Four More Years!

Joined
2 July 2004
Messages
118
I am wondering now how the liberal pundits will try to spin this one during the coming weeks. The "illigitimate" label they tried so hard to pin on President Bush since the day he was first elected in 2000 is now a nonstarter. With a 3.5 million popular vote advantage over Kerry, the President has obliterated the Left's favorite criticism that was based entirely on Al Gore's 0.5 million popular vote advantage in 2000 - an anemic margin by comparison.

And let's all shed a collective tear for poor Michael Moore, who's tireless efforts to smear and besmirch President Bush's character using misinformation, half-truths and outright lies have failed to bear fruit. Same goes for the rest of the Hollywood pseudointellectuals. It is now clear that a plurality of American voters were able to see through their propoganda.
 
friend today, foe tomorrow...

hmmm... I was quite indifferent if not rather blase` towards Michael Moore throughtout the whole Fahrenheit 9/11 buildup and aftermath; also his parade laps on the network shows and his "Slacker's" tour. BTW, I'm a diehard GOP and obviously Bush supporter. However when I heard what Mr. Moore stated on the record the night before the election, I've lost all respect for him, even though I didn't see eye to eye w/ him on most issues (it's better to respect your opponent through indifference than through ignorance, I've always felt). Michael Moore was quoted as saying, "(directed to Sen. Kerry) ...bring the troops back by inaguration, or else. . ."

Wow, such a loyal & sincere guy- ehhh? 'Someone' didn't get pass their Freudian oral phase apparently.
:rolleyes:
 
nsxr1 said:
It is now clear that a plurality of American voters were able to see through their propoganda.
There were lies told on both sides of the fence. Does that mean that the plurality of American voters were able to see through Democratic propaganda, but not Republican propaganda?
If Kerry had won, would you be complaining about how stupid the plurality of voters are for not seeing through the obvious lies?

I, for one, feel the need for a bath or a shower after this presidential campaign. Regardless of the outcome, this mudslinging display has been an embarassment for our country.

The thing that angers me the most is that apparently politicians (on both sides) and their various supporters can tell bold-faced lies without suffering any consequences. A sad state of affairs. And some of you think that our political system is the envy of the rest of the world!
 
What is the best system? A King, Queen, A dictator? At least here if you work hard you can do anything. Goto china and burn coal to keep warm and tell me how good that works out.




nkb said:
The thing that angers me the most is that apparently politicians (on both sides) and their various supporters can tell bold-faced lies without suffering any consequences. A sad state of affairs. And some of you think that our political system is the envy of the rest of the world!
 
It's true that politics is a dirty business.

This is why I'm not a big fan of politics, nor talk politics with many people. I have co-workers who are rabidly anti-Bush, or extremely conservative. When they bring up politics I will talk about it for 30 seconds and then move on to other topics.

I can understand how people get so worked up over politics, but most people just need to chill and tone down the rhetoric, on both sides. Michael Moore's heavy handed tactics totally caused me to tune him out.

Let's hope the next election will be kinder and gentler.

I mostly agree with this post from fark.com:

And here we are.

This is the true face of the radical left, as has been so prevalent in a portion of this country lately, a great deal of Canada, and most of Europe.

Hate, emotionalism, delusion, intolerance, and violence.

There are people in this country now that hate you for participating in the electoral process. There are people here who think you're stupid, think you're uninformed, think you're a moron, think you're a religious zealot, and think you're dangerous for casting your vote in the way that you saw fit.

They can't 'understand' why you didn't subscribe to their brand of collectivist, socialist facism. They only keep up the facade of allowing you to have your own opinion as long as it either a) Agrees with theirs, or b) Doesn't get in the way of what they want to do. They can't 'understand' that you, just like them, often vote for a candidate based on their views on one or two issues.

They believe they have a monopoly on all that is intellectually and morally superior. They thought they had it in the bag because all their friends and professors are voting Kerry, and they didn't see too many of those awful Republicans going out in the streets in a funny outfit and waving around a sign bearing some innane phrase. They can't imagine how ANYBODY could have voted for Bush because they went to go see F/11 -FIVE- times.

Sorry, radical left. You got a bit of a surprise. But you could have had this race. With a moderate candidate and a real discussion of real issues you could have had it. You could have realized that most people weren't going to buy your lies on the 2000 election, the environment, the economy, the defecit, employment, and the missing explosives. You could have figured out a long time ago that most regular folks don't see things as quite as apocalyptic as you did and that 'anybody but bush' rhetoric and hate wasn't going to endear you to a good percentage of voters (oh maybe.. 4% or so, whoops). You could have won with a candidate that was just about ANYONE else, and instead you picked a massively transparent political opportunist with a questionable military record (that he ran on exclusively for months before it started drawing scrutiny). Instead, you let people like Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, ANSWER, Move-on.org, Michael Moore, Socialist Europe, and the collectivist movement hijack your party for 4 years.

I'm sorry that you can't imagine that someone might vote for Bush because he contributed to the current economic upswing, or that the Fair Tax plan would be dead, dead, dead if Kerry were to take office, or that they felt that Bush was the better man for seeing Iraq thru... even though you voted for Kerry because he's more friendly to things like abortion or marijuanna, or just because you hate Bush so much that it makes you hate just about everything. You might learn your lesson, now that you know there's not much you can do about things, to try and be a little more constructive. But that would require you to, in part, abandon your dream for a Socialist America, and require you to stop hating Bush -Juuuust- enough to work reasonably with him.

Pardon my French (uh.. I mean Pardon my Freedom, or... something), but I won't hold my farking breath on that one.

P.S. - This is not directed at everyone who just happened to vote for Kerry. The people this was meant for are very easy to spot today. Those are the jerkoffs that helped lose the election for your candidate, reasonable Democrats. Might want to think about cutting them loose.
 
Look at it this way, We are now more united.

If Kerry would have won, the Democrats would have won and the Republicans would have lost.

This way... we all lost.
 
mikec said:
This way... we all lost.


Interesting sentiment, it's too bad you feel that way. Let's hope for the betterment of the nation that the next 4 yours brings better times.

No matter which way you slice it, the GOP had a huge night.... particularly when you take the Senate seat pickups into consideration.
 
Ryanmcd2 said:
What is the best system? A King, Queen, A dictator? At least here if you work hard you can do anything. Goto china and burn coal to keep warm and tell me how good that works out.
OK, I must admit, you lost me on the coal burning comment.

What does working hard and succeeding have to do with our political process?

Is there more than one way to have a democracy? Or is it only our way, and the other alternatives are autocratic forms of government?

There are plenty of other democratic models that work. Germany, for example, has multiple parties, and, any party that gets at least 5% of the vote can have a voice in the government. This forces the big parties to form coalitions when they can't attain a majority on their own, which allows for a more diverse government.

I am not a fan of the two party system, and I don't like the Electoral College. And I absolutely hate mudslinging politics.
 
nkb said:
There were lies told on both sides of the fence. Does that mean that the plurality of American voters were able to see through Democratic propaganda, but not Republican propaganda?
If Kerry had won, would you be complaining about how stupid the plurality of voters are for not seeing through the obvious lies?

I, for one, feel the need for a bath or a shower after this presidential campaign. Regardless of the outcome, this mudslinging display has been an embarassment for our country.

The thing that angers me the most is that apparently politicians (on both sides) and their various supporters can tell bold-faced lies without suffering any consequences. A sad state of affairs. And some of you think that our political system is the envy of the rest of the world!

At least the GOP does not have the big 3 TV news media, the majority of the nations largest cities newspapers, High School teachers, and College Professors helping with the Democratic Party lies. Our news media, and our union educators are embarrassing. They still will NOT get a clue after seeing how the nation is ignoring them. The Democratic party would have won this election, if they would have had 1% of optimisim in their game plan. All the people heard was Bush bash, and how gloomy the US is.

Man did I feel like a born again american seeing the popular vote! Mega dittos to all.
 
T Bell said:
At least the GOP does not have the big 3 TV news media, the majority of the nations largest cities newspapers, High School teachers, and College Professors helping with the Democratic Party lies. Our news media, and our union educators are embarrassing. They still will NOT get a clue after seeing how the nation is ignoring them. The Democratic party would have won this election, if they would have had 1% of optimisim in their game plan. All the people heard was Bush bash, and how gloomy the US is.
If you truly believe that one side lies more than the other, then you have lost your objectivity.
 
mikec said:
Look at it this way, We are now more united.

If Kerry would have won, the Democrats would have won and the Republicans would have lost.

This way... we all lost.

Nice try, but I don't think so. Bitter are we? :p
 
I think that the major reason that the Dems lost and that it wasn't closer is because of the Micheal Moore's, the Barbra Striesands, The Terry McCaulifs, the protetors, etc. Normal moderate people who would have normally voted Democratic looked around and decided if you are the company you keep, then maybe the Democratic party has outgrown them. Once they made the connection that if they voted for Kerry that they had something in common with the nutjobs in NY who burned Bush in effigy, they either stayed home or switched.

The Democratic party has been hijacked by the 60's hippies. Consider that since Woodstock there have only been 2 democratic presidents. Carter got in on a protest vote and was a miserable failure. Clinton was an annomoly. He is the best politician in modern US politics and he got in on a combination of charm and being a moderate. Other than that, the country as a whole has said that we don't want the socialist agnostic view that the left does. If the Democratic party is to survive, they have to get rid of the socialist branch. Unfortunately, the power players in the Democratic party are the most liberal, so there is probably no saving to be done. This is what Zell has conveyed so eliquintly in his recent writings and speeches.

I predict 20 years or so of Republican domination and continueing Democratic weakening. In the mean time third parties will be getting stronger. Sometime in the mid 20's a party with Libertarian ideals will make a serious go of it. At that point, the Republicans will be the big spenders and the Libertarians will be the fiscal conservatives.
 
nkb said:
The thing that angers me the most is that apparently politicians (on both sides) and their various supporters can tell bold-faced lies without suffering any consequences. A sad state of affairs. And some of you think that our political system is the envy of the rest of the world!

It is certainly one of the better ones known to mankind. Just look at Taiwan's last presidential "election." It is utterly disgusting.
 
Zuerst said:
It is certainly one of the better ones known to mankind. Just look at Taiwan's last presidential "election." It is utterly disgusting.
I agree, compared to the entire world, we have a pretty good system in place. But, when you start comparing it to the other truly democratic and advanced countries (like in Europe for example), there are quite a few things that can be tweaked or changed here.
 
Dave Hardy said:
I think that the major reason that the Dems lost and that it wasn't closer is because of the Micheal Moore's, the Barbra Striesands, The Terry McCaulifs, the protetors, etc. Normal moderate people who would have normally voted Democratic looked around and decided if you are the company you keep, then maybe the Democratic party has outgrown them. Once they made the connection that if they voted for Kerry that they had something in common with the nutjobs in NY who burned Bush in effigy, they either stayed home or switched.

The Democratic party has been hijacked by the 60's hippies. Consider that since Woodstock there have only been 2 democratic presidents. Carter got in on a protest vote and was a miserable failure. Clinton was an annomoly. He is the best politician in modern US politics and he got in on a combination of charm and being a moderate. Other than that, the country as a whole has said that we don't want the socialist agnostic view that the left does. If the Democratic party is to survive, they have to get rid of the socialist branch. Unfortunately, the power players in the Democratic party are the most liberal, so there is probably no saving to be done. This is what Zell has conveyed so eliquintly in his recent writings and speeches.

I predict 20 years or so of Republican domination and continueing Democratic weakening. In the mean time third parties will be getting stronger. Sometime in the mid 20's a party with Libertarian ideals will make a serious go of it. At that point, the Republicans will be the big spenders and the Libertarians will be the fiscal conservatives.
You have hit the nail squarely on the head. The liberal extremists are their own worst enemy. While political sniping between the parties has always been par for the course, the socialist element in this country has gradually and systematically increased its hold on the Democratic party since, as you stated, the 1960's. Their distorted view of reality and rabid anti-capitalism reached a high water mark during the last four years. Beginning IMMEDIATELY after the 2000 election, the mouthpieces of the Democratic party began to demonize President Bush on a very personal level. Their boy Al Gore lost a very close election, and it was more than their narrow, myopic minds could take. It was not enough for them to disagree with Bush's initiatives or criticize his policies. They chose to relentlessly vilify the President, doing whatever they could to cast him as stupid, incompetent, dishonest and <I>evil</I>. They similarly ridiculed many of President Bush's cabinet members as being ignorant, vile, dishonest and <I>evil</I> (for the most part sparing Condi Rice and Colin Powell, for obvious and predictable reasons). There was never one iota of substantive proof behind any of their slander and libel - only their own hysterical, maniacal hatred for the leaders of the Republican party. The partisan Republican attacks on President Clinton and his administration were civil by comparison.

The inevitable consequence of all this is that most objective, <I>fair-minded</I> Americans were turned off. Even if they disagreed with some of President Bush's policies or decisions, their common sense prevented them from buying into the vitriolic hate emanating from Michael Moore, Al Franken and the rest of the liberal elites. It was these objective, fair-minded voters (Independents as well as many Democrats) who turned the election tide in favor of the President. John Kerry himself was his own worst enemy in that he persisted in attacking President Bush on a personal basis - repeatedly calling him a liar and accusing him of wilfull dereliction of duty. Again, anyone with any objectivity and common sense can see right through that bullshit.

I think your prediction is a very good one - as long as the Democrats continue to stubbornly align themselves with the leftist, socialist elites, their support in this country will continue to erode.
 
Fear and moral outrage were a huge factor in this election.

Many people I spoke to were literally terrified of having John Kerry as President. I view this fear as irrational, but it is clear that it was stronger than the fear that others had of continuing with our foreign and domestic policy.

The gay marriage initiatives were political genius, particularly in Ohio. The mobilization of the evangelical voters, who had stayed out of the 2000 election as a result of the election-eve revalation that W had been convicted of an OWI, was enough to counter-act the mobilization of the youth, (which turned out to be disappointingly below predictions).

I believe in liberal social policies and a more restrained foreign policy. To some of you that makes me anti-american or communist. I find that extremely troubling and it reminds me of darker parts of our history. Being from Wisconsin, I need no reminder of the House Unamerican Activities Committee or Josephy McCarthy.

Clearly the country is becoming more nationalistic in the wake of 9/11 and the war in Iraq. This is the natural reaction of a people that has been attacked, and the examples throughout history are legion.

I believe the administration has used the war as a political tool. That view is not shared by many of you, and I understand that. I would ask you to go back to 2002 and listen to the words of Karl Rove.

Karl Rove told members of the Republican National Committee during a January 2002 speech that Republicans "can go to the country" on national security issues and invited his party to politicize the war in an election year. And according to The Associated Press, a White House strategy for the 2002 elections - formulated by top presidential advisors - advised Republican candidates to campaign with messages highlighting the war on terrorism.

You can apparently find the whole thing in the C-SPAN archives. The address was January 19, 2002 at the winter meeting of the RNC. Here is an excerpt:

"Now we come around and face another election and with it we face the question of on what ground will our Party contest this election. Let me suggest that there are a couple of easy answers and one tough answer. The easy answers are our priorities for America and they are clear. They are to win the war, protect the homeland, and revive our jobs and economic growth in America. And this is the message of the Republican Party as we go into the 2002 election.

The first and most important of these is obviously winning the war. Americans can trust that this Republican President and this Republican President with his war cabinet and this Administration will prosecute this war no matter how long it takes, no matter what the price, no matter what is required because the cause is important and the goal is so critical to the future of our country and indeed so critical to the future of the world.

[portion omitted]

We face a new and dangerous evil let loose in this world. This is not one evil country. This is a movement that crosses national boundaries. Today the Al Qaeda movement is to be found in 64 countries around the world. This is not just one group of individuals but a vast network. Between 50 and 70 thousand people passed through those training camps with the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan….

We had better pursue this evil to ground. We ought to root out this evil and destroy it utterly and completely or we will find ourselves leaving to our children and grandchildren a world that is much more dangerous and much less peaceful and much more prone to the kind of horror that this world saw on the morning of September 11, 2001….

I said to this sergeant I was sitting next to, How’s morale. He said, It’s pretty good today but it’s going to be pretty bad unless we see combat soon. (laughter)….

Now we can go to the American people on this issue of winning this war not just because of the inspiring leadership of our President since September 11, not just because of the solid and stable and experienced leadership of his war cabinet….. And not just because we’re doing well in the war. We can go to the American people on winning this war because the American people understand two things. One, they understand that this is going to be a long and difficult contest and that much is yet to be done and much is yet to be required. We are winning in Afghanistan, but we are winning only in the first theater of a long contest that will take a long time and a lot of treasure and a lot of challenge for this country.

And we can also go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America’s military might and thereby protecting America and we should be proud of the record of our party in doing just that."

Other than that, I leave you with the following statement I have posted on a few forums that I think is important and I would like to hear the thoughts of those on this forum. I have been disappointed in the response from other forums, as none of the vocal conservatives have had a thing to say about it, and I don't need any more encouragement from the liberals. :p

Terrorism is a tactic. It is not an ideology. It is not a country or a region of the world like the middle east. It is not a people.

Terrorism exists in many forms, some of them embodied by our own actions and the actions of our allies throughout history. One man's terrorist act is another man's act of revolution or self defense. We have never had the wisdom of God, let alone Solomon, but we act as if we occupy the moral high ground in the world. I wish that were true.

There are some occasions where we do not act like the greatest nation in the world.

Someone give me an answer to the following:

We are at war. The President is a wartime President.

Although we are at war for the soundbites and the headlines, the same Government argues it is not really at war when it comes to protecting the rights of the people it locks up, both foreign and domestic.

The people in Guantanamo Bay are not all from Iraq or Afghanistan. Some are US Citizens. Many of them are evil people that may well deserve the harsh and brutal treatment they receive, if you believe in that kind of punishment. But some of them are being held under the shadiest of justification that is not subject to review. These people were not allowed to know why they were being held, and they are not allowed to see the evidence.

They have been labeled enemy combatants under the Patriot Act and have no rights. Recently, the US Supreme Court gave them some rights back, but it remains to be seen if the US Army honors the Supreme Court's decision, given that this is not on US soil and the Army believes that its own law applies. Remind you of something?

This is not what people are dying for. Do you think the pictures they see of these prisoners on the internet have an impact on their desire to chop of the heads of Americans in Iraq and elsewhere? How can we ask them for mercy and restraint when we show them not a shred of human decency or dignity.

When are people going to wake up and understand that believing America is the greatest and can do no wrong is worthless if you don't uphold the values that make America great?

If the bill of rights means nothing to you, what are we sending our children to die for? Is revenge all we have left in this country?

We are better than this. If Bush truly wants to unite this country, he knows what he can do. He and the rest of the Republicans now have the power to show us all what it is they stand for. I pray that those who voted Republican are right. Nothing would make me happier.

Show me that this vote was not out of fear and the machinations of a right-wing empire. Show me they have a better plan for all americans. I want a better america, and that starts with jobs and education and health care.

If at the end of four years, we are still losing Americans in combat in the middle east, if we have no end in sight, if the deficit is out of control, if the country remains divided, if health care costs are through the roof, if many americans do not have health care or a living wage, if our public schools are in decline, if addiction remains a federal offense, if prison population and construction continues to rise, if the environment continues to decline, if solo drivers in 12 MPG SUVs still clog the highways, if we are still the bitch of foreign oil and the Saudis, etc., there will be no question as to who is to blame.

But if anyone thinks that I value the ability to look back in 2008 and say I told you so above a better america, you are incapable of having an open mind. I will be overjoyed to congratulate you all on your wisdom, foresight and courage. I honestly will.

On that note, can we all agree to try to make things better, even in the micro-level of this forum?

The election is by all accounts over, and now the real work has begun.
 
Last edited:
Again, I am waiting for some of those with strong feelings about politics and anti-liberal sentiment to respond to this post. Tell me why I am wrong and un-american, or tell me why you agree with my point and would like to see america act like the great nation it is.

I think I have raised issues that are of concern to us all, regardless of political affiliation. I think we need to discuss these things so they don't destroy us and the values we hold dear.

I also think it is abundantly clear that I am not a simple-minded person or a person interested in cheap shots or stirring up hate.

I approach politics in a rational manner and am genuinely interested in a respectful discussion.

Anyone?
 
nsxr1,
Your extreme bias, and intense hatred and generalization of liberals is almost laughable, if it wasn't so vicious.

I agree that personal attacks and lies are despicable, and have no place in a civilized political process. But, how can you be so blind as to not see all the things you condemn being perpetrated by both sides?
nsxr1 said:
...The liberal extremists are their own worst enemy. While political sniping between the parties has always been par for the course, the socialist element in this country has gradually and systematically increased its hold on the Democratic party since, as you stated, the 1960's.
The same can be said about the conservative extremists in the Republican party. The ultra-conservative and religious right has more influence in the GOP than in the recent past. That also turns off a lot of objective, fair-minded people.
nsxr1 said:
...vitriolic hate emanating from Michael Moore, Al Franken and the rest of the liberal elites.
What about the "vitriolic" (you love that word) hate emanating from the likes of Limbaugh, O'Neill and such? What about a smear campaign with the sole purpose of denigrating a decorated war veteran?
nsxr1 said:
John Kerry himself was his own worst enemy in that he persisted in attacking President Bush on a personal basis - repeatedly calling him a liar and accusing him of wilfull dereliction of duty.
What do you call accusing someone of being a flip-flopper and a liar? Is that not a personal attack?
nsxr1 said:
Again, anyone with any objectivity and common sense can see right through that bullshit.
Same can be said about the Republican BS, or any political BS, for that matter.
 
brahtw8 said:
Again, I am waiting for some of those with strong feelings about politics and anti-liberal sentiment to respond to this post. Tell me why I am wrong and un-american, or tell me why you agree with my point and would like to see america act like the great nation it is.

I think I have raised issues that are of concern to us all, regardless of political affiliation. I think we need to discuss these things so they don't destroy us and the values we hold dear.

I also think it is abundantly clear that I am not a simple-minded person or a person interested in cheap shots or stirring up hate.

I approach politics in a rational manner and am genuinely interested in a respectful discussion.

Anyone?
brahtw8,
I am neither Democrat nor Republican, neither liberal nor conservative. I like to think of myself as right in between, basing my decisions on the current candidates.
In this year's elections, I tended towards Kerry, mainly because I don't agree with a lot of Bush's policies. Next time around, depending on the candidates, who knows which way I'll go. I could see myself supporting someone like John McCain or Rudy G, if they get the nomination.

I agree with a lot of your statements. This year's elections was all about fear mongering, from both sides. But, I think the GOP laid it on thicker than the Democrats: Your taxes will be raised, you will be attacked again, the UN will control our military, gays will destroy society.

I have no idea what kind of a president Kerry would have made, but I was willing to give him a chance, because I don't think Bush did a good job. I join you in hoping that I was wrong, and Bush manages to unite this country, make it safer, and make us prosperous.
 
Four More Years of Bad Economics and Death

I don't think that John Kerry was the save all choice for President. I do not consider my self a die hard liberal but one thing really frightens me about Bush in the White House for four more years. The fact that he and his party will continue to use the position to strengthen their own pocket books and relationships with the people that are really threats to us. The will do this without concern for the average american or our military troops. Sadaam IS NOT the war on terror. Iraq IS NOT the war on terror. I think that Sadaam needed to be removed and was a giant threat. A threat to the people living in Iraq and other middle eastern and eastern european countries. Every time I here your president talk about the war on terror I get SICK! I can't belive that anyone buys into that crap. The war on terror whould have started with Bin Ladin. I the war on terror were so "important" to Bush he would have found the people responsible for 9/11. Three years after the worst day for our country in modern history all of the main terrorists responsible for it ar still on the loose? I don't need Michael Moore to tell me that the real war on terror is on the back burner. I don't need Michael Moore to tell me anything. I know what is going on. The phoney attack on Afganistan was a smoke screen so Bush could get everyone charged up so they would let him go to Iraq. He wanted Iraq because his daddy didn't get it done and OIL. I feel sorry for all of the troops that will loose their lives over the next four years as well as the general public of this and other countries that will be harmed or killed by REAL terriorists because of the blinders on the nation and the crap fed to us by the Bush administration. THE BLOOD OF THESE PEOPLE WILL BE ON THE HANDS OF EVERYONE THAT VOTED FOR BUSH NOT MINE! Good Job. See how Happy you are in four years. No need to respond with political garbage to this comment I will not be checking this form again because the proof will be in the body count. FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT, THE RIGHT FIGHT!
 
Back
Top