REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

A MUST SEE.....for Kerry voters!!!!

POSTED BY: ANARKO
UPDATED: Thursday, January 6, 2005 14:13
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7470
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:34 PM

ANARKO


It is important to reach out to Kerry voters after the election and give them an important message...

http://69.93.61.74/~newsfly/media/afterelection.htm


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 17, 2004 2:19 AM

DAIKATH


I wonder how much he'll be laughing when the total number of deaths caused by the Iraq war are known, or when the deficit grows even larger in 2008 because of further tax-cuts. When he is arrested because of the Patriot Act, etc.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 17, 2004 3:11 AM

CONNORFLYNN


/SHRUG--I'm over it and looking towards 2008. I think Bush realizes he is working towards a legacy and can't pull the BS he did his first term. I voted for Bush (Gullible as hell..didn't know it in 2000, but know it now..) in 2000..I voted for Badnarik in 2004. I don't know how anyone voted for Kerry(a complete corporate/Hollywood suckass )except for those folks who didn't want Bush and wanted their vote to mean something if anything. Personally, I'd love to see both the Dems and Repubs removed from the political system.

I really can't tell the difference between the 2 parties anyhow. The more I look at it..the more I realize, the only thing that matters to politicians in Washington is the almighty dollar. If they could make bigger money walking hand in hand..they would.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 17, 2004 1:39 PM

SERGEANTX


I listened to the whole thing and I kept thinking he might have something intelligent to say, but like pretty much all of the Republican outreach I've heard, intelligence is an alien concept.

Fear and ignorance is an effective way to rule, Karl Rove has shown just how effective, but I'm not sure I could be so gleeful in succeeding that way. I wonder what they think they've won?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 17, 2004 3:53 PM

ANARKO


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I wonder what they think they've won?



Duh, four more year!

http://www.georgewbush.com/



The United States of Bush

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 17, 2004 4:02 PM

SERGEANTX


Apparently my question was too subtle. Sorry.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 17, 2004 11:47 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn
I think Bush realizes he is working towards a legacy and can't pull the BS he did his first term.
...


I sincerely hope you're right. However, I can't help flashing back to 2000 and me telling my girlfriend , "It's not that bad. How much could Bush do in four years anyway?"

In regards to the video link... I don't really have much to say. I gave it a try, at least until I got halfway through and assumed that it was just going to be redundant laughter for the last three minutes. It didn't do much for me (I am in the target demographic ). Although it did fit under my political-fallacy category of "Viewing Political Parties as Sporting Teams - My Team Wins, Your Team Loses, That's All That Matters".

As a liberal independent I'm still trying to figure out how to interpret this election. This past Monday the electors voted and the numbers are all totaled so I've finally gotten around to analyzing the results. There are a couple of things that pop out at me: the poor showing of third party candidates and the population density/geographic area divide.

It's hard for me to do any type of comparison with elections before 1996 since I get all my data off the web. I did look at the Pacific region (Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, and California) for the past three elections on a county by county basis (except for Alaska, which doesn't break down the numbers like that and excluding Washington for 1996 since I couldn't find those numbers - in other words, the analysis is very slipshod ). One thing that stood out was the drastic decline in support for third party candidates. I don't know if 1996 was an anomaly with Perot and Nader but a non-trival percentage of the popular vote (between 5 and 20 percent for most counties) went to third party candidates. This dropped in 2000 but was still a healthy percentage. This year, third party support was positively anemic. It was very disappointing to see those numbers (My personal belief is that we would be better off with no national political parties but instead large numbers of regional political parties working in coalitions on the national level). I hope that we've bottomed out and that third party support will rise in the future but with the electoral system set up the way it is there's really no way a third party candidate can be elected to a national office (just my opinion).

The second thing that jumped out at me was the county map of the US. The red-blue picture is very impressive. That's a whole lotta red. Granted, many of those counties that voted red are large in area with sparse population, but that's still a lot of red. I personally prefer some of the other variations that also vary the size of the county by the population (such as some of the maps found at http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/ or http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/ ). My personal favorite is this map:

And I found it humerous to click through the selections at the following site: http://www.topalli.com/blue/intro.html (you'll have to wade through some juvenile partisan name calling and the sporting section on baseball and football champions isn't fair at all when you think about where the majority of teams are located).

But at the end of the day... that's a whole lotta red.



There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 18, 2004 2:42 AM

SHEALYNN88


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Quote:

Originally posted by Connorflynn
I think Bush realizes he is working towards a legacy and can't pull the BS he did his first term.
...


I sincerely hope you're right. However, I can't help flashing back to 2000 and me telling my girlfriend , "It's not that bad. How much could Bush do in four years anyway?"

In regards to the video link... I don't really have much to say. I gave it a try, at least until I got halfway through and assumed that it was just going to be redundant laughter for the last three minutes. It didn't do much for me (I am in the target demographic ). Although it did fit under my political-fallacy category of "Viewing Political Parties as Sporting Teams - My Team Wins, Your Team Loses, That's All That Matters".

As a liberal independent I'm still trying to figure out how to interpret this election. This past Monday the electors voted and the numbers are all totaled so I've finally gotten around to analyzing the results. There are a couple of things that pop out at me: the poor showing of third party candidates and the population density/geographic area divide.

It's hard for me to do any type of comparison with elections before 1996 since I get all my data off the web. I did look at the Pacific region (Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, and California) for the past three elections on a county by county basis (except for Alaska, which doesn't break down the numbers like that and excluding Washington for 1996 since I couldn't find those numbers - in other words, the analysis is very slipshod ). One thing that stood out was the drastic decline in support for third party candidates. I don't know if 1996 was an anomaly with Perot and Nader but a non-trival percentage of the popular vote (between 5 and 20 percent for most counties) went to third party candidates. This dropped in 2000 but was still a healthy percentage. This year, third party support was positively anemic. It was very disappointing to see those numbers (My personal belief is that we would be better off with no national political parties but instead large numbers of regional political parties working in coalitions on the national level). I hope that we've bottomed out and that third party support will rise in the future but with the electoral system set up the way it is there's really no way a third party candidate can be elected to a national office (just my opinion).

The second thing that jumped out at me was the county map of the US. The red-blue picture is very impressive. That's a whole lotta red. Granted, many of those counties that voted red are large in area with sparse population, but that's still a lot of red. I personally prefer some of the other variations that also vary the size of the county by the population (such as some of the maps found at http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/ or http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/ ). My personal favorite is this map:

And I found it humerous to click through the selections at the following site: http://www.topalli.com/blue/intro.html (you'll have to wade through some juvenile partisan name calling and the sporting section on baseball and football champions isn't fair at all when you think about where the majority of teams are located).

But at the end of the day... that's a whole lotta red.



There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.



Well..there is ALOT Bush could do in the next 4 years, but he's going to be hard pressed to push anything as bold as he did in 2003. 9/11 emotions blinded many of us (myself included..a moderate conservative), allowing old Rummy to push forward his agenda with Bush going along because he trusted him. They sold Iraq on a series of "Lies", some of which are blatantly obvious now..rather then using truth as a means to an end. Now those of us who feel misled..will be more leery to trust anything in regards to military action and will scrutinize the administrations every move. I know I'm not the only conservative who feels old Rummy should get a severe fonging..and that Iraq has been mismanaged. There's NO WAY in hell Bush or his administration will be able to bamboozle us so easily a second time. I also don't see him being able to sustain his fiscal concepts much longer. It's time to pay the piper if you will..and it sure as hell doesn't mean cater to the evangelicals only.

So I don't think he's going to get too fruity this term. I can only hope he learns what the word "DIPLOMACY" means this go around. If not..well we can only hope that the candidates in 2008 are diplomats instead of hawks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 18, 2004 2:48 AM

SHEALYNN88


Quote:

Originally posted by Anarko:
Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I wonder what they think they've won?



Duh, four more year!

http://www.georgewbush.com/



The United States of Bush



I'm a conservative and I'm pretty damn skeptical about this map LOL. No offense, but I know a couple dems who could create something in blue as easily in photoshop ;)

Our population is over 200 million people. Of those only 105 million voted and of those 105 million 51% voted for Bush..of those 51% not all were "RED" voters..they were anti-Kerry voters. It just seems alil too specious and overzealous(maybe even a little bit pompous if you will hehe), to try and declare counties as "Republican" or "Democratic"..particularly when there are more political affiliations then what are shown on this map.

PS.. This is written by Connor_flynn, I just realized I was posting while my wife was still logged in. She's far better looking and smarter then me LOL. Please don't hold my comments against her.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 18, 2004 5:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The most accurate map I saw was a cartograph (Expandings areas of large populaiton, shrinking areas of smaller population) by county of the PERCENT of voters who voted one way or another. (If the percentage was near 50% it was purple). What I saw was a whole lot of purple and SOME areas of read and SOME area of blue.

Besides... and I know I'm going to take flak for this- Bush didn't win. I think he stole the election again. There are some pretty compelling statistical irregularities out there in the e-votes in "contested" counties. Unfortunately, since the Diebold machines leave no paper trail, it's extremely difficult to verify the vote. It seems we care more about our ATMs than we do about our vote.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 18, 2004 6:17 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
The most accurate map I saw was a cartograph (Expandings areas of large populaiton, shrinking areas of smaller population) by county of the PERCENT of voters who voted one way or another. (If the percentage was near 50% it was purple). What I saw was a whole lot of purple and SOME areas of read and SOME area of blue.

Besides... and I know I'm going to take flak for this- Bush didn't win. I think he stole the election again. There are some pretty compelling statistical irregularities out there in the e-votes in "contested" counties. Unfortunately, since the Diebold machines leave no paper trail, it's extremely difficult to verify the vote. It seems we care more about our ATMs than we do about our vote.




If it makes you feel better to believe this, go right ahead. I'd think that if there was as much evidence of vote fraud as has been claimed on the internet, the Democratic Party or the Kerry campaign would have been all over it. In fact, there was less complaint from them than in the 2000 election. Why?

Many of the "statistical irregularities" I've seen seem to start with the "Bush Cheated" premise and then pick and choose info to support this. They seem more like wishful thinking than objective research.

This is not to say that the voting process couldn't be improved. I spent a good bit of my working life testing software applications, and know how even the best written and tested systems can throw you a curve. Add to that the partisan election boards, voter registration organizations that cater to one party only, and just general dumbness of some folks, and problems are bound to arise.

A solution to these problems is going to take some serious time, money, and thought.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 18, 2004 10:33 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Many of the "statistical irregularities" I've seen seem to start with the "Bush Cheated" premise and then pick and choose info to support this. They seem more like wishful thinking than objective research."
The problem is that the obvious statistical irregularities (Bush gained in count over exit polls in ALL of the contested states) do not seem to be triggering the necessry studies. No one would like to snuff studies more than the Bush admin.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 18, 2004 12:18 PM

BOJESPHOB


I agree with Rue on this. I am not a Bush supporter, neither am I a Kerry supporter, but there were irregularities going for both of them, it's just the ones that helped Bush that are in the news. Why? Cause he won! If he had lost (Like Kerry did), you wouldn't hear about the stuff that helped him out. If you look at ANY election we've had for the last 200 years, you'd find a lot of "irregularities". Know why? Because nobody is perfect (no matter what the Democrats say about Hillary), and errors and problems happen because of it. I almost expected people to say "It rained, which the Republicans used to keep voters from the polls". The only proof people have procured to prove anything has been that we have a flawed election process. Chalk that up to human nature.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 18, 2004 1:13 PM

CREVANREAVER


Quote:

Originally posted by Bojesphob:
If you look at ANY election we've had for the last 200 years, you'd find a lot of "irregularities".



That so true. In fact, the 1960 Election had some irregularities in Illinois. That state went to Kennedy and therefore he won the Electoral College, however it has been investigated and some (but not most) historians believe that Nixon won Illinois and was the legitimate winner of the presidency. They believe that the election was stolen by a Democrat mayor in Cook County who messed with voting machines.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 18, 2004 3:48 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
The problem is that the obvious statistical irregularities (Bush gained in count over exit polls in ALL of the contested states) do not seem to be triggering the necessry studies. No one would like to snuff studies more than the Bush admin.



But if the Democrats or the Kerry campaign thought they'd result in calls for a re-vote, why aren't they doing something? If they believed they had a good chance of overturning the results, why not try? Leads me to believe that they did their own analysis and don't thinK there is enough possible fraud to challenge to do them any good.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 18, 2004 6:54 PM

CREVANREAVER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
The most accurate map I saw was a cartograph (Expandings areas of large populaiton, shrinking areas of smaller population) by county of the PERCENT of voters who voted one way or another. (If the percentage was near 50% it was purple). What I saw was a whole lot of purple and SOME areas of read and SOME area of blue.



Here is one of those maps that shows a "Purple America."



You gotta admit there is still a lot more red than there is blue!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 18, 2004 6:57 PM

CREVANREAVER


Here is another map similar to the one you wrote about SignyM.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 18, 2004 7:46 PM

UNICORN


I'm having a lot of trouble with the website in the initial post of this thread. Can anybody let me in on the 'Kerry vs. Kerry' thing?

Thanks!

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 18, 2004 10:00 PM

SKYWALKEN


It's a few minutes from a radio talk show on November 3, 2004.

This is another link to the same audio.

http://www.peteandrews.net/site/2004/gloat.htm

If you still can't hear that, then respond so I'll tell you exactly what is said in the audio.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2004 7:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


CR- Thanks for the link. The map is much clearer on-line than in a smudgy newspaper!


And now... really... 'cause I'm flying out on Monday and will be w/o a 'puter for two whole weeks WHAAAAHHHH!!!.... But I'm taking my FF DVDs with me ....

HAPPY HOLIDAYS.

MAY THE NEW YEAR BRING YOU HOPE AND JOY.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2004 12:01 PM

CREVANREAVER


I like this...it fits the current state of the Democratic Party!




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2004 2:31 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Ah yes. I expect to see many more examples of demonization over the next many years.

This first thing that popped into my head on viewing this post was the phrase, "tyranny of the majority".

I guess it's time to go back and refresh my memory of John Stuart Mill's, "On Liberty".

Quote:

excerpted from the Introductory of John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" available online at http://www.bartleby.com/130/
Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.


So thank you, CrevanReaver, for providing this excellent example of the tyranny of the majority in action.


There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 7:40 AM

UNICORN


I'm on a Mac, so maybe that's why the audio doesn't come through. I had my husband pull it up for me-- he's a PC man.

I think that recording speaks volumes to what I see as the most important fundamental difference between the two parties.

There is the party of the underdog, of acceptance, openness and compassion, of using science and fact in the creation of public policy, of doing what is right rather than doing what is popular with your loudest constituents, of making a compromise with our fellows rather than bullying our way through, and when necessary, of attacking unsound policy or actions.

On the other side, there is the party of doing what you want for purely selfish reasons, of using an extremist Christian interpretation of the Bible and private intuition in the formation of public policy, of attacking random foreign nations because you feel like it, and of kicking a fellow citizen when he (or she) is down (reference the sound clip above) while simoultaneously claiming we should all 'come together'.

I apologize to the true conservatives out there; I have no beef with you guys. You believe in basic hands-off policies which are both self-consistent and scientifically supportable. You're different from me, but I can see how you got there. I think that you guys got the shaft as much as I did in this election. Maybe moreso, since there was nobody who really fully represented you. At least I was able to vote for a member of my own party without wincing.

I don't think the Bushies/neocons/religious zealots who conquered in this election are ever going to stop gloating and stepping on other people's toes and parading that around like it's a good thing. Certainly I don't think they could stop for long enough to come to the table. But then, I'm not sure I really want them sitting at the grownup table of human discourse anyway. They'd just start throwing food.

I know, I know. The seats are saved if they ever want to grow up and get real.

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 8:21 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Ah yes. I expect to see many more examples of demonization over the next many years.

This first thing that popped into my head on viewing this post was the phrase, "tyranny of the majority".




I must admit that I'm kind of puzzled why John Cleese's "NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE" is just whacky fun, but this is "demonization" and "Tyranny of the Majority". They both are supposed to be humorous twitting of one side or the other about the election. And to my taste, both were worth a chuckle but were a little long.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 9:00 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer
I must admit that I'm kind of puzzled why John Cleese's "NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE" is just whacky fun, but this is "demonization" and "Tyranny of the Majority". They both are supposed to be humorous twitting of one side or the other about the election. And to my taste, both were worth a chuckle but were a little long.


I'll do a quickie type answer and then post something in a bit more detail after I get done travelling. As usual, you raise a good question. For me, it comes down to trends and who is the one making the jokes. In my opinion John Cleese has absolutely no bearing on the shape of popular opinion in the US. He could post an article like this every day from now on and they would not become part of the conventional wisdom. The theme that Democrats are crybabies is a bit different. I see it as part of an ongoing attempt to minimize the impact of a political party by turning them into a charicacture. If this was the only thing that I had seen then I would laugh and move on. But when I talk to friends and they immediately dismiss anything the Democrats do because they are whiners, or losers, or crybabies, or - heaven forbid - liberals (even though, at least in my opinion, the Democrats are not really a liberal party) that's where I see the effects of demonization. It's the same to me as calling Republicans fascists or warmongers. It's a tactic used to sidestep political discourse by painting those whose opinions are different as objects of ridicule. There's no point in listening to anything that Democrats have to say on a topic because they're just sore losers. For me, I think the Democrats do have some good ideas. I don't think all of their ideas are good and many times I think they don't have a coherent platform and that they tend to be reactive rather than proactive but I'm not going to stop paying attention to them.

Of course, I could just be a bit thin skinned on the whole subject since I am a proud liberal and have seen how much cachet that label has lost over the past fifteen years. When I listen to talk radio in the Central Valley of California I hear that I am evil and a threat to this country over and over again. And when I talk to people who listen to this type of programming I hear those statements repeated. It's been an effective campaign. So when I see another group getting what I think is the same treatment I get irritated.

I could be overreacting. It's been known to happen . It could all just be fun and games and could have absolutely no affect on how people perceive other points of view.

That wasn't quick. And it might not have been coherent. But that's all I have time for right now.

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 1:57 PM

SOMEOTHERNAME


I have tried to stay clear of these politically charged threads, but for some reason I just can't hold it in anymore. Yeah, I voted for Kerry, no I did not think he was the second coming. No I do not agree with Bush, his administration, and a whole lot more. It's just lame that so many people are out there bashing as a whole the democratic party. like we have never done anything good for the country. Sorry, I am not a republican, but I am not blind to the great things they have accomplished in history. It is sad that so many of them don't share that view point.

Regardless, that's not my point. The truth is, I am fed up with it. All of it. The voting, the campaigning, the shoddy journalism and spin. The lies, the faith, the hopes, the let downs. Fuck all of it. I was able to convince 5 people who never wanted anything to do with politics to vote this past elections, regardless of who it was for. and in the end, none of it mattered. I am tired of being the outsider who still works within the guidelines of this system. Fuck voting. It really doesn't make a difference. As far as I am concerned this country deserves 9/11 and every other eminent terrorist attack it will inevitably receive. We are blind, and will be made to see. But as for me, I am done.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 3:52 PM

SMURFKILLER


Quote:

Originally posted by Anarko:
Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I wonder what they think they've won?



Duh, four more year!

http://www.georgewbush.com/



The United States of Bush



That map lists my county as going to Bush and I know for a fact that it didn't. WTF?
For the next four years, I'd like to remind all of your Republicans of the words of a great man, Malcolm Reynolds "I may have been on the losing side, doesn't mean I was on the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 5:27 PM

UNICORN


Smurfkiller: Amen Brother.

Someothername: (Sorry if I got your handle wrong!) Dude, actively don't watch political media for a month. Don't watch any news at all for a month. Don't think about it. Take a break.

Don't abdicate what so many people fought and died for. I know it's a cliche, but your vote is your voice. If you give up, you lose. Keep flying.

Take a break from all of it. And then seek out sources for news from international sites, where American news is big but not everything, and where most of the dumb stories are filtered out. If they try to make all American media spin in one direction or another, then just 'fly a little further.'


There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2005 1:50 PM

SKYWALKEN


The link below is a webpage where you can download the video to your desktop.

http://cinomed.blogspot.com/2004/12/glenn-beck-gloatfest-2004-video.ht
ml



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2005 2:13 PM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


Quote:

Originally posted by smurfkiller:
I'd like to remind all of your Republicans of the words of a great man, Malcolm Reynolds "I may have been on the losing side, doesn't mean I was on the wrong one."



Actually, I believe it was, "May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Second and Ted Murdered Laken Riley
Sun, February 25, 2024 22:45 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, February 25, 2024 17:49 - 5951 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, February 25, 2024 17:38 - 3184 posts
Americans Owe Ukraine Nothing
Sun, February 25, 2024 17:26 - 3 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, February 25, 2024 17:25 - 1708 posts
CNN Panel: "Overwhelming Results In South Carolina" For Trump, "Greatest Political Comeback In History"
Sun, February 25, 2024 10:47 - 2 posts
2024 Primaries
Sun, February 25, 2024 09:35 - 34 posts
Violent, diarrhea-inducing stomach bug spreads in Northeast: ‘Incredibly contagious’
Sat, February 24, 2024 13:05 - 3 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Sat, February 24, 2024 09:10 - 693 posts
Anti-Whiteism
Sat, February 24, 2024 09:00 - 2 posts
Durham Report Another Bust. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Sat, February 24, 2024 08:55 - 98 posts
Sentencing Thread
Sat, February 24, 2024 08:54 - 330 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL