4 more years!!!!

[Capt_Oblivious]

I read somewhere that:
Over two-thirds of all "regular" church goers vote Republican and over two-thirds of educated college graduates vote Democratic
Result: The majority of Bible-belters that vote Republican are under educated.
Stupid people should not be allowed to vote.

....and 99% of statistics are made up on the spot to try to make some kind of point.

[cmsummit]

....and 99% of statistics are made up on the spot to try to make some kind of point.

Guess my stats must fall somewhere in the remaining 1%.

[gonzo]

Rs have more high school grads and Ds have more college grads.

I love how this election is said to come down to "terror" and "values" while f-ing NY and NJ voted D. I think the bible belters should leave the terror worries to them.

[Jumper Bones]

Rs have more high school grads and Ds have more college grads.

I love how this election is said to come down to "terror" and "values" while f-ing NY and NJ voted D. I think the bible belters should leave the terror worries to them.

And all government, too?

Sorry, what's good for the big cities is NOT necessarily what's good for THE REST OF THE NATION. There was a whole lot of red on that political breakdown map.

[milkman]

To the rednecks.....

You had the chance to prove to the world that you
WEREN'T the brainwashed, gullible, easily led nation
of jingoistic morons the world knows you to be and YOU
FAILED...

Bush made it painfully clear to YOU and the world what
America really stands for and YOU had a chance to do
something about it but YOU chose to support him
WILFULLY...

This man is throwing YOUR tax dollars down the drain,
creating and manufacturing a war on terror which puts
YOU in danger, just to benefit himself and his big
business friends; he's waging wars around the world
that YOUR children will die in, he's INCREASED
terrorism in the world and given militant Muslims more
support than they could have got with 100 years of
their own PR, he's flushed YOUR country's reputation
down the toilet and made Americans the most despised
people on the planet, tarring all Americans with the
same brush and YOU had a chance to change all that and
YOU'VE voted for him to CARRY ON doing it for the next
4 years!

This man has run YOUR dollar into the ground and
weakened YOU up nicely to be superseded by China as
the next super power not to mention united a Europe
against you so you have to fight on two fronts to
maintain YOUR global position and to make things
worse, America under Bush has become synonymous with
outsourcing jobs to places like China and India as he
f*ucks YOU over on the job front and YOU STILL VOTE
FOR HIM!

Under Bush your country has become a fascist pseudo
democracy with Patriot Acts and people locked up with
no trial, a country that has sunk so low, that
international election observers were dispatched to
over see this election and to record all forms of
noticeable intimidation and corruption, something that
only occurs in true banana republics. Under Bush your
country has not only become the least free of the
developed countries but freedom-wise America now ranks
below many Eastern European developing countries and
YOU STILL VOTE FOR HIM!

YOU are truly a nation of STUPID fuc*king morons and
YOU deserve everything YOU'RE going to get over the
next four years...

And yes, I'm aware not every American likes Bush or
voted for him, but YOU had the chance to show the
world that America is a country of intelligent people
with a stupid minority.

But we see that, as it has always been, America is a
country of stupid people with an intelligent
minority....

I realize most of the people on this board are in that minority. Sorry for the rant. I just can't believe how it went down....I'm done. Back to skiing....

[LegoSkier]

Something I think is very apt this day for both sides:

“I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. You must climb towards the Truth, it cannot be "stepped down" or organized for you. Interest in ideas is mainly sustained by organizations, but organizations only awaken interest from without. Interest, which is not born out of love of Truth for its own sake, but aroused by an organization, is of no value. The organization becomes a framework into which its members can conveniently fit. They no longer strive after Truth or the mountain-top, but rather carve for themselves a convenient niche in which they put themselves, or let the organization place them, and consider that the organization will thereby lead them to Truth." - Krishnamurti

[homerjay]

I keep hearing on NPR that alot of the people who voted for Bush said that 'moral values' were their most important issue.

This to me in ridiculous. Aside from the fact that I believe Bush is a crooked former cokehead whose religion is a farce to pander to the religious right, people should look to themselves, their family, and their clergymen for moral values. The president's job is to run the country. How is Kerry, a devout Catholic, less moral?

If Bush was running a company and had the same track record over the last few years, he'd have been fired a long time ago. Shame on Americans for their ignorance in letting this happen. Shame.

[freshies]

Go Dubya!!! 4 more years baby!!!!!!!

by the way..blurred your the man!

i don't understand how people who are passionate enough about skiing to spend time here and in the great outdoors could possibly support/approve of Bush's enviornmental policies/record?? that one issue alone (not to mention everything else) should cause you, as a skier, to question your support for this corrupt administration.

[iceman]

I very rarely if ever post in political threads anymore because no one ever changes their mind, they just flame each other from their respective bunkers endlessly.

But on this day I would like to offer this small solace to those who voted for Senator Kerry: It might turn out better that he lost. Had Kerry won, he would have been in an almost untenable position, with the war ongoing, the economy poised to falter dramatically within a couple of years (not my opinion alone, by any means), and spite-filled Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. He would have had a very difficult time changing anything of substance, and the inevitable problems would have been laid on his doorstep rather than on that of the Republicans, where they belong. It is quite possible that a one-term Kerry presidency would have lead to a prolonged continuation of Republican control.

I am not rooting for bad things to happen, but I feel it is inevitable that they will, and I am happy that the right people will get the blame. It's like anything else: people resist change until it is obvious that it is imperative that they must change, until the "tipping point" has been reached . Clearly in many people's eyes that tipping point has not been reached, but I think it will arrive before the next presidential election, and in four years we will have an opportunity to get this country back on track.

Until then, keep your head low, the shit is about to hit the fan.

[basom]

i don't understand how people who are passionate enough about skiing to spend time here and in the great outdoors could possibly support/approve of Bush's enviornmental policies/record?? that one issue alone (not to mention everything else) should cause you, as a skier, to question your support for this corrupt administration.

i tried to use that tact with some righties on the board a while ago, ep skis maybe, they were all, psshaw! show me kerry's plan. so i did. then they were all, psshaw! like he wont change his mind in five seconds.....flipflopflipflopflipflopflipflopflipfl opflipflopflipflopflipflopflipflopflipflopflipflop blahblahblahrhetoricblah.

people don't listen to that enviornmental stuff if they see themselves fitting into the republican culture and belief set. they justify it in some bizzare way. like, i like the enviornment, and i wish bush was better, but i really feel like i cant buy into anything besides the GOP fiscal and war policies. also i hate all those people less fortunate than me and don't want them to have any social services whatsoever, because i have to pay like 200 dollars more a year to help those fucking pieces of shit out. and i need that money to buy a new gun. so its bush for me!!!!!!!!

[bossass]

I keep hearing on NPR that alot of the people who voted for Bush said that 'moral values' were their most important issue.

This to me in ridiculous. Aside from the fact that I believe Bush is a crooked former cokehead whose religion is a farce to pander to the religious right, people should look to themselves, their family, and their clergymen for moral values. The president's job is to run the country. How is Kerry, a devout Catholic, less moral?

If Bush was running a company and had the same track record over the last few years, he'd have been fired a long time ago. Shame on Americans for their ignorance in letting this happen. Shame.

Damn straight. My college buddy who's lived in London for a few years now said that the brits and most of the civilized world outside of the U.S. think it's fucking crazy how much religion plays into our politics. Notice how no political figure in England will mention God in a speech. I'm all for people excercising religious beliefs in church or prayer or whatever, but what the fuck does it have to do with being president? Nothing. There are ways to oppose and fight gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research (if that's your personal agenda, it's not mine at all) without ruining the environment, bombing innocent people, ruining wages, jobs and the economy, and making the entire world fucking hate us.

We live in Dark times. May somebody save us all.

[cmsummit]

We live in Dark times. May somebody save us all.

JESUS!!......Jesus will save us all!

[mrw]

But we see that, as it has always been, America is a
country of stupid people with an intelligent
minority...

This is the reason the left can not win an election in this country.John Kerry is the very definition of this elitist mentality which has been TOTALLY rejected by America. It is why they will lose again in four years when Queen Hillary makes her "anointed" run. God bless you guys you make it SO easy

[Jumper Bones]

[QUOTE=iceman]I very rarely if ever post in political threads anymore because no one ever changes their mind, they just flame each other from their respective bunkers endlessly.

But on this day I would like to offer this small solace to those who voted for Senator Kerry: It might turn out better that he lost. Had Kerry won, he would have been in an almost untenable position, with the war ongoing, the economy poised to falter dramatically within a couple of years (not my opinion alone, by any means), and spite-filled Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. He would have had a very difficult time changing anything of substance, and the inevitable problems would have been laid on his doorstep rather than on that of the Republicans, where they belong. It is quite possible that a one-term Kerry presidency would have lead to a prolonged continuation of Republican control.

I am not rooting for bad things to happen, but I feel it is inevitable that they will, and I am happy that the right people will get the blame. It's like anything else: people resist change until it is obvious that it is imperative that they must change, until the "tipping point" has been reached . Clearly in many people's eyes that tipping point has not been reached, but I think it will arrive before the next presidential election, and in four years we will have an opportunity to get this country back on track.[QUOTE]

I don't know about any shit hitting fans and whatnot, but I think you're exactly right. Kerry had promised a lot and was destined to fail - there was no human way possible for him to pull off all of what he said he would, with all he was up against.

I also think he was a victim of his voting record, which wasn't on track with a lot of what he was promising.

why do the parties have to nominate such obviously fake and worthless individuals for these elections? Bush wasn't the best of the '00 Republican primary, either.

[watersnowdirt]

I very rarely if ever post in political threads anymore because no one ever changes their mind, they just flame each other from their respective bunkers endlessly.

But on this day I would like to offer this small solace to those who voted for Senator Kerry: It might turn out better that he lost. Had Kerry won, he would have been in an almost untenable position, with the war ongoing, the economy poised to falter dramatically within a couple of years (not my opinion alone, by any means), and spite-filled Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. He would have had a very difficult time changing anything of substance, and the inevitable problems would have been laid on his doorstep rather than on that of the Republicans, where they belong. It is quite possible that a one-term Kerry presidency would have lead to a prolonged continuation of Republican control.

I am not rooting for bad things to happen, but I feel it is inevitable that they will, and I am happy that the right people will get the blame. It's like anything else: people resist change until it is obvious that it is imperative that they must change, until the "tipping point" has been reached . Clearly in many people's eyes that tipping point has not been reached, but I think it will arrive before the next presidential election, and in four years we will have an opportunity to get this country back on track.

Until then, keep your head low, the shit is about to hit the fan.

Ice - well said, and echoes much of my own thinking. I'm a problem solver by nature, and an optimist for the most part. Last night as I watched the returns with a very political crew - many of my friends have been directly working on these campaigns for quite some time - I found myself internally and externally spinning (bad word, I know) how this could be a good thing.

In addition to the fact that I truly believe that 4 more years of this crackpot and an extremely rightwing agenda will actually finally start to wake people up to what's really happening - I also know that a republican in office is always good fuel for the progressive movement. Many of the non-profit groups I work with will fundraise more effectively with Bush in office, since people do not feel they can rely on the government to make the appropriate social changes needed to safeguard social services, the environment, etc.

So, rather than bury our heads in the sand or move to Australia, it's time to ratchet things up a notch and get busy.

4 more years, but not one day more beyond that.

[freshies]

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

[shamrockpow]

Ice - well said, and echoes much of my own thinking. I'm a problem solver by nature, and an optimist for the most part. Last night as I watched the returns with a very political crew - many of my friends have been directly working on these campaigns for quite some time - I found myself internally and externally spinning (bad word, I know) how this could be a good thing.

In addition to the fact that I truly believe that 4 more years of this crackpot and an extremely rightwing agenda will actually finally start to wake people up to what's really happening - I also know that a republican in office is always good fuel for the progressive movement. Many of the non-profit groups I work with will fundraise more effectively with Bush in office, since people do not feel they can rely on the government to make the appropriate social changes needed to safeguard social services, the environment, etc.

So, rather than bury our heads in the sand or move to Australia, it's time to ratchet things up a notch and get busy.

4 more years, but not one day more beyond that.

Yeah, I'd love to take the same positive outlook, but I really won't enjoy fighting in Tehran for "hearts and minds" in 2006 and I figure a lot of women won't prefer a coat-hanger to a planned parenthood clinic. Spin to make yourself feel better, but don't be suckered into thinking that we didn't lose A LOT in this election

(and I feel like I went to an Irish wake last night, that open bar dismantled me)

[freshies]

This is the reason the left can not win an election in this country.John Kerry is the very definition of this elitist mentality which has been TOTALLY rejected by America.

i agree. how bush (also an "elitist" in red-neck disguise) tricks middle america into providing tax breaks for the wealthy while pushing policies that hurt the very people that vote for him is beyond me. here is a good article that essentially validates your point:

Op-Ed Columnist: Living Poor, Voting Rich

November 3, 2004
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF





In the aftermath of this civil war that our nation has just
fought, one result is clear: the Democratic Party's first
priority should be to reconnect with the American
heartland.

I'm writing this on tenterhooks on Tuesday, without knowing
the election results. But whether John Kerry's supporters
are now celebrating or seeking asylum abroad, they should
be feeling wretched about the millions of farmers, factory
workers and waitresses who ended up voting - utterly
against their own interests - for Republican candidates.

One of the Republican Party's major successes over the last
few decades has been to persuade many of the working poor
to vote for tax breaks for billionaires. Democrats are
still effective on bread-and-butter issues like health
care, but they come across in much of America as arrogant
and out of touch the moment the discussion shifts to
values.

"On values, they are really noncompetitive in the
heartland," noted Mike Johanns, a Republican who is
governor of Nebraska. "This kind of elitist, Eastern
approach to the party is just devastating in the Midwest
and Western states. It's very difficult for senatorial,
Congressional and even local candidates to survive."

In the summer, I was home - too briefly - in Yamhill, Ore.,
a rural, working-class area where most people would benefit
from Democratic policies on taxes and health care. But many
of those people disdain Democrats as elitists who empathize
with spotted owls rather than loggers.

One problem is the yuppification of the Democratic Party.
Thomas Frank, author of the best political book of the
year, "What's the Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won
the Heart of America," says that Democratic leaders have
been so eager to win over suburban professionals that they
have lost touch with blue-collar America.

"There is a very upper-middle-class flavor to liberalism,
and that's just bound to rub average people the wrong way,"
Mr. Frank said. He notes that Republicans have used
"culturally powerful but content-free issues" to connect to
ordinary voters.

To put it another way, Democrats peddle issues, and
Republicans sell values. Consider the four G's: God, guns,
gays and grizzlies.

One-third of Americans are evangelical Christians, and many
of them perceive Democrats as often contemptuous of their
faith. And, frankly, they're often right. Some evangelicals
take revenge by smiting Democratic candidates.

Then we have guns, which are such an emotive issue that
Idaho's Democratic candidate for the Senate two years ago,
Alan Blinken, felt obliged to declare that he owned 24 guns
"and I use them all." He still lost.

As for gays, that's a rare wedge issue that Democrats have
managed to neutralize in part, along with abortion. Most
Americans disapprove of gay marriage but do support some
kind of civil unions (just as they oppose "partial birth"
abortions but don't want teenage girls to die from
coat-hanger abortions).

Finally, grizzlies - a metaphor for the way
environmentalism is often perceived in the West as
high-handed. When I visited Idaho, people were still
enraged over a Clinton proposal to introduce 25 grizzly
bears into the wild. It wasn't worth antagonizing most of
Idaho over 25 bears.

"The Republicans are smarter," mused Oregon's governor, Ted
Kulongoski, a Democrat. "They've created ... these social
issues to get the public to stop looking at what's
happening to them economically."

"What we once thought - that people would vote in their
economic self-interest - is not true, and we Democrats
haven't figured out how to deal with that."

Bill Clinton intuitively understood the challenge, and John
Edwards seems to as well, perhaps because of their own
working-class origins. But the party as a whole is mostly
in denial.

To appeal to middle America, Democratic leaders don't need
to carry guns to church services and shoot grizzlies on the
way. But a starting point would be to shed their
inhibitions about talking about faith, and to work more
with religious groups.

Otherwise, the Democratic Party's efforts to improve the
lives of working-class Americans in the long run will be
blocked by the very people the Democrats aim to help.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/op...2&ei=1&en=c0ed
46fd7d0af01a

[cmsummit]

Couldn't help but notice how the electoral vote breakdown coincides with the general location of the Mason-Dixon Line:

Electoral Vote Breakdown

Stupid fucking rednecks.

[watersnowdirt]

Yeah, I'd love to take the same positive outlook, but I really won't enjoy fighting in Tehran for "hearts and minds" in 2006 and I figure a lot of women won't prefer a coat-hanger to a planned parenthood clinic. Spin to make yourself feel better, but don't be suckered into thinking that we didn't lose A LOT in this election

(and I feel like I went to an Irish wake last night, that open bar dismantled me)

suckered??? Did you read my post at all?

I've worked on social change issues and for non-profits for 13 years. I'm on the board of two major environmental groups. I give about 5% of my income to progressive organizations. I have voted in every election since I turned 18.

I probably hate Bush as much as anyone on this board. But I've also worked on enough issues and campaigns to know what it feels like to lose. It sucks. It's depressing. It feels shitty. It feels like the world might end. But if you indulge in those emotions for too long and you don't get back up and start the fight again, we're all screwed.

It's not about being naive or being suckered. It's about the two paths that we all face right now. The first path is to let the depression of losing what we all considered to be the most important election we'd seen completely take away your power.

The second is to do whatever you need to do to mourn for a couple of days, but then to stand up and fight back.

To me, that's the only option.

[365wp]

John Kerry is the very definition of this elitist mentality which has been TOTALLY rejected by America.

Why is Kerry more "elitist" than Bush?

Because he comes from money? No, wait...
Because he went to Yale? No, wait...
Because he is from old New England blood? No, wait...

How the hell did Rove spin this?

[1080Rider]

Stupid people should not be allowed to vote.

So, you're saying democrats shouldn't be on the next ticket. Works for me!!!

[cmsummit]

So, you're saying democrats shouldn't be on the next ticket. Works for me!!!

Nice job on taking my quote out of context/content. MORON!

[mr_gyptian]

suckered??? Did you read my post at all?

I've worked on social change issues and for non-profits for 13 years. I'm on the board of two major environmental groups. I give about 5% of my income to progressive organizations. I have voted in every election since I turned 18.

I probably hate Bush as much as anyone on this board. But I've also worked on enough issues and campaigns to know what it feels like to lose. It sucks. It's depressing. It feels shitty. It feels like the world might end. But if you indulge in those emotions for too long and you don't get back up and start the fight again, we're all screwed.

It's not about being naive or being suckered. It's about the two paths that we all face right now. The first path is to let the depression of losing what we all considered to be the most important election we'd seen completely take away your power.

The second is to do whatever you need to do to mourn for a couple of days, but then to stand up and fight back.

To me, that's the only option.

What was it like voting for JFK twice?


Honestly guys. This isn't the first time the country has been divided as closely or far apart. We're all young, the first time I voted in a presidential election was 1996. I'd imagine I'm in the middle of the pack on this board as far as that goes.

WSD, it sounds like you do the same things as my mother. She has been a volunteer coordinator for United Way, the School District, and is now at Hospice. I spent my formative years marching in parades for Democrats. My best friends mom loves to tell the story and show the picture of me riding my dad's shoulders at a protest outside Rocky Flats in the early 80s. I went to college and had a reflexive distaste for the pervasive liberalism spewed by the professors. I went to a fairly conservative private school. I cannot imagine CU, Cal, or UVM.

Liberals hated Reagan, intensely. Liberals hated Nixon, intensely. Conservatives hated Carter. Conservatives ended up hating Clinton. Life went on.

You all lost last night. It is not doomsday. The following is a good read:

[mr_gyptian]

No Matter What Happens, Relax

By George F. Will

Tuesday, November 2, 2004; Page A21


During tonight's tumult of election returns, remember:

If, for the fourth consecutive election, neither candidate wins a popular vote majority, relax. There were four consecutive such elections from 1880 to 1892. In 1876 a candidate (Samuel Tilden) got 51 percent -- and lost (to Rutherford Hayes). Six elections since World War II produced plurality presidents -- 1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996, 2000. Woodrow Wilson was consequential although he won his first term with just 41.8 percent and his second with 49.2 percent.

If today's election produces vast consequences from slender margins, relax. This is not unusual. In 1916 a switch of 1,771 votes in California would have enabled Charles Evans Hughes to rescue the nation from President Wilson. In 1948 a switch of 30,262 votes in California, Illinois, Ohio and Nevada would have replaced President Harry Truman with Tom Dewey. In 1968 a switch of 53,034 votes in New Jersey, New Hampshire and Missouri would have denied Richard Nixon an electoral vote majority and, because George Wallace won 46 electoral votes, the House probably would have awarded the presidency to Hubert Humphrey. In 1976 a switch of 9,246 votes in Ohio and Hawaii would have enabled President Gerald Ford to beat Jimmy Carter with 270 electoral votes -- but 1.5 million fewer popular votes than Carter had.

If George W. Bush loses, relax. Turbulence is normal. Since 1900, not including Bush, there have been 18 presidents, of whom only five served a full eight years or more. Only 11 of the 42 presidents before Bush served two consecutive terms. Between 1837 and Wilson, only Grant served two consecutive terms. If Bush wins, this will be what the poet William Carlos Williams called "the rare occurrence of the expected." All the winners of elections after 1960 will have been from the Sunbelt -- Georgia, Arkansas, Texas, Southern California.

This is the first wartime election since 1972, when the president presiding over a divisive war trounced an antiwar candidate in 49 states. In wartime 1968, the nation narrowly decided to change the party holding the presidency. In 1944 the commander in chief won a fourth term, but with only 53 percent of the vote, and in 1864 the president might have lost if Atlanta had not been captured before the election.

Watch Nevada. Even though in 1864 it had only one-fifth the population required for statehood, it was admitted to the Union to give an embattled wartime president three extra electoral votes. Bush could lose Nevada's five votes because of his decision -- wise but unpopular -- to proceed with the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

Watch Maine's 2nd Congressional District. Maine, like Nebraska, allocates an electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. Kerry will win Maine, but Bush could win the 2nd. Watch Ohio. If Bush carries the state hit hardest by job losses, can we retire the canard that Americans "vote their pocketbooks''? Many issues often trump banal calculations of short-term material well-being.

So watch the black vote. If, as several pre-election polls suggested, Bush doubles the 9 percent of African American votes he won in 2000, it will be partly because efforts were made, especially on black radio, to use Bush's stance on same-sex marriage to appeal to the black community's cultural conservatism.

In 2002 Bush became the second president since the Civil War whose party increased its House and Senate seats in the middle of his first term -- although a switch of just 82,763 votes out of 75.7 million votes cast would have given Democrats control of the House and Senate. If today Republicans again gain seats, this strength will beget strength: It will trigger the retirement of some congressional Democrats disheartened by the prospect of protracted minority status.

If Democrat Brad Carson defeats Republican Tom Coburn for Oklahoma's open Senate seat while Bush is carrying the state by, say, 30 points, this remarkable ticket-splitting might lead, mercifully, to abandonment of the blue state-red state dichotomy. Concerning which, if Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle is reelected in South Dakota, a great anomaly will continue: four Democratic senators from the two Dakotas, where Bush's 2000 victories were by an average of 25 percent.

Perhaps this will reconcile liberals to the fact that 16 percent of Americans elect half the Senate. Of course, some egalitarians will continue to consider the Constitution's provision regarding the composition of the Senate an unconstitutional violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.