Us presidential election 2004

[Akira 0]

@ Nov. 05 2004,03:07)]

@ Nov. 05 2004,00:32)]

The reason the whole county is not colored in is because Georgetown on the northern edge of Travis County went for Bush.

Heh, sorry about that. I did my part, but the old people over at Sun City tend to trump my youthful idealism

Good to see you back. Hows Sothwestern? I'll be driving up there tomorrow to pick up my wife's painting that was in the Alumni art show.

SU's great, thanks. Certainly beats Midland by a fair sight, heh.

Actually I was wrong as Georgetown isn't in Travis county....

Round Rock on the other hand

[shinRaiden 0]

Enron was not an IT company.

Arthur Anderson was not an IT company.

Tyco was not an IT company.

Martha Stewart Online was not an IT company.

Worldcom was a little IT upstart that bought Telco giant MCI, then tanked them.

Qwest was a little IT upstart that boughtout baby-bell US Worst then tanked them.

ABCDisney is in rough waters.

AOLTimeWarner dropped the AOL part, mor management difficulties.

Boeing got caught with their pants down (and the story is the CEO literally...) and they're abandoning the commercial airplane market.

These are all examples of the artificial bubble economy's case applications. Microsoft and Cisco are very small pieces of the pie.

Furthermore, the only airline to turn a profit in 2001 was Southwest Airlines, all the others basically screwed their infrastructure so that when hard times came they couldn't weather them.

So the surpluses were slashed by the new corporate accountibility because the tax revenues were based off the exaggerated earnings. Secondly, as the top companies tanked the effect was as bad or worse on their smaller vendors and clients. Third, 911 whacked the rest of the air out of the bubble.

So with the surplus bubble eliminated, there were then new unforseen and unplanned for expenses, such as the War on Terror and Homeland security. These obviously would move the line into the red, and what was Bush to do economically - strangle the life out of the economy with new burdens in a repression?

The fact that the economy has rebounded as well as it has from all these factors show's how well Bush's management has worked. The entire reason thogh for this discussion was that there was an eariler claim that then presumed narrow margin implied that Bush was 'obligated' to abandon his fiscal conservatism that Kerry tryed to coat-tail to and begin restricting the creation of wealth and economic liquidity.

Meanwhile CBS has jumped on the "Praise the Lord"

Quote[/b] ]

No section of the nation received Mr. Bush's values-laden message more enthusiastically than the Old Confederacy. The election virtually completed the ongoing transformation of the South from a Democratic bastion to a GOP stronghold. Five Southern Senate seats previously held by Democrats fell to the Republicans.

The Republican South has created some formidable election math for the Democrats. With the South in the pocket of the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, the 2008 Democratic nominee will need about 70 percent of electoral votes available in the rest of the country to win the White House.

Some observers believe GOP triumphs in the South have created the conditions under which the Republicans can remain as the nation's majority party for many years.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ Nov. 05 2004,03:07)]

@ Nov. 05 2004,00:32)]

The reason the whole county is not colored in is because Georgetown on the northern edge of Travis County went for Bush.

Heh, sorry about that. I did my part, but the old people over at Sun City tend to trump my youthful idealism

Good to see you back. Hows Sothwestern? I'll be driving up there tomorrow to pick up my wife's painting that was in the Alumni art show.

SU's great, thanks. Certainly beats Midland by a fair sight, heh.

Actually I was wrong as Georgetown isn't in Travis county....

Round Rock on the other hand

heh, fuck Round Rock just that much further I have to drive to get to Austin.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I can't help but to draw parallels to the past when people were opposing interracial marriages on similar "moral" grounds. How do we look at it today?

Indeed. Everything about this election went toward social evolution, pushed into the spotlight by gay activists and their attempts at social equality, same as the African-Americans in the 1950s-1960s. Change came slow to the US, but it did come, and really that is the only hope that I can hold on to. Hopefully people will grow wise to the New American Reich....oh sorry....Centrury, and institute the change that could have been done November 2 2004. Better late than never I suppose, but I fear for how far back we will have fallen by that time, and how long it will take to climb back.

PS...on a side note. How good is 3000Euros (pre-tax) as a salary in Germany?

Quote[/b] ]Boeing got caught with their pants down (and the story is the CEO literally...) and they're abandoning the commercial airplane market.

That alone tells me how much you know. Nuff said.

[Homefry 0]

Everything about this election went toward social evolution, pushed into the spotlight by gay activists and their attempts at social equality, same as the African-Americans in the 1950s-1960s.

I don't think you can really compare the two.. seeing as one was based on people's preconvieved notions about a particular race, while the other is based on what people believe and their morals.

[Akira 0]

Everything about this election went toward social evolution, pushed into the spotlight by gay activists and their attempts at social equality, same as the African-Americans in the 1950s-1960s.

I don't think you can really compare the two.. seeing as one was based on people's preconvieved notions about a particular race, while the other is based on what people believe and their morals.

Indeed. In the 50s and 60s people "believed" that African-Americans were inferior and sub-human. There were lynchings and killings. They were denied basic rights like voting.

The same can be said for gays. That they are "not right" and lacking in qualties that make "us" not like them. And indeed. THere are gay killings as well. And are denied the ability to have their relationships defined by a simple word.

[llauma 0]

Everything about this election went toward social evolution, pushed into the spotlight by gay activists and their attempts at social equality, same as the African-Americans in the 1950s-1960s.

I don't think you can really compare the two.. seeing as one was based on people's preconvieved notions about a particular race, while the other is based on what people believe and their morals.

What harm will it do to you if two same sex individuals wants to get married? Do you want to force everyone to live as good christians by your own standards.

All the gun owners says that the government can't tell them that they can't own ten guns but when it comes to people getting married it's appearently alright for the government to tell them what they can't do.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

In a country like ours, I feel the best possible course of action for the government to take is to allow the greatest possible latitude of individual action for the greatest number of people, and the only way to achieve that in this particular case is legalizing gay marriage. That way heterosexuals can choose to get married, heterosexuals can choose not to get married, homosexuals can choose to get married, and homosexuals can choose not to get married. No one's rights are infringed upon, and the concept of individual liberty, core to our nation, is upheld. Theoretically, conservatives would cleave to this reasoning, as it presents the road of least government intervention.

edit: contrary to popular belief, marriage existed as formalization of a relationship (and transfer of property) prior to religion getting its hooks into it. Concordantly, like any other formalization of a relationship by law, at its root is a somewhat arbitrary distinction (i.e. we choose to have this formalized term be applied to this particular relationship/contract). From that initial definition, marriage has evolved to encompass other characteristics and qualities, and there is no reason, other than theism-motivated bigotry, to prevent it from continuing to do so.

[denoir 0]

Indeed.

I think that the core problem is a deep contradiction in the roots of America. You had your founding fathers, children of the European enlightenement - truly exceptional humanists that wrote your constitution. At the same time you have the Mayflower puritans et al, children of the European religious fundamentalist sects. In a way you got the best of Europe and the worst of Europe at the same time.

There is a very clear conflict between those two ideologies and their traditions still live on today.

The Republican party is somewhat of a contradiction - ultra liberal (European meaning of the word) in some respects and ultra-conservative in others.

And then we have Bush who is not quite representative of the 'normal' Republican ideology.

1) Republicans are generally isolationists - they seek to minimize American involvement abroad. Not so with the neo-conservatives.

2) Republicans advocate a minimal government and limited government spending. Bush has gone in exactly the opposite direction.

3) Bush is far more in bed with the religious-right than Republicans usually are.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]All the gun owners says that the government can't tell them that they can't own ten guns but when it comes to people getting married it's appearently alright for the government to tell them what they can't do.

Good point.  

Slightly offtopic but...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

Has finally put some 'comments' on his site as probably some celebrating republicans have expected.

No comments from me about the content - except: wondering how tedious it would be to scroll 100,000 names in that order with mousewheel. Personally I don't like him though his has some good points. Just wondering what might his next project be, Fahrenheit 911 part deux?  

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Slightly offtopic but...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

Has finally put some 'comments' on his site as probably some celebrating republicans have expected.

He finally admits that he (moore) is a piece of shit. Why does not he run to post that the insurgents are patroits or the americans needed some "blooding" up in Iraq...

''The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.''

So it goes,

Billybob2002

[denoir 0]

He finally admits that he (moore) is a piece of shit.

Having a bad conscience there billybob? That you voted for the man responsible for those deaths?

Well, if it gives you any comfort, it could have been worse. If the Iraqi civilians killed would be listed, it would be a 100 times longer list.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Having a bad conscience there billybob? That you voted for the man responsible for those deaths?

Well, if it gives you any comfort, it could have been worse. If the Iraqi civilians killed would be listed, it would be a 100 times longer list.

No, he calls the people who killed them basically patroits. Then he talks may they (us soldiers) forgive us and shit. He is the definition of a piece of shit.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]No, he calls the people who killed them basically patroits

Which part, where? With that logic Bush is not a patriot for sending those people to their deaths.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Which part, where? With that logic Bush is not a patriot for sending those people to their deaths.

''The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.''

^^^^

That is his quote and I think it is on tape. He has not apologize what so ever for that from what I seen.

Stop trying to change it....

Edit: it is on his site...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words....4-04-14

[denoir 0]

No, he calls the people who killed them basically patroits. Then he talks may they (us soldiers) forgive us and shit.

Those two positions are not in contradiction. They are fighting for their country against a foreign invasion. Even more so than you did the British (as you were technically traitors and the British had the legal right to their colony).

At the same time the US troops serving in Iraq arn't the ones to be blamed. They are soldiers following orders, victims of Bush's decision - a decision that now over 50% of America has approved of.

Btw, if you are interested in what a list of 100,000 names looks like take a look at this. It's the list from Moore's page, looped 100 times.

Try not to get lost in the abstraction and realize that it's not just a list - it's real individuals.

[blackdog~ 0]

nm as well!

[Akira 0]

NM

[shinRaiden 0]

~nm.

[Akira 0]

NM

[blackdog~ 0]

My apoligies, I didn't have enough sense to look there.

Please delete the three posts above this one, mods... or four, or whatever it is - I've reached an agreement with Akira .

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Those two positions are not in contradiction. They are fighting for their country against a foreign invasion. Even more so than you did the British (as you were technically traitors and the British had the legal right to their colony).

At the same time the US troops serving in Iraq arn't the ones to be blamed. They are soldiers following orders, victims of Bush's decision - a decision that now over 50% of America has approved of.

Btw, if you are interested in what a list of 100,000 names looks like take a look at this. It's the list from Moore's page, looped 100 times.

Try not to get lost in the abstraction and realize that it's not just a list - it's real individuals.

Excuse me. Are you not seeing it? I see the list but Moore has no right posting their names and say may them forgive us. He calls the people who killed them the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and they are going to win. Now to win, are they killing american troops to try kicking them out? I have not seen them sitting down and having a conference.

EDIt: FECK

[Akira 0]

You can:

1)See the logic of the Iraqi's being able to defend their homeland from what they perceive as an occupation (and not just the insuregents think that....look at the "man on the street" interviews.)

2)And recognize the wrong not of what the soldiers are doing, but of the man that sent them there to die under false pretenses.

[shinRaiden 0]

And while we're at it, Happy Birthday Laura Bush

First Lady's page

Quote[/b] ]

Laura Bush was born on November 4, 1946, in Midland, Texas, to Harold and Jenna Welch. Inspired by her second grade teacher, she earned a bachelor of science degree in education from Southern Methodist University in 1968. She then taught in public schools in Dallas and Houston. In 1973 she earned a master of library science degree from the University of Texas at Austin and worked as a public school librarian in Austin. In 1977 she met and married George Walker Bush. They are the parents of twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna, who are named for their grandmothers.

[Akira 0]

Hmmm....

Laura Bush=Midland TX

Tex=Midland TX