Democratic Party R.I.P.

Well this is looking like the sixties in fookin reverse. The Republicans are running much more effective campaigns, and the idiotic, clueless, ignorant Dem.s keep losing ground in Washington.

They're not losing ground in Washington, they're losing ground in the bible belt. Take a look at the educational background of the average Bush voter and contrast that with the educational background of the average Kerry voter. That's where the democrats are losing ground.

The Dem.s lost ground in California and Florida. The Dem.s are bringing in new voters, but not enough to compensate for the conservative shift that old people make (Bush dominated in the elderly vote). The Democrats will need to appeal to the South if they want any chance in the future.

americans just keep getting stupider, look at all the money schools lost here, due to bush, if we where educated we would of got kerry, but some of us still have common sense, well i'll see you guys in Iraq in 2 years, this sucks......:(

Originally posted by Spike americans just keep getting stupider

Yes, I see; it's tragic.

Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Spike> americans just keep getting stupider

Yes, I see; it's tragic.

Apparently you don't see.

Originally posted by Pizda > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > > > > Originally posted by Spike> > americans just keep getting stupider>

Yes, I see; it's tragic.

Apparently you don't see.

My response was a cheeky one to Spike who is known to misspell every other word. That's why I only quoted that section.

The key to winning is country music.

Know what happens when you play a country record backwards?

No, what happens?

You get your dog back, your wife back, and your job back.

The Demoacrats are going to have to have a clear image and vision. They need to stop campaigning as Republicans because we know they are lying when they do they. They need to release that tax payers are sick of Welfare. They need to stop running candidates that spend their Congressional career cutting defense and intelligence and then telling us that they will protect us. They need to stop caving in for freak groups and pissing off people with traditional family values.

People with "traditional family values" can fuck off when they try to impose those values on everybody else. I don't care if they're Christian, Muslim, or Jew, if they can't live and let live, they can all fuck off. :finger:

Originally posted by Jeff The Democrats need the second coming of LBJ or Sam Rayburn!!!Texas Dems are the best!!!

Texas Dems do not exist anymore; they all went running to Bill Richardson in New Mexico. :p

once people come to their senses and realize that they don't feel safer but more frightened since the bush administration began its turn towards alarmism...perhaps then there will be another swing to the dems!

As i said in a another thread, the reason the Republicans won was because of the serious issues that many voters have with their priorities. Religion should LEGALLY be seperated from every other aspect of public life, politics, education. The French have totally the right idea.

As sad as it seems, its not impossible that a complete maniac like the current incumbent is always in charge due to the number of sheer lunatics living and registered to vote in america at the moment. And as much as i recognise the faults in the english political system, i remain extremley grateful that religion now plays a relatively insignificant role in our society.

The reason why Bush is president is because the Democrats run poor campaigns. They could have the evangelical right and the Catholics (for chrissakes Kerry, a Catholic, lost the fuckin Catholic vote!) by just connecting Republican tax cuts for the rich do not jive with simple doctrine of helping the poor. The Democrats should have had this election, but their party is incompetent and impotent. The Democrats need a Karl Rove type figure. Someone with a vision (whatever it maybe) to get the Democrats in power in all branches of government. Instead the Democrats bring celebrities and try to defend their pathetic records. If I was a Democrat, I would try lifting term rates because Bill Clinton is the only man who can win some Southern states.

Originally posted by Spike americans just keep getting stupider, look at all the money schools lost here, due to bush, if we where educated we would of got kerry, but some of us still have common sense, well i'll see you guys in Iraq in 2 years, this sucks......:(

Just just how much money was "lost" because of "Bush"?

Originally posted by twist The Demoacrats are going to have to have a clear image and vision. They need to stop campaigning as Republicans because we know they are lying when they do they. They need to release that tax payers are sick of Welfare. They need to stop running candidates that spend their Congressional career cutting defense and intelligence and then telling us that they will protect us. They need to stop caving in for freak groups and pissing off people with traditional family values.

This is the French Revolution! You are 200 years late!

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr You get your dog back, your wife back, and your job back.

.....and you truck runs and your momma gets out of jail.

Originally posted by Uncle Liam As i said in a another thread, the reason the Republicans won was because of the serious issues that many voters have with their priorities. Religion should LEGALLY be seperated from every other aspect of public life, politics, education. The French have totally the right idea. As sad as it seems, its not impossible that a complete maniac like the current incumbent is always in charge due to the number of sheer lunatics living and registered to vote in america at the moment. And as much as i recognise the faults in the english political system, i remain extremley grateful that religion now plays a relatively insignificant role in our society.

A "maniac" running the country and "lunatics" registered to vote. How does our country survive?????????

Time was when democrats became the majority party by putting everyone on the dole. FDR for example surrounded himself with pinko commie types thus was popular among the campus set. trust funders and the guilty wives of industrialists but he also created workplace laws beneficial to union stiffs and created support from rural areas with electrification, construction projects and farm price supports. This tradition continued up until the late sixties but the line died off with Humphrey. The new left catered only to intellectuals, minorities and the urban poor and since the sixties they've held up a middle finger to the middle class. Consequently democrats gradually lost support from most of america until they really held sway only in liberal urban conclaves. They even managed to convert union workers, a class of people who have been strongly benefitted from activist government into "reagan democrats." The only great achievement of the New Left has been the establishment of the GOP as the permanent majority party.

One big problem for the Democratic party is that they are losing the Latino vote. 44% of the ones who voted, did so for Bush.

True Tristan, but that isn't only it. The Democratic party in the US has lost touch with MOST Americans...regardless of the demographic. I mean take a look at the long history of the Dems aligning themselves with 90210 (Hollywood types) and the MTV crowd. All this does for the vast majority of voting Americans is tell them in a way that they are merely just unfasionable, mindless boobs!! That is not the way to win hearts and minds!! And...the "Semi-majority" (My attempt to sound like Kerry) of people who voted democrat don't really agree with the dems at all...and in fact are those mindless boobs, it's just that they didn't want to vote for "BUSH" and BUSH specifically. That's no way to go to the poles to decide the leader of your country and it is sad.

The Democratic party needs to hold some serious debates about it's policies and it's direction if they ever hope to pick themselves off the floor.

Originally posted by Spike americans just keep getting stupider, look at all the money schools lost here, due to bush, if we where educated we would of got kerry, but some of us still have common sense, well i'll see you guys in Iraq in 2 years, this sucks......:(

When your nut sack drops finally and you do actually get out of school, then come back with an educated opinion. Quit blaming Bush because you can't spell...that's your own fault. As an American, YOU choose how much YOU study and YOU choose your grades. No one else does young Sir Spike. I like reading most of your posts here, but in this case...your young, uninformed opinion is really quite displeasing to me. You're of the genration that believes that P Diddy invented the remix too, huh?

Good God your a right wing fuck nut. You need some sweaty man-love from Pat Robertson right about now.

Originally posted by Monkeys in a Bubble Good God your a right wing fuck nut. You need some sweaty man-love from Pat Robertson right about now.

Did that last week. I sent him packing with his tail between his legs!!

And...as a voter, taxpayer and a long-time member of the US Armed Forces, I feel that I have EARNED the right to be a "Right Wing Fuck Nut", so I just assume you say "Thank You" and go on your merry little way.

Nothing wrong with right wing fuck nuts; they mean wel.

Originally posted by Tristan Nothing wrong with right wing fuck nuts; they mean wel.

Ironic, even Kerry suggested that "Labels" mean nothing anymore. Hehehehhe...

Bush did not kill education, Hip/Hop killed education.

Does that apply to england as well? and the death of the english language?

Originally posted by Darth CHUNKS > Originally posted by Spike> americans just keep getting stupider, look at all the money schools lost here, due to bush, if we where educated we would of got kerry, but some of us still have common sense, well i'll see you guys in Iraq in 2 years, this sucks......:(

When your nut sack drops finally and you do actually get out of school, then come back with an educated opinion. Quit blaming Bush because you can't spell...that's your own fault. As an American, YOU choose how much YOU study and YOU choose your grades. No one else does young Sir Spike. I like reading most of your posts here, but in this case...your young, uninformed opinion is really quite displeasing to me. You're of the genration that believes that P Diddy invented the remix too, huh?

Actually, Spike's comments are very well informed. It's a verifiable fact that Kerry's average supporter has a higher level of education than Bush's average supporter. He didn't actually back up his statement with any references (nor will I, unless challenged to-- and I always come through), but then, neither do you. You make blanket statements (see your previous post) that have no actual basis in fact. At least Spike's comments have some factual basis behind them. And true, I've occasionally ribbed him regarding his spelling, but then, he didn't just make a comment about voters going to the "poles," did he?

Spike's post was full of shit. Schools have not lost money because of Bush. They lost money because of poor state finances (a la California). Draft, psh we do not need a draft, and while it has been considered, there will be no draft.

Since I don't actually know anything about education policy, I'll avoid making comments about it...

But, to the extent that Spike addressed the differing education levels attained by the average supporters of each candidate, he's absolutely right.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr Since i don't actually know anything about education policy, I'll avoid making comments about it... But, to the extent that Spike addressed the differing education levels attained by the average supporters of each candidate, he's absolutely right.

I do not doubt that, but IMO this discredits the Democrats rather than the Republicans. The elephants were smart enough to realize they could sway idiots, but the asses... well were complete ignorant asses.

I am not an idiot (at least I do not think I am an idiot ) and I do not care that my fellow Republicans are a slightly more evolved form of bread mold. Bush has four more years, period.

Relax, I'm not interested in any superiority contests between me and some high school dropout who voted for Bush (and I'm not lumping you in that category). I'm merely responding to an unfair personal attack on Spike.

Originally posted by Monkeys in a Bubble Good God your a right wing fuck nut. You need some sweaty man-love from Pat Robertson right about now.

Could you arrange some love for me from the pink haired woman?

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Darth CHUNKS > Originally posted by Spike> americans just keep getting stupider, look at all the money schools lost here, due to bush, if we where educated we would of got kerry, but some of us still have common sense, well i'll see you guys in Iraq in 2 years, this sucks......:(

When your nut sack drops finally and you do actually get out of school, then come back with an educated opinion. Quit blaming Bush because you can't spell...that's your own fault. As an American, YOU choose how much YOU study and YOU choose your grades. No one else does young Sir Spike. I like reading most of your posts here, but in this case...your young, uninformed opinion is really quite displeasing to me. You're of the genration that believes that P Diddy invented the remix too, huh?

Actually, Spike's comments are very well informed. It's a verifiable fact that Kerry's average supporter has a higher level of education than Bush's average supporter. He didn't actually back up his statement with any references (nor will I, unless challenged to-- and I always come through), but then, neither do you. You make blanket statements (see your previous post) that have no actual basis in fact. At least Spike's comments have some factual basis behind them. And true, I've occasionally ribbed him regarding his spelling, but then, he didn't just make a comment about voters going to the "poles," did he?

Let's all take a step back, shall we? I think we can stipulate that both sides attract smart folks. However, lefties (usually those that have made school a career and have never pulled a private sector paycheck) think those that didn't choose higher education are somehow less intelligent. So, your plumber, your carpenter, your truck driver (if he's in a right-to-work state and hasn't had his union dues sent to the DNC against his wishes) your stay at home mom who identify with Republican's because of such issues as taxes and morality are viewed as "unenlightened".

The real question is, what does the uber-schooled lefty think about those in his party that instead of kicking back with with a few hundred pages of Chomsky on a Saturday night would rather kick it with a forty and 50 Cent? What does he think about the guy that would rather watch Sabado Gigante on Univision than read Slate online? What does he think about the jr. college drop outs sipping their triple lattes and expounding on how Cameron Diaz was so right that if you don't vote rape will become legal?

Originally posted by Darth CHUNKS > Originally posted by Monkeys in a Bubble> Good God your a right wing fuck nut. You need some sweaty man-love from Pat Robertson right about now.

Did that last week. I sent him packing with his tail between his legs!!

And...as a voter, taxpayer and a long-time member of the US Armed Forces, I feel that I have EARNED the right to be a "Right Wing Fuck Nut", so I just assume you say "Thank You" and go on your merry little way.

Nicely played.

Sorry, gotta run to catch public transit, but interesting points; I'll give a response tomorrow.

Gotta love the disarray on http://www.democraticunderground.com

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr Sorry, gotta run to catch public transit, but interesting points; I'll give a response tomorrow.

.....just a little extra. This is from a post a democraticunderground.

Here's another problem: I believe that party elites are disproportionately drawn from the first two groups: Left-liberals and center-left libertarians. I know lots of Democrats here in Washington, DC, and they are almost all relatively affluent professional types from the Northeast or West Coast who don't have any life experience at all interacting with regular people from middle America. In fact, their opinion of them could almost be described as contemptuous. At a minimum, I think it could be called condescending. We think that we are doing "those people" a favor by supporting policies which will help them, and quite frankly we feel a little offended that they aren't thanking us for looking out for them.

Just don't think that Bush isn't part of the elite. Don't forget his family background.

I am not elite, never will be and never want to be. I like dirt bikes, dirty women, smoking cigarettes in public and beating up old people. I am a republican.

I thank god that Bush is one of those elites, because I don't want any of "My kind" sitting in the big chair. No way jose!!!!

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> > > > Originally posted by Darth CHUNKS> > Originally posted by Spike> americans just keep getting stupider, look at all the money schools lost here, due to bush, if we where educated we would of got kerry, but some of us still have common sense, well i'll see you guys in Iraq in 2 years, this sucks......:(

When your nut sack drops finally and you do actually get out of school, then come back with an educated opinion. Quit blaming Bush because you can't spell...that's your own fault. As an American, YOU choose how much YOU study and YOU choose your grades. No one else does young Sir Spike. I like reading most of your posts here, but in this case...your young, uninformed opinion is really quite displeasing to me. You're of the genration that believes that P Diddy invented the remix too, huh?

Actually, Spike's comments are very well informed. It's a verifiable fact that Kerry's average supporter has a higher level of education than Bush's average supporter. He didn't actually back up his statement with any references (nor will I, unless challenged to-- and I always come through), but then, neither do you. You make blanket statements (see your previous post) that have no actual basis in fact. At least Spike's comments have some factual basis behind them. And true, I've occasionally ribbed him regarding his spelling, but then, he didn't just make a comment about voters going to the "poles," did he?

Let's all take a step back, shall we? I think we can stipulate that both sides attract smart folks. However, lefties (usually those that have made school a career and have never pulled a private sector paycheck) think those that didn't choose higher education are somehow less intelligent. So, your plumber, your carpenter, your truck driver (if he's in a right-to-work state and hasn't had his union dues sent to the DNC against his wishes) your stay at home mom who identify with Republican's because of such issues as taxes and morality are viewed as "unenlightened".

The real question is, what does the uber-schooled lefty think about those in his party that instead of kicking back with with a few hundred pages of Chomsky on a Saturday night would rather kick it with a forty and 50 Cent? What does he think about the guy that would rather watch Sabado Gigante on Univision than read Slate online? What does he think about the jr. college drop outs sipping their triple lattes and expounding on how Cameron Diaz was so right that if you don't vote rape will become legal?

You know, I actually kind of agree with you. I remmber reading that the unversities are the strongholds of the US left and wondering if such a 'left' is really worth having. I get worked up with class resentment when I read the bloody Guardian, and I'm lower middle class myself, I can only imagine how the ordinary folk of Ohio reacted to that daft letter writing campaign the paper ran.

(But although the educated 'elite' are more likely to be Democrat, its still the rich who are more likely to be Republican)

I also find it weird that the US right is so hostile to Iran. The two have such a lot in common - both favour similar polices on law-and-order, the death penalty, abortion, gays, etc. Both have a powerful elite using the religious fervour of the masses together with fear of outside threats to stay in power, and in both the pressure for reform comes mostly from the educated professional classes, who can seem snobbish and out of touch with the ordinary people.

Bush got 59 million votes. The most ever.

For the Democrat feeling a need to apologize for their pathetic efforts: http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

That sad truth here is that even still, more and more folks are coming out and saying that they weren't on the side of the dems, but merely didn't want bush...so this other 49 million or so that voted for kerry number...technically is shrinking!!

Hooooray!!! So lemme get this straight...the number of voters for Bush went up this morning and Kerry's KEEP dwindling...

Obviously, Ol' Bushy may not be as screwed up and many might suggest. Hmmmm...But I guess the minority here (Kerryites) are better educated and thus know what they're talking about, right? Ppbbbssh!! :p

Originally posted by twist

Bush got 59 million votes. The most ever.

See that? Good. Now read it again. OK...go cry elsewhere.

(Smiley Alert)

Originally posted by Darth CHUNKS > Originally posted by twist> > > > > Bush got 59 million votes. The most ever.

See that? Good. Now read it again. OK...go cry elsewhere.

(Smiley Alert)

Big Fucking Deal.

Bush got the most votes ever at a time when our population is the highest it's ever been? Wow, that's really significant. I'm so impressed.

He still only got 51% of the votes cast.

Big Fucking Deal.

Originally posted by Darth CHUNKS That sad truth here is that even still, more and more folks are coming out and saying that they weren't on the side of the dems, but merely didn't want bush...so this other 49 million or so that voted for kerry number...technically is shrinking!!

The actual number of votes Kerry received to date were 55,949,407.

Besides your now expected factual error, you haven't explained why you think it's inconsistent for someone to vote against Bush, and simultaneously wish for a candidate who more reflected their own values.

Hooooray!!! So lemme get this straight...the number of voters for Bush went up this morning and Kerry's KEEP dwindling...

When you get it straight, do let us know. Until then, see above.

That number is was loose number taking into account all the people who voted for Kerry SOLELY to NOT vote for Bush Sir Continental. Many people in this country voted NOT for Kerry per se, but because they believed it fasionable to do so as explained to them by the Rock the Vote/90210 crowd. This is no secret and I apoligize if you were confused by the way I had chosen to post it.

The "Ending" figures are also incomplete in that there is still only 99% reporting of the precincts so far of stateside votes. There are still many absentee ballots to be counted yet, and while they will not change the numbers significantly, they will change still.

But anyways, it's all over and if we can't laugh and joke about it and rag on the media, the sself-destructing party and whoever...then what in the hell are even voting for? This is all a big joke now so let us take a deep breath and get back to our normal routine of trying to convice Diggy Mike that Blue Monday isn't that bad, laughing at Taboo#7's hilarious satire, your amazingly funny responses to about 92% of all posts, reading about the continuing adventures of ...this blue eyed boy's love of the Cure and so on and on and on.... I'm sober now too so I should be more behaved.

Viva la Nool.

Peace Out My Gangsta Pimp Bitches...damn glad this god forsaken election is ova!

M. Moore still sucks ass.

Thanks for the compliments.

I think we can both agree that the votes are still rolling in, so the final tally remains unknown. The 3.5 million number was the most current one I could find.

And I think we can both agree that many people who voted for Kerry would have preferred to vote for somebody who more closely reflected their own beliefs, but we live in a winner-take-all system. We can probably even both agree that many Bush voters would have preferred the same thing-- somebody who more closely reflected their own beliefs.

Well, sometime in the next 4 years, we can all move on to arguing about the new release from New Order. Right after the next 10 releases from The Cure.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr And I think we can both agree that many people who voted for Kerry would have preferred to vote for somebody who more closely reflected their own beliefs...we can probably even both agree that many Bush voters would have preferred the same thing-- somebody who more closely reflected their own beliefs.

Fair Enough.

FOUR years for another freaking NO album!!!!??? Are you kidding!!!?? Ain't you being a bit optimistic!?

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Let's all take a step back, shall we? I think we can stipulate that both sides attract smart folks. However, lefties (usually those that have made school a career and have never pulled a private sector paycheck) think those that didn't choose higher education are somehow less intelligent.

For the sake of argument, let's say that somebody somewhere in academia thinks that "those that didn't choose higher education are somehow less intelligent." Do you have any evidence that all-- or even most-- "lefties" believe that?

The only person I ever heard make that claim was an ex-girlfriend: blue collar, high school dropout, and self-conscious about it. She always equated intelligence with education, and I always pointed out to her that the two are not synonomous.

Having said that, it's probably accurate to state that the smartest of the high school students go on to higher education, and the least smart of the high school students don't, because colleges base their admissions on academic performance. Yeah, some people who are not very bright get into the best colleges (W comes to mind), and some people who are very bright never get the opportunity. But overall, it probably averages out that the smartest students go on to higher education. And the brightest grads go on to the best-paying jobs in the largest cities. On average.

And it's also accurate to state that those who spend a substantial amount of time in academia usually acquire critical thinking skills that prove useful in the outside world. That's a large part of what we do in school-- learn how to think critically. Can someone learn crtical thinking skills without going to university? Probably, but the odds are against it.

But even given all those factors, it's an enormous leap to argue that "lefties...think that those that didn't choose higher education are somehow less intelligent." It's an unsubstantiated argument, which works well in the right-wing media, because there's nobody to respond, but outside of the right-wing media, it falls apart if there's nothing to back it up.

So, your plumber, your carpenter, your truck driver (if he's in a right-to-work state and hasn't had his union dues sent to the DNC against his wishes) your stay at home mom who identify with Republican's because of such issues as taxes and morality are viewed as "unenlightened".

By the same lefties, I presume? Let's go with your premise, and substitute me for your straw-man lefty.

I don't think of any of the above-mentioned persons as either enlightened or unenlightened. I don't think it's possible to say "all carpenters believe..." or "all stay-at-home moms believe..." What people believe depends upon who you're talking to, not what their occupation happens to be (yeah, yeah, the trucker probably believes the price of diesel is too high, etc.).

However, I do think that a working person-- a plumber, a carpenter, a trucker-- who identifies with the Republican party because of an issue like taxes hasn't done his/her homework. Bush's tax agenda is to shift the tax burden from income-earners to wage-earners, from the upper class to the working class, and that only hurts the working person.

I do think that if somebody is going to vote on "morality" issues, they do have the responsibility to inform themselves about what they're voting on. For example, here in Oregon, there was a ballot measure to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The arguments in favor of the measure were:

1. Children need a mother and a father;

2. Marriage is for procreation; and

3. We don't want gay sex taught in our schools.

Fair enough, at least on 1 and 3, but none of those arguments was addressed by the ballot measure. Gay and lesbian couples have children, and will continue to have children. The ballot measure doesn't change that. Many married couples will never have children-- either through choice, or circumstance. Many married couples engage in non-procreational sex. The ballot measure doesn't change that. And finally, gay sex is not taught in schools, any more than straight sex is. The ballot measure doesn't cahnge anything there either. Despite these facts, people wrote in to the newspaper regularly, urging for passage of the measure on the basis of these arguments, which means they were either uninformed about what the measure actually does, or they knew what the measure does, but were being deliberately deceptive about it in order to legislate their own brand of morality.

The real question is, what does the uber-schooled lefty think about those in his party that instead of kicking back with with a few hundred pages of Chomsky on a Saturday night would rather kick it with a forty and 50 Cent? What does he think about the guy that would rather watch Sabado Gigante on Univision than read Slate online? What does he think about the jr. college drop outs sipping their triple lattes and expounding on how Cameron Diaz was so right that if you don't vote rape will become legal?

I presume by the party of the "uber-schooled lefty" you mean the Democratic party? I don't think Democrats have anything more than a vague notion of who Noam Chomsky is. Democrats don't read Chomsky; "uber-schooled lefties" do. But then, "uber-schooled lefties," by and large, are not Democrats.

To answer your "real question": who cares what some Chomsky-reading, espresso-guzzling lefty thinks of someone else's entertainment choices? I rather doubt the average lefty even gives it much thought. Are there class differences between the guy reading Chomsky and the guy watching Sabado Gigante? Probably. Does the guy reading Chomsky assume that the guy watching Sabado Gigante is a Bush-voting moron? I doubt it.

Originally posted by Darth CHUNKS > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> > > > And I think we can both agree that many people who voted for Kerry would have preferred to vote for somebody who more closely reflected their own beliefs...we can probably even both agree that many Bush voters would have preferred the same thing-- somebody who more closely reflected their own beliefs.

Fair Enough.

FOUR years for another freaking NO album!!!!??? Are you kidding!!!?? Ain't you being a bit optimistic!?

Hopeful.;)

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> Sorry, gotta run to catch public transit, but interesting points; I'll give a response tomorrow.

.....just a little extra. This is from a post a democraticunderground.

Here's another problem: I believe that party elites are disproportionately drawn from the first two groups: Left-liberals and center-left libertarians. I know lots of Democrats here in Washington, DC, and they are almost all relatively affluent professional types from the Northeast or West Coast who don't have any life experience at all interacting with regular people from middle America.

Power and money attracts talent-- i.e., relatively affluent professional types-- whether it's the Democrats or the Republicans. Intelligent, successful people go to Washington because they have the ability to succeed there. Not to mention the money it takes to get there. But let's not forget that it's the smart, successful types who gravitate from the midwest to the Northeast and the West Coast to begin with. Perhaps there are liberals in Washington who have no life experience "interacting with regular people from middle America." Not living in Washington, I can only guess. That said, I rather doubt that Bush has any life experience himself "interacting with regular people from middle America" beyond the campaign trail.

In fact, their opinion of them could almost be described as contemptuous. At a minimum, I think it could be called condescending. We think that we are doing "those people" a favor by supporting policies which will help them, and quite frankly we feel a little offended that they aren't thanking us for looking out for them.

Anecdotal.

You really expect us to read that??? Look, Kerry lost to a moron because Kerry is a flip flopping war traitor who the majority of the electorate does not trust. Run Kerry against the candidate from the Female Circumcision Party and he would still lose. Shit, he failed to carry the State of his running mate. Even worse, the trend of de-Democrating Washington DC continued, a trend started 2 years after Clinton took office.

Start by asking yourself why your party failed to win over the voting population. Do not blame those that voted for Bush. Blame Al Gore for losing Tennesee. Had he won his home State Florida would have been irrelevent and Gore would have been POTUS.

Don't forget that Gore lost Clinton's home state as well!

The Democratic Party isn't dead...it's just resting. The Democratic Party prefers resting on it's back :p

Originally posted by twist You really expect us to read that???

No, not when Americans can get their opinions pre-packaged from Fox. Reading's too hard.

Look, Kerry lost to a moron because Kerry is a flip flopping war traitor who the majority of the electorate does not trust.

I'll restate my earlier challenge: "By the way, anybody care to claim that Bush hasn't 'flip-flopped'?"

And here's another challenge for you to ponder:

1. What exactly did Kerry do that made him a "war traitor"?

2. If Kerry is a "war traitor," why wasn't he tried for treason?

Run Kerry against the candidate from the Female Circumcision Party and he would still lose. Shit, he failed to carry the State of his running mate. Even worse, the trend of de-Democrating Washington DC continued, a trend started 2 years after Clinton took office.Start by asking yourself why your party failed to win over the voting population. Do not blame those that voted for Bush. Blame Al Gore for losing Tennesee. Had he won his home State Florida would have been irrelevent and Gore would have been POTUS.

I'm not a Democrat, so it's not "my party." Even so, Kerry won over 48% of the voting population, assuming no election fraud from Karl Rove-- not a very sound assumption. So 48%-- not enough to win, but not the landslide rejection you're implying. If Kerry had won with 51% of the vote, the Republicans would be calling it such a razor thin margin that Kerry has no clear mandate, and that he would therefore need to govern in a bipartisan manner.

Kerry came back from the war, set up an anti-war group and had them lie about war crimes. He even said that he committed some himself. Noble purpose but wrong means. this makes him a traitor. Selling out his fellow soldiers. When confronted about this he avoided the issue. When others brought it up (Swift Boat folks) he sought a nazi approach--intimidation (lawsuits) and censorship.

Sure Bush may have flip flopped from time to time but not to the extent of Kerry. Kerry was just unbelievable.

But the issue is why have the Demos been losing power since 1996???

Originally posted by twist Kerry came back from the war, set up an anti-war group and had them lie about war crimes. He even said that he committed some himself. Noble purpose but wrong means. this makes him a traitor. Selling out his fellow soldiers.Sure Bush may have flip flopped from time to time but not to the extent of Kerry. Kerry was just unbelievable.

To be fair to Kerry, I think the Republicans had him by the balls about his Vietnam record and he couldn't mount a sufficent offence. But again, claiming war atrocities when it's possible he didn't actually see any (I don't know the definite on that, and I doubt we ever will) probably didn't help him. There are still people who believe Vietnam was a right war, and that even whatever atrocities committed were minimal at best. I'd be willing to bet that Vietnam was chock-full of atrocities on both sides, so to say that Kerry "lied" to give comfort to the enemy is ludicrous. He may have just been trying to let people know that these things were going on.

I think the fact that they were able to paint a decorated war veteran as a "coward" is a disgrace. No matter what you feel about Kerry the man, he served in an unpopular war gallantly. I'm just so pissed that Vietnam revisionists are trying to deny the truth about the war when they attack Kerry. In the Hannitized version of the war, we never suffered any major setbacks and were on the cusp of victory when those damn hippies stopped it all. If you believe that, I've got some ocean front property in Idaho I'd like to sell ya...

What I find funniest was that 70% of Bush voters, at least according to one study, believed that his stance was actually the opposite of what he stated his stance to be, as far as things like the International Criminal Court(they believed he was for it, while he's repeatedly come out against it), the Kyoto Treaty(same paradox), etc.. And they believed that WMDs had been found in Iraq, even as the government's own study has now verified they weren't there...and they believed that Al Qaida and Saddam were in some sort of conspiracy. It's just mindboggling how "off" that all is. I mean, it's one thing for them to fall for the propaganda, but to believe that Bush's stances are directly opposite of his stated stance...how the hell does that work? ...and basing a vote on such misconceptions is just scary.

But screw the Democrats too...political parties are crap, and they all have a stake in subverting democratic processes in their favour. Bush's "mandate" will disappear soon as all the votes are actually counted too, he won, but he didn't win by THAT much.

Originally posted by twist Kerry came back from the war, set up an anti-war group and had them lie about war crimes.

Vietnam Veterans against the War was organized in New York 1967, while Kerry was on duty on the USS Gridley off Southeast Asia, and before he had even been to Vietnam. Therefore, it would have been impossible for Kerry to have come "back from the war, set up an anti-war group" as you have stated. Twist, your facts are wrong.

As for your charge that Kerry "had them lie about war crimes," you've made this charge more than once, without any sort of substantiation to show that the testimony presesnted at the Winter Soldier Investigation was false. What evidence is there that (A) Kerry had veterans lie about war crimes, and (B) that specific testimony by a specific veteran was a lie?

He even said that he committed some himself.

Where?

Noble purpose but wrong means. this makes him a traitor. Selling out his fellow soldiers.

Kerry on "selling out his fellow soldiers":

"I think they are expressing, some of these troops, solidarity with us, right now by wearing black arm bands and Vietnam Veterans Against the War buttons. They want to come out and I think they are looking at the people who want to try to get them out as a help.

However, I do recognize there are some men who are in the military for life. The job in the military is to fight wars. When they have a war to fight, they are just as happy in a sense, and I am sure that these men feel they are being stabbed in the back."

Twist, disagreeing with the policies of the President of the United States does not constitute treason. Speaking out against the President's policies is protected by the First Amendment, and when the President is wrong, it may be the highest duty of a citizen to speak out. Speaking out against the Presidents policies is not the same thing as "selling out" the troops, and the fact that some citizens support the President does not mean that speaking out is therefore treason.

Sure Bush may have flip flopped from time to time but not to the extent of Kerry. Kerry was just unbelievable.

Bush the Flip-Flopper.

I suppose I'll catch now for pointing out that Bush has a mandate.

heheh, that was good....

And thanks for posting those other links, I'm pretty sick of the Right saying Kerry's "flip flops" are a reason to keep the Flipflopper In Chief.

I do have to credit Rove though, he appears to be capable of a pretty profound form of misdirection. For the life of me, I can figure out how people swallow it.

Kerry sold out his fellow soldiers by the lies he used in his anti-war campaign. That is why many consider him a traitor. Not a traitor in the sense of someone selling China secrets from the CIA, but the betrayal of many who were drafted and sent to a shithole.

Intention good, means wrong.

And yes, in a healthy democracy one should be able to speak out against the POTUS. As much bitching about Bush in the last 4 years I think the US is safe. You have another 4 to enjoy the complaining. Notice that he did not try to stop F911 despite many inconsistencies and non-truths? Yet when the Swift boat folks tried to air their movie Kerry and Co sent out lawyers.

Can you point out a lie? I keep hearing this, but as far as I'm aware, he was reporting on atrocities he had heard some were committing over there, many of which are very well known these days. I'm not sure how pointing out unjust rules of engagement makes one a "traitor". I guess some people like shooting messengers that disagree with their party....which strikes me as what we were supposedly fighting against there.

Edit: As far as F911, the only thing I'm really aware of that was untrue in that was that someone edited a newspaper story title with the wrong date for the screen. Everything else is a matter of public record. And really, Bush may not have tried overtly to stop it from being released, but certainly the Right tried very hard to do so.

Bush did, however, try to prevent the 9/11 Commission from forming, which I think is *slightly* more important than someone making a movie. Then, after public displeasure, he proposed forming a commission... headed by Henry Kissinger, a man who is well known for lying to cover things up..but again, people complained, so things were changed yet again. Three different positions on the same issue...now THAT's resolve!

Oh well, all I can say is that job numbers last month were better than expected, US productivity continues to be growing at a good rate, and the trade deficit has been slightly reduced thanks to our administration's liking for a weak dollar.

Originally posted by twist Kerry sold out his fellow soldiers by the lies he used in his anti-war campaign. That is why many consider him a traitor. Not a traitor in the sense of someone selling China secrets from the CIA, but the betrayal of many who were drafted and sent to a shithole.Intention good, means wrong. And yes, in a healthy democracy one should be able to speak out against the POTUS. As much bitching about Bush in the last 4 years I think the US is safe. You have another 4 to enjoy the complaining. Notice that he did not try to stop F911 despite many inconsistencies and non-truths? Yet when the Swift boat folks tried to air their movie Kerry and Co sent out lawyers.

I'll take your failure to respond (yet again) to:

As for your charge that Kerry "had them lie about war crimes," you've made this charge more than once, without any sort of substantiation to show that the testimony presesnted at the Winter Soldier Investigation was false. What evidence is there that (A) Kerry had veterans lie about war crimes, and (B) that specific testimony by a specific veteran was a lie?

as a tacit admission that there is no evidence that Kerry lied, and that it is, in fact, a baseless accusation. Thank you for proving my point.

If this has any success (which probably has a .01% chance), then all Democratic presidential candidates are fucked from here on out. http://newsobserver.com/24hour/nation/story/1884138p-9812954c.html

I'd be all for it, as long as every state plays by the same rules.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr I'd be all for it, as long as every state plays by the same rules.

No no no, we couldn't have that! Karl Rove would only want it in the blue states. That would only be fair.

I'm thinking of throwing my weight behind the Repub nominee in '08. I mean full-out, joining-the-party-and-volunteering-to-call-people-and-get-out-the-vote for the Republican nominee. I figure I'm 0-for-2 in my presidential voting record...

So I might was well try and fuck up the GOP, instead of dooming my own guy every time I vote

GOP IN '08!

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 I'm thinking of throwing my weight behind the Repub nominee in '08. I mean full-out, joining-the-party-and-volunteering-to-call-people-and-get-out-the-vote for the Republican nominee. I figure I'm 0-for-2 in my presidential voting record...So I might was well try and fuck up the GOP, instead of dooming my own guy every time I vote GOP IN '08!

Bush fucked himself over so many times that I don't think you can fuck with his and the GOP's success.

CRACKIES!!!

We have got to let this thread go!!!

Originally posted by Sir CHUNKS CRACKIES!!! We have got to let this thread go!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOO! :p Oh well maybe I will. BTW, would people prefer me to post articles/blogs from Ann Coulter or Michelle Maglalang (aka Michelle Malkin)?