two elections and bush won by only 3 million in his two? Or maybe how Clinton got a total of 749 electoral votes and bush has only 540-560? Who was decisive?

No doubt about it, Clinton won decisively. If that doesn't show how stupid Americans can be, I don't know what does. ???

Isn't politics great?

"You're stupid. You suck."

"No I'm not. You're stupid and YOU suck."

"That didn't make any sense. You still suck."

"Isn't it obvious? Geez, you must be stupid. Oh, and you suck."

:love:

 

[rknicker]

bigmac, the constitution has been changing since the day it was written, hence the amendments.

And you're both right, Clinton won decisively, Bush got more votes, even when he came in second.

Vote counts

I have never been so disappointed in anything as I am in this election.

 

[PuroBrat]

Nixon won by 18 million in 1972, what does that say? ???

Like I said, we, as a society whole, are not collectively all that smart.

Some days I feel intelectually superior, but those days are few, and far between.

 

[bigmac]

QUOTE]

I don't see how that could ever be proven, which is a big priority for you, proof.

58 million to 55 million, now if that doesnt put the libs in the MINORITY I dont know what does.You have the burden of proof to show otherwise.

 

[other1]

BTW, you won, can you at least be mature enough to show the man some respect and use his proper name. I haven't once referred to Bush as a big fat moron, and believe me I've wanted to.

No "I" didnt win Bush did, and I predicted that.
No I dont have to show Skerry any respect, he didnt earn it or deserve it.
You just did, why did you hold back so long? [/quote]
Because despite the fact I disagree with much of Bush's policy his our president and he deserves at least that much respect. I would hope you were a big enough man to feel the same about his challanger.

 

[bigmac]

Nixon won by 18 million in 1972, what does that say? ???

It says he was a great president and he was, albeit he was a crook but they could all fall in that category. :sign:

 

[bigmac]

bigmac, the constitution has been changing since the day it was written, hence the amendments.

And you're both right, Clinton won decisively, Bush got more votes, even when he came in second.

Amendments arent interpretations, which is what the judges do, if it is amended to change something that is the way it is supposed to work but when activist judges change its meaning by proxy that is what I oppose.
You mean the race Bush WON?? :sign:

 

[bigmac]

BTW, you won, can you at least be mature enough to show the man some respect and use his proper name. I haven't once referred to Bush as a big fat moron, and believe me I've wanted to.

No "I" didnt win Bush did, and I predicted that.
No I dont have to show Skerry any respect, he didnt earn it or deserve it.
You just did, why did you hold back so long?

Because despite the fact I disagree with much of Bush's policy his our president and he deserves at least that much respect. I would hope you were a big enough man to feel the same about his challanger. [/quote]
I dont respect Skerry and I never will, has ZERO to do with my size.

 

[gawntrail]

Yes, and the population didn't change at all did it? Care to explain how Clinton won by over 14 million votes in his two elections and bush won by only 3 million in his two? Or maybe how Clinton got a total of 749 electoral votes and bush has only 540-560? Who was decisive?

No doubt about it, Clinton won decisively. If that doesn't show how stupid Americans can be, I don't know what does. ???

Remember this too!

Clinton wass marketed as a 'NEW' Democrat, more of a centrist. The DNC put in a lot of time and effort in marketing that guy.

Now, Kerry was marketed as more of a conservative. And fooled just enough people to keep it close. Now, like I stated before the DNC can go two ways with this lesson. They can put their effort into 'marketing', or they can completely remake who they are. There are some good DEMs in the pipeline that are more in touch.

Now, if they champion the right issues, the DEMs can again enjoy victory. But, if they just do a facelift and market another true liberal, they will continue to suffer the same fate............DEFEAT.

M. Gipson

 

[AVB]

There are about 200 million Eligible Voters in the US. Now not all of them are Registered Voters. Trying to extrapolate the narrow victory to say that Liberals are a minority doesn't work statistically and the premise is false to begin with. You can't automatically assume everyone who voted for either candidate is a member of a particular political way of thinking.

 

[other1]

58 million to 55 million, now if that doesnt put the libs in the MINORITY I dont know what does.You have the burden of proof to show otherwise.

mi·nor·i·ty Pronunciation Key (m-nôr-t, -nr-, m-)
n. pl. mi·nor·i·ties

1. a. The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole.
b. A group or party having fewer than a controlling number of votes.
2. a. An ethnic, racial, religious, or other group having a distinctive presence within a society.
b. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.
c. A member of one of these groups. See Usage Note at color.

True, by definition #1. I fear however you are really advocating of definition 2b, which simply should not be the case in this country.

 

[bigmac]

There are about 200 million Eligible Voters in the US. Now not all of them are Registered Voters. Trying to extrapolate the narrow victory to say that Liberals are a minority doesn't work statistically and the premise is false to begin with. You can't automatically assume everyone who voted for either candidate is a member of a particular political way of thinking.

People who dont vote dont count now do they, statistically or otherwise.Statistically speaking Bush won a mandate and you cant prove otherwise, just accept it. :0 :sign:

 

[other1]

I dont respect Skerry and I never will, has ZERO to do with my size.

Very mature. Do you think your posts are less obnoxious because you end them all with a smiley?

 

[gawntrail]

There are about 200 million Eligible Voters in the US. Now not all of them are Registered Voters. Trying to extrapolate the narrow victory to say that Liberals are a minority doesn't work statistically and the premise is false to begin with. You can't automatically assume everyone who voted for either candidate is a member of a particular political way of thinking.

Good point.

I think many people voted for the other side this time. Why, I can't really say, but for whatever reason........it was in their best interest. Which is really what this country is about anyway.

M. Gipson

 

[bigmac]

58 million to 55 million, now if that doesnt put the libs in the MINORITY I dont know what does.You have the burden of proof to show otherwise.

mi·nor·i·ty  Pronunciation Key  (m-nôr-t, -nr-, m-)
n. pl. mi·nor·i·ties

1.  a. The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole.
      b. A group or party having fewer than a controlling number of votes.
2.  a. An ethnic, racial, religious, or other group having a distinctive presence within a society.
      b. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.
      c. A member of one of these groups. See Usage Note at color.

True, by definition #1. I fear however you are really advocating of definition 2b, which simply should not be the case in this country.

I am right by all those definitions and it will get worse on the 2b if you guys dont get rid of the progressives, that my friend is a fact that most libs dont want to hear.