So Many LIberals, So Few Elections

[quote]zarathus wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
DPH wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
I support Israel without question.

why would you support ANYONE without question?

it’s a very good idea to question ALL politicians and governments and hold them accountable for any wrong doings…

I meant that my support for Israel is without question – my support.

While I may not agree with everything a country does (including my own) my support for my country is without question and my support for the nation of Israel is without question.

That is good old fashioned patriotism, something that I think is totally lacking with the young people (under 35 crowd) today.

God bless the USA!

Now that is a campaign slogan that would win!!!

so, how exactly do you support Israel? do you think good israel thoughts, or do you dig so deep as to save up for a bumper sticker?

as far as I can tell, all I can deduce when I hear “support our troops” is that we should think good thoughts about them , buy yellow ribbons, and support george bush. that is the wishy-washiest, flimiest definition of patriotism, which only a scoundrel could hide behind. My definition of “support”, is, uh, I don’t know, a bit more substantial than just airing your opinions on an electronic bulletine board. To truly say you support something, you better start with deeds, not words. [/quote]

Good post. My guess is, very few who are so “patriotic for Bush” are giving their time feeding any homeless or helping pick up trash in poorly developed parts of town. Pledging 5 bucks from your check-debit card is now the new “patriotism”. How many soldiers have been sent gift packages and toilet paper? You know, something that required some actual time on the part of the loudest Bushite beyond “press ‘ok’ to send payment” or simply writing several pages on a bodybuilding discussion forum’s political section.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Steveo,

Nice that you mention liberal propaganda when your entire post is a mischaractering load of propaganda itself.

The last two elections have been extremely close. If you get past the crowing, it shows the country is pretty much split down the middle.

Most people who aren’t clueless realize this.

Vroom,

Perhaps you really should stick to Canadian politics. Pookie tells me that you libs win there all the time.

As for our “close” elections, you must realize that the popular vote as well as the electoral vote makes it seem close, but consider these facts:

(1) Electoral vote was close because clearly the liberals reside mostly in the large coastal states with huge population centers. Since the number of votes in the electoral college a state has is based on its population, of course the vote was close.

(2) The popular vote has nothing to do with winning Presidential elections. Also, the last election was not that close.

(3) **This is the major point: Look at the county wide voting maps. This shows the breakdown of the vote in the U.S. by county – you know where the people live.

What you see here is that the vast majority of the counties in the U.S. were “red” – i.e. went to the Republicans. Of course you had large counties on both coasts that were blue, and some in the northern midwest, but basically everything else was “red.”

Therefore, while the election looks close, it was not really that close. That being said, there is an old adage which says, “close, but no cigar.” [/quote]

Got it…so what really determines if an election is close is not the number of people voting…but the number of arbitrarily defined geographic boundaries called “counties”…got it. Seriously…I’m in tears from laughing…“You have to realize the the total number of votes and the number of electoral votes makes it seems close…but look at the number of counties…” LMFAO.

On an unrelated note…what’s your level of education?

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Oh, right – “Just The Facts” is correct that Bush stole the election, while the Supreme Court of the U.S. was wrong in ruling that BUSH WON!

Get over it you lib![/quote]

Not liberal, just concerned.

So with the spying, the torture, the secret prisons, held without trial and the illegal war we can be confident the election of 2004 was on the up and up.

Bush’s ‘Incredible’ Vote Tallies
George W. Bush’s vote tallies, especially in the key state of Florida, are so statistically stunning that they border on the unbelievable.

While it’s extraordinary for a candidate to get a vote total that exceeds his party’s registration in any voting jurisdiction - because of non-voters - Bush racked up more votes than registered Republicans in 47 out of 67 counties in Florida. In 15 of those counties, his vote total more than doubled the number of registered Republicans and in four counties, Bush more than tripled the number.
[…]

“Exit polls are almost never wrong,” Morris wrote. “So reliable are the surveys that actually tap voters as they leave the polling places that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries… To screw up one exit poll is unheard of. To miss six of them is incredible. It boggles the imagination how pollsters could be that incompetent and invites speculation that more than honest error was at play here.”

[quote]Actually, I support Israel without question. However, my support for Israel and love for the Jewish people doesn’t have anything to with the U.S. government not wanting an American hating dictator to have certain weapons in this hemisphere.

You are a hypocrite and you know it – if the deal went through and something bad happend becuase of it, you and your ilk would be once again bashing Bush for it.[/quote]

You “support Israel without question”…

First of all very few Americans would say that about the US… for an American to say it about Israel is just downright creepy.

But then you say if something bad happened because of it, my “ilk” would be bashing Bush – apparently you don’t get the point.

You said Sheehan was hanging with the so-called terrorists – so clearly Israel, a so-called ally which you “support without question”, wanted to sell advanced weapons to “terrorists”. The fact that we didn’t want them to was not the point – THEY still wanted to. Just like they keep selling shit to China when we say no.

If Venezuela is truly a terrorist country and a danger to the US then how can you support Israel unconditionally? Answer: Your more concerned about Israel than the US.

Unfortunately the Israel most Americans “support unconditionally” is the sanitized, fantasy, victim version described by The Weekly Standard or Michael Savage. I would hope so anyway, I’d hate to think anyone concerned about Middle Eastern terrorists attacking the US would knowingly support Israel unconditionally considering their history.

Israel’s weapons exports skyrocket, making it friends and money
AP
November 18, 2003
In June, Defense News ranked Israel 3rd in defense exports, behind only the U.S. and Russia.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/11/18/international0156EST0428.DTL

A country roughly the size of New Jersey, BTW.

U.S. Chilly to Israel After China Deals
FORWARD
January 7, 2005
Nothing was said formally, but the Americans transmitted a clear message: Don’t sell offensive weaponry to China. They forced Israel at the time to cancel, publicly and decisively, an agreement that it had signed with China for the sale of three Phalcon-class airborne warning systems.

Despite the Phalcon affair, Israel insisted on misunderstanding the message - its military industrial complex continued to sell problematic military equipment to China.
[…]
And Israel has been putting it in the hands of a country that, since the fall of the Soviet bloc, the United States has come to see as the strategic enemy of the coming decade.

American pilots are trained today on simulators against a very particular enemy. Nobody calls the enemy China. But everyone understands that the simulators are programmed to re-create attack conditions against Chinese weaponry. Even in the biggest exercises - the Navy’s Top Gun, the Air Force’s Red Flag - the enemy, while unnamed, is always marked in yellow.

It’s hard to escape the feeling that in Israel somebody prefers to ignore the special American sensitivity to Chinese matters.
http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?id=2507

Add to the fact that they’re spying on us and their involvement in 9/11

Sept. 11 riddles remain
Times Herald
08/29/2005
In the report, the DEA concluded that the agency was being spied on by the Israelis.
In 2001, a Fox News report by Carl Cameron laid out the Israeli spy scenario, however, the story was short-lived, and Shea was told by a representative at the news organization that there was outside pressure to kill the story.
Several publications, including The Forward, Insight and the French newspaper, Le Monde, picked up the story in 2002. All indicated there was extreme reluctance by U.S. officials - and practically anyone else - to discuss the matter publicly.
http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15114089&BRD=1672&PAG=461&dept_id=33380&rfi=6

And there are more than a few people trying to understand this odd lovefest between the (right wing) Christians and Jews lately.

Rabbis express unprecedented criticism of American evangelical support for Israel
Associated Press
Monday May 10, 2004 - JERUSALEM (AP) Prominent Israeli rabbis are for the first time speaking out against Israel’s profitable alliance with evangelical Christians in the United States who have funneled tens of millions of dollars to the Jewish state.

The rabbis fear the Christians’ real intent is to convert Jews, their aides said Monday. Others are concerned about the evangelicals’ support for Israel’s extreme right-wing, opposing any compromise with the Palestinians.

The dispute touches on an increasingly sensitive issue in Israel: the country’s dependence, both economically and politically, on conservative American Christians.

Besides contributing tidy sums to projects in Israel, some evangelical Christians have lobbied in support of the Israeli government in Washington.

Troubling to Israelis is the fact that one influential group of evangelicals believes in a final, apocalyptic battle between good and evil in which Jesus returns and Jews either accept him or perish, a vision that causes obvious discomfort among Jews.
[…]
“There’s support for some of the most extreme political positions in Israeli society,” Rosen said. "That I find far more disturbing than any suggestion that there could be missionary activity.‘’
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6177.htm

On top of everything else every cent of the billions of dollars in aid we continue to GIVE them is BORROWED money.

“I’ve never seen a President – I don’t care who he is – stand up to them… They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wouldn’t write anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.”
~ Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Vietnam War

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Steveo,

Nice that you mention liberal propaganda when your entire post is a mischaractering load of propaganda itself.

The last two elections have been extremely close. If you get past the crowing, it shows the country is pretty much split down the middle.

Most people who aren’t clueless realize this.

Vroom,

Perhaps you really should stick to Canadian politics. Pookie tells me that you libs win there all the time.

As for our “close” elections, you must realize that the popular vote as well as the electoral vote makes it seem close, but consider these facts:

(1) Electoral vote was close because clearly the liberals reside mostly in the large coastal states with huge population centers. Since the number of votes in the electoral college a state has is based on its population, of course the vote was close.

(2) The popular vote has nothing to do with winning Presidential elections. Also, the last election was not that close.

(3) **This is the major point: Look at the county wide voting maps. This shows the breakdown of the vote in the U.S. by county – you know where the people live.

What you see here is that the vast majority of the counties in the U.S. were “red” – i.e. went to the Republicans. Of course you had large counties on both coasts that were blue, and some in the northern midwest, but basically everything else was “red.”

Therefore, while the election looks close, it was not really that close. That being said, there is an old adage which says, “close, but no cigar.” [/quote]

Perhaps there’s a more “simple” explanation

STATE========AVG IQ===ELECT

(1) Connecticut…113…Kerry
(2) Massachusetts…111…Kerry
(3) New Jersey…111…Kerry
(4) New York…109…Kerry
(5) Rhode Island…107…Kerry
(6) Hawaii…106…Kerry
(7) Maryland…105…Kerry
(8) New Hampshire…105…Kerry
(9) Illinois…104…Kerry
(10) Delaware…103…Kerry
(11) Minnesota…102…Kerry
(12) Vermont…102…Kerry
(13) Washington…102…Kerry
(14) California…101…Kerry
(15) Pennsylvania…101…Kerry
(16) Maine…100…Kerry
(17) Wisconsin…100…Kerry
(18) Virginia…100…Bush
(19) Iowa…99…Kerry
(20) Oregon…99…Kerry
(21) Colorado…99…Bush
(22) Michigan…99…Bush
(23) Nevada…99…Bush
(24) Ohio…99…Bush
(25) Alaska…98…Bush
(26) Florida…98…Bush
(27) Missouri…98…Bush
(28) Kansas…96…Bush
(29) Nebraska…95…Bush
(30) Arizona…94…Bush
(31) Indiana…94…Bush
(32) Tennessee…94…Bush
(33) North Carolina…93…Bush
(34) West Virginia…93…Bush
(35) Arkansas…92…Bush
(36) Georgia…92…Bush
(37) Kentucky…92…Bush
(38) New Mexico…92…Bush
(39) North Dakota…92…Bush
(40) Texas…92…Bush
(41) Alabama…90…Bush
(42) Louisiana…90…Bush
(43) Montana…90…Bush
(44) Oklahoma…90…Bush
(45) South Dakota…90…Bush
(46) South Carolina…89…Bush
(47) Wyoming…89…Bush
(48) Idaho…87…Bush
(49) Utah…87…Bush
(50) Mississippi…85…Bush

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

Perhaps there’s a more “simple” explanation

STATE========AVG IQ===ELECT

(1) Connecticut…113…Kerry
(2) Massachusetts…111…Kerry
(3) New Jersey…111…Kerry
(4) New York…109…Kerry
(5) Rhode Island…107…Kerry
(6) Hawaii…106…Kerry
(7) Maryland…105…Kerry
(8) New Hampshire…105…Kerry
(9) Illinois…104…Kerry
(10) Delaware…103…Kerry
(11) Minnesota…102…Kerry
(12) Vermont…102…Kerry
(13) Washington…102…Kerry
(14) California…101…Kerry
(15) Pennsylvania…101…Kerry
(16) Maine…100…Kerry
(17) Wisconsin…100…Kerry
(18) Virginia…100…Bush
(19) Iowa…99…Kerry
(20) Oregon…99…Kerry
(21) Colorado…99…Bush
(22) Michigan…99…Bush
(23) Nevada…99…Bush
(24) Ohio…99…Bush
(25) Alaska…98…Bush
(26) Florida…98…Bush
(27) Missouri…98…Bush
(28) Kansas…96…Bush
(29) Nebraska…95…Bush
(30) Arizona…94…Bush
(31) Indiana…94…Bush
(32) Tennessee…94…Bush
(33) North Carolina…93…Bush
(34) West Virginia…93…Bush
(35) Arkansas…92…Bush
(36) Georgia…92…Bush
(37) Kentucky…92…Bush
(38) New Mexico…92…Bush
(39) North Dakota…92…Bush
(40) Texas…92…Bush
(41) Alabama…90…Bush
(42) Louisiana…90…Bush
(43) Montana…90…Bush
(44) Oklahoma…90…Bush
(45) South Dakota…90…Bush
(46) South Carolina…89…Bush
(47) Wyoming…89…Bush
(48) Idaho…87…Bush
(49) Utah…87…Bush
(50) Mississippi…85…Bush[/quote]

Dumbass.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Steveo,

Nice that you mention liberal propaganda when your entire post is a mischaractering load of propaganda itself.

The last two elections have been extremely close. If you get past the crowing, it shows the country is pretty much split down the middle.

Most people who aren’t clueless realize this.

Vroom,

Perhaps you really should stick to Canadian politics. Pookie tells me that you libs win there all the time.

As for our “close” elections, you must realize that the popular vote as well as the electoral vote makes it seem close, but consider these facts:

(1) Electoral vote was close because clearly the liberals reside mostly in the large coastal states with huge population centers. Since the number of votes in the electoral college a state has is based on its population, of course the vote was close.
[/quote]

So what’s the problem? There was no point to this.

Really?

Bush (R) / 286 / 60,693,281 / 51

Kerry (D) / 252 / 57,355,978 / 48

I’ll let you figure out what those numbers mean.

NOONE LIVES IN HALF THE DAMN COUNTRY!

Who gives a fuck what color the county was in Colorado or Iowa- few people live there!

New Jersey- 8,414,350 people
New York- 18,976,457

Roughly 26 million people. In two states.

Iowa- 2,926,324
Utah- 2,233,169
Oklahoma- 3,450,654
North Dakota- 642,200
Idaho- 1,293,953
Nebraska- 1,711,263
South Dakota- 754,844
Kansas- 2,688,418
Wyoming- 493,782 (by the way, the cities of Newark (273546) and Jersey City (240055) have a population greater than that of Wyoming)
Virginia- 7,078,515

Now, after all those states, you have about 22 million. Now, what takes up more room- all those states, or New York and New Jersey?

I can’t believe you tried to take a map and show that it means the country rejects Democrats.

Nebraska population density- 22.3 persons per sq mi. (2000 census)

New Jersey- 1,030 people per sq. mi.

Nebraska size- 77,358 square miles (16th in country)

NJ size- 8,722 square miles
(47th)

So because 9 NJ’s could fit into one Nebraska, that means there will be alot more red on that map.

Red that means nothing. The cows don’t vote bud- its all about people. When 50 people vote Republican in a Nebraska county, it means the whole thing is red.

50 people could vote for a porn star in a NJ county, and it doesn’t mean a damn thing.

Your logic is so backwards and completely ridiculous that I can’t even believe it.

[quote]
Therefore, while the election looks close, it was not really that close. That being said, there is an old adage which says, “close, but no cigar.” [/quote]

Are you still in high school buddy? Because if you are, you should take a class in government. You have absolutely no understanding of demographics, or how this country works or votes.

3 million votes in a country of 300 million does not a landlside make.

Go back to civics class.

This map:

Tells a different story than this map:

Or this map.

[quote]doogie wrote:

Dumbass.

[/quote]

I guess it just seems like it…

Understanding the 2004 Presidential Election:
Beyond the Polarized Electorate, And The Republicans’ Superior Voter Turnout
By JOHN W. DEAN

The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters

The term “separate realities” isn’t mine - it comes from an important and incisive October 21, 2004 report by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and the Center for Intentional and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, entitled “The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters.”
http://www.counterbias.com/147.html

Importantly, this study wasn’t funded by partisan political groups. To the contrary, it was underwritten by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation.

The report’s findings are stark: Bush and Kerry supporters agree that the U.S. should not have gone to war if there were no weapons of mass destruction or if there was no support of Al Qaeda by Saddam. But - like the colleagues of the caller mentioned earlier - other Bush supporters have closed their eyes to the reality that, in fact, there were no WMD, and there was no Al Qaeda connection.

According to the report, Bush supporters have similarly rejected the reality that world opinion was against Bush - believing, contrary to facts, that it actually favored Bush. No neutral observer could possible dispute that, as a factual matter, world opinion strongly opposed, and continues to oppose, the United States’s actions in Iraq - and would have preferred Kerry to Bush as President.
[…]
Why Are Bush Supporters Resistant to Well-Established, Non-partisan Facts

The report shows that Bush supporters seem to simply ignore information they don’t like - even if it is confirmed by the Bush Administration itself! They continue to believe in arguments even Bush and Cheney themselves have dropped - the WMD, and the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection, respectively. And this may be because they get their information from unreliable sources.
[…]
To study this report is to realize that Bush won reelection through blind faith and loyalty. Bush did not acquit himself well in the debates: Kerry won adherents each time he spoke. But it seems it did not matter: Bush supporters either weren’t watching, or weren’t really listening, when the debates occurred. This becomes more glaring because the University of Maryland study shows the Kerry supporters were living in the real world.

Steveo, let me hit you with an idea:

One man, one vote!

That would be awesome, if every vote counted the same, regardless where that voter lived!

And imagine, in the 21th century we could pull that off! Easily!!!

Of course, you?d find out that the US is not quite as conservative as you would like it to be, but true democracy is more important, right?

Steveo,

Funny, that you suggest I should stick to Canadian politics. Apparently I have a better understand of the realities of your own system than you do.

Since you’ve already been ripped a new one a couple of times, I’ll spare you another lesson in how your own elections actually work.

This is ironic, funny and strangely sad all at the same time.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Steveo,

Funny, that you suggest I should stick to Canadian politics. Apparently I have a better understand of the realities of your own system than you do.

Since you’ve already been ripped a new one a couple of times, I’ll spare you another lesson in how your own elections actually work.

This is ironic, funny and strangely sad all at the same time.[/quote]

No, it’s just sad.

well, I am not gonna get into the utter stupidity of a 2 party system and the inherent stupidity, anger, and hate that it creates. Or the fact that most people are so borderline retarded they’d vote for a chimpanzee if it had the republican parties backing or a flamingo if the democrats nominated it. No offence, but step outside of your little 2-party political world, its fucking up your view on reality.

[quote]orion wrote:
Steveo, let me hit you with an idea:

One man, one vote!

That would be awesome, if every vote counted the same, regardless where that voter lived!

And imagine, in the 21th century we could pull that off! Easily!!!

Of course, you?d find out that the US is not quite as conservative as you would like it to be, but true democracy is more important, right?
[/quote]

Let me hit you with an idea: sucession.

The day California and New York can controll the country is the day civil war breaks out.

[quote]doogie wrote:
orion wrote:
Steveo, let me hit you with an idea:

One man, one vote!

That would be awesome, if every vote counted the same, regardless where that voter lived!

And imagine, in the 21th century we could pull that off! Easily!!!

Of course, you?d find out that the US is not quite as conservative as you would like it to be, but true democracy is more important, right?

Let me hit you with an idea: sucession.

The day California and New York can controll the country is the day civil war breaks out.
[/quote]

Secession? Not likely.

A civil war insinuates that we would want you guys to stay.

The day New York and California control the country, they’ll have half the people and a damned large chunk of the economy.

Anyone dumb enough to secede into the rest of the podunk nowhere will probably be told not to let the door hit them on the way out.

By the way, don’t come knocking on Canada’s door either. We like 'em educated!

Voting is for people who dont mind corruption provided they can benefit from it.

Fighin,

48 to 51% what do those numbers tell you? Just curious what your thoughts are. Do you think 3% is a close election in this day and age?

Zell Miller has called the Democratic Party a 'national party no more". It’s impossible to win the presidential election withour carrying a few Southern states and the Democrats are dead in most of the South. Gore couldn’t even carry his home state of Tenn.

New York and NJ are hardly growing. They may add more population but many are not voters such as illegal immigrants. The South on the other hand is growing by leaps and bounds. This trend is not likely to reverse itself due to the demographics. East Coast Liberal elites may think nothing of paying $500K for a Single family house and $11K/yr. in property tax (NJ/NY) but the rest of the country thinks that’s insane.

The Red States call themsleves flyover states. It’s what the liberal elites do when they fly over them from NY to La. Looking down your nose at large portions of the country and referring to them as dumb is hardly the way forward. It will not win you the house or senate and the white house is a long shot until you can appeal to the South on at least some issues. When people move to the house they tend to fit in and not bring thier East Coast philosophy with them.

I am obviously not a liberal but liberalism has had it’s day and is hardly rising in public perception. Do you really think telling a large portion of the electorate they don’t matter because of where they live is inclusive and the way forward.

I live in the wonderful republican state of Ohio,and one of the things i find funny is when there is no work in my state and companies are closing and laying people off, which they did during reagan bush 1 and again since georgie boy has been in the drivers seat,is my republican friends that leave the state for work,usually move to states like california ,illinois,or new york to find work.You would think that would make them wake up,but they just blindly follow the thinking of their parents and grand parents.???