Please link to the polls and I can read for myself. Polls are the gospel truth, as indicated by early exit polls taken after this most recent election day.Pacridge said:As for why the blues make fun of the reds. I think part of it may be they feel the red state voter based his or her vote on false information. Many polls have shown that a majority of Bush supporters held false beliefs regarding everything from the war in Iraq to world opinion of US policy to US policy itself. And a lot of blue state voters have an opinion that Bush himself is less then intelligent. Which is odd considering the man attended both Harvard and Yale. But if you think he's dumb you must certainly think anyone who voted for him must really be an idiot.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdfTasmin said:Please link to the polls and I can read for myself. Polls are the gospel truth, as indicated by early exit polls taken after this most recent election day.
If it is the case that only an idiout would vote for Bush and held false beliefs, then I must be a complete idiot because not only did I vote for his re-election this year, I voted voted for him in 2000 and in his gubernatorial reelection bid in 1998. And had I been living in Texas in 1994, I would have voted for him then.
As far as the red states being made fun of by the liberals, it's an elitist argument. It is nothing more than a bunch of talking heads and self appointed analysts trying to explain away the popular vote just because it didn't go their way. Because, apparently we in the red states are a bunch of backwards gun-totin' religious zealot rednecks who don't know any better. (As a matter of fact, I do own a gun, believe in God, live in a rural area and watch Fox News. :shoot)
I'm not sure I agree with your assertions. To say that "Most Bush voters don't base their reasons for voting for Bush reasonably." To me that just doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe I'm just not understanding you. First you mention "homophobes" (I call that group anti-gay) then gun owners and then religous fundamentalists. All of these groups were given clear reasons to vote for Bush by both Bush and Kerry. Kerry clearly supported gay rights where as Bush did not. Kerry was in favor of some stiffer, limited, gun laws and licensing. Bush has always supported the religious right far more then Kerry. So I think the Bush supporter, based on your arguement, did have reasons to vote for Bush.heyjoeo said:Hate to break it to you, but most Bush supporters do not base their reasons for voting for Bush reasonably. Most of the votes cast were homophobes, gun-owners (Bush sleeps with the NRA), and religious fundamentalists. Sure there are the occasional person who just says "Oh Bush would be a better commander-in-chief." Give me a break. That argument can be blown away in three words: The Iraqi War.
Still watching Fox for your News I see...vauge said:Um, Veterans hospitals and disability pay has increased!
I'm going to have to call BS on this one from personal experience.Numbers can be debated but most legimate economist (not the ones trying to cook the books for the GOP) are in agreement that any downward turn didn't start until AFTER he took office.
I beleive in gay rights. I don't own any guns. I beleif that people need faith, not religion. I went to John Kerry's own website to decide if he was a good commander in cheif.Hate to break it to you, but most Bush supporters do not base their reasons for voting for Bush reasonably. Most of the votes cast were homophobes, gun-owners (Bush sleeps with the NRA), and religious fundamentalists. Sure there are the occasional person who just says "Oh Bush would be a better commander-in-chief." Give me a break. That argument can be blown away in three words: The Iraqi War.
Some people are doing good, some are even doing better. Myself included, other then having to tighten up to pay for my kids college I'm having a good year. But our version of tightening is taking two weeks in Cancun and two in Key West as opposed to three of each. But there's a lot of people nationwide that have lost their jobs and aren't taking any trips- unless you count the ones to the food bank.vauge said:*
What about it. Your neck of the woods may be in a crunch, but mine is kickin ass - does that mean that only what you see is real? I am expecting thousands of dollars next year for a bonus to profit.
You're right. Numbers don't lie, but they don't tell the whole truth either.The point is the numbers don't lie and the economy has tanked under Bush.
Wow! It was tanking under Clinton? Took eight years and then some did it? That's almost unbelievable.LiberalFINGER said:The economy was tanking under the Clinton administration. We were in a trend before Bush took office. If Bush was solely responsible for the down-turn, then it would mean that he somehow managed to hose the economy in 3 months. It just can't be done through policy alone.
First of all, saying that it took eight years is rediculous is both rediculous to beleive and ludicrous to interpret that it was what I meant.Wow! It was tanking under Clinton? Took eight years and then some did it? That's almost unbelievable.
That's true. I apologize for that comment, it was stupid, I said it and shouldn't have. I made that post late and should have just gone to bed.LiberalFINGER said:First of all, saying that it took eight years is rediculous is both rediculous to beleive and ludicrous to interpret that it was what I meant.
I cannot argue with this. Your right, that same blame game would happen on anyones watch.Pacridge said:As for if Gore were President. Who knows what the right would be blaming on him. Personally I tend to believe the right would have latched on to 9/11. It would have been on Rush, O'Reilly and Hannity 24/7 with a mantra of "it happend on your watch." Followed by a steady diet of "you had a PBD that said ben Laden determined to attack in the US and you didn't even hold one committe meeting- you're gone." Those mantras would have filled the air waves of talk radio non-stop until congress impeached Gore.
How has this "blame game" been applied to Bush? When I listen to the radio heads they all seem in agreement that he's a great Commander-in-Chief and has done an excellent job of keeping us safe. I content that if Gore or any Dem. were President we'd have been blitzed, non-stop, with how it happend on his watch, it was directly his fault- therefore he's got to go. This would not have stopped until they got everyone of their listeners to write their congressman and demand that he be impeached.vauge said:I cannot argue with this. Your right, that same blame game would happen on anyones watch.
Couldn't agree with you more Afganastan was the right country. So why in the heck did we divert our attention to Iraq? Why did we send 10,000 troops after bin Laden and over 100,000 after Saddam? Let's say the administration truely believed the "bad" intel. regarding the WMD's. OK, maybe I'm willing to give them that, but let's be completely honest there's a lot people who were trying to tell them they were completely wrong. Still why when they had bin Laden cornered didn't at least finish that job before starting another one? Or how about just sending another, say, 50,000 troops into Afganastan for six months and see if they couldn't come up with the bastard. I mean everyone agrees he's the guy. He's the so called mastermind behind the worst terror attack on US soil ever. Bush made a commitment to the American people in the weeks after the attacks to "get him dead or alive" to "smoke him out" I believed Bush. He let me down.vauge said:As far as wrong country, I think Afganastan was correct.
vauge said:Um, Veterans hospitals and disability pay has increased!
Here's an over view of the proposed 2006 budget and how it effects veterans. It compiled by "The Independent Budget, developed by veterans for veterans. So it might be some what bias in their direction but as near as I can determine the numbers and facts they site are accurate as to what Bush and the GOP wish to propose.
In this you'll find that we're both right. In a sense anyway. Bush has increased the VA budget. So you're right. However his increases have been the smallest increase proposed in over a decade. Clinton, that military hating bastard, made larger increases. You'll also find the number of veterans needing services is increasing "VA has seen a 134 percent increase in the number of veterans seeking health care from 1996 to 2003. Unfortunately, VA health-care funding has increased only 44 percent over the same period." This has caused there to be cuts in services "reports earlier this year, indicated the Office of Management and Budget had requested that VA identify $900 million in cuts in discretionary spending, primarily from health-care funding. Such a cut would likely force the VA to further restrict enrollment of new veterans seeking access to the system and could mean staff cuts, which would result in longer waiting times for veterans." So I'm right.
Personally I would prefer if you were 100% right I were 100% wrong on this one. Sadly this simply is not the case. On May 28th, 2001 President Bush signed Executive Order 13214 forming a presidental task force delegated with the task of improving health for our nations veterans. Other than signing that order I can't find anyhting where Bush has actually done anything to assist our nations veterans. If you know of some great action he or his admin. have or is taking please let me know. I feel ashamed everytime I see reports of uncared for vets or soldiers that have been blown up by road side bombs because they didn't have the proper protection. And we're doing all this so we can give more tax cuts to the wealthy? As near as I can tell it's all part of Bush's "No Billionare left behind" program.
Hello everybody. I guess I'll dive right in. I hate to break it to you Joeo (and don't tell anyone else, let the fantasy continue), but your extrememly exaggerated and overly simplistic beliefs regarding the reasons for the President's re-election are in and of themselves one of the reasons for not only the 2004 election results (Republicans hold on to White House and increase majorities in House and Senate), but also for elections in 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996, and 1994 (every year the G.O.P. maintained or gained seats), when the steady and continued decline of the Democrat party began. As long as you (and the rest of the ABB crowd) continue to misunderstand the electorate and loudly and harshly dismiss "most" of your opponents as homophobic, bible-thumping, gunslingers, you will continue to lose national elections. But by all means, don't let me stop you! I could probably expain it to you but information is power and I don't believe in helping the opposition by explaining history and statistics...O.K. then, I'll give you one hint...Keep doing what you've done (dismissing your opponents [all 51% of them] as mean and stupid), and you will keep getting what you've got (loss after loss after loss). :dohheyjoeo said:Hate to break it to you, but most Bush supporters do not base their reasons for voting for Bush reasonably. Most of the votes cast were homophobes, gun-owners (Bush sleeps with the NRA), and religious fundamentalists. Sure there are the occasional person who just says "Oh Bush would be a better commander-in-chief." Give me a break. That argument can be blown away in three words: The Iraqi War.