taks

yeah, Karl ****ING SPOKESMAN. he's a spokesman for god's sake. he's citing ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE. this is all... get over it. and you still don't get my point. i never said bush won by a landslide. i said it was significant (if you think 3.6 million is a small number think again...). and i pointed out, btw, that JFK's 115,000 was a MUCH smaller margin, yet he supposedly had a mandate of the people. bush has 51% of the vote so the "divide" isn't nearly as prevalent as originally thought. most analysts did not expect him to do this well. they also thought, wrongly, that all the new and young registrants would vote heavily. they did not. they do typically vote democratic, too (i did when i was younger). churchill also said (paraphrasing) "an 18 year old conservative has no heart, but a 36 year old liberal has no brain." taks

hardly making it a fact... you've still provided no evidence. curiously, how is my grammar deficient? besides some "spoken" language, it's actually better than yours. now you're flaming and i have thusly reported you. if you can't accept a dissenting opinion, perhaps you should post elsehwere? the status of my sex life, or any other engineer is beyond this discussion and irrelevant. by virtue of your inability to handle debate, you no longer interest me... oh, btw, JE, add three zeros to your number, $3,000,000,000 taks

no, karl rove is merely citing anecdote... how many times do i say this till you understand? taks

good for you. one of the reasons, btw, that the EU has twice as many people and 1/3 the GDP of the US. we don't average 80 hours a week, either. less than 40, actually. if you're working 80 hours a week, maybe you should a) learn a trade or b) sacrifice part of your life like i did and get an education. yes, btw, our quality of life is MUCH higher than in europe. as a matter of fact, the "poverty line" in the US is typical of an average european. just because yours isn't doesn't mean we're all suffering. taks

i didn't spin anything. i merely stated that the large we get, the harder it is to win a majority. btw, clinton's 3rd party candidate took votes away from the republicans, not himself. also, as i've noted, JFK only won by 115,000 votes out of 70 million, yet somehow he's viewed as some "favorite son" of america. hardly. ah, yes, the exit polls. proven invalid. no, they weren't accurate in the counties they were taken in. they were inaccurate everywhere. the data IS bad. again, there's no evidence to support this. no. And it's no secret that in semi-recent history Demos tend to be better educated as a whole. You can argue why that it, but it doesn't change the fact that it is. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> no, there's no evidence of this. "it's no secret" is something YOU believe... prove it. i'll soon have a doctorate and every PhD i know is a conservative (actually, most of us are libertarian in core beliefs). i betcha i know more PhDs than you, too... taks

karl rove is citing anecdotal evidence, not facts. bullsh*t. the phrase "generally known fact" is meaningless and in fact, has no basis in fact. i guarantee if you poll all of the engineers in the country you'll find they're mostly conservative. the crowd i work and hang-out with is incredibly more educated than 99.9% of the world, yet we're mostly conservative... maybe this is generally accepted as fact in liberal circles only? your argument that "the more you learn about the world" is ridiculous. liberal arts schools teach ideals. it's not because of pot smoking hippie type professors, it's because they're brought up on hopes and dreams of utopian societies... engineering (applied sciences) schools generally foster logical thought and reasoning abilities. we're hyper-analytical and it shows... god didn't pick our president, btw, 58 million people did. taks

you're making a slippery slope argument, i.e. not based on any real facts. furthermore, welfare is precisely the mechanism that keeps poor people poor. yes, it is the issue. this is the very reason some average americans don't have insurance. if we didn't have these predatory practices in place by foreign governments, things would be cheap enough to afford. given that 95% of the population believes in a higher power, why is this an issue? religion is probably the number one driving force in the world, to think that people wouldn't vote based on that is naive at best. there's plenty of money already. unfortunately, as with all government run social programs, they are so horribly inefficient they can't function properly. why is it that private schools on average cost less per student than public yet consistently perform better in testing? also, government regulations do not inspire teachers, good or bad. they instead create an environment where passing the standardized test is all that matters. critical thinking is traded in for passing the next test. furthermore, self centered organizations such as the NEA put teacher equality at a higher level than performance. any unionized organization is only as good as its lowest common denominator, or worst teacher as it is. everybody is paid the same, so why try? Hopefully it will work, but i haven't seen any figures that indicate that the amount of fringe benefits for the regular worker have risen, not to mention that people have to have 2-3 jobs in order to support their family. uh, what's this got to do with being a safe place to work? i think you misplaced this reply... btw, people don't need 2-3 jobs to support their families, they need 2-3 jobs to support their families and maintain a higher standard of living than they can otherwise afford. big difference. perhaps, but that still doesn't mean the bush administration ignores the environment. the environmentalists would have us believe the BA is kowtowing to big oil and other industry pressure, when in fact, most of the harsh regulations environmentalists would impose would crush our economy. change is good, and preserving the environment is as well. however, if such changes hurt us economically, we become less efficient and, in the end, do more damage to the environment in the long run. we're not showing the world the middle finger. we're defending our interests. the other nations were compromised by their ties to middle east oil. how are they qualified to judge our actions? compromise is fine, but it needs to be reasonable. also, there's an obvious agenda there (weakening our position) that can't be overlooked. it's not the US' fault that we're more efficient, produce more and enjoy a higher standard of living than most. if the rest of the world wants the same things, than maybe they ought to pay attention to how we got here... not sure how this is relevant, but all i said is that there isn't nearly as much of a "divide" as kerry-edwards would have you believe. liberal and conservative labels are just that: labels indicating which side of a fence you're standing on. the fence moves around, too. the divide was proposed as a way to wedge away swing votes and make them feel like they had to "choose a side"... mostly a political ploy. most americans are quite moderate (conservative to europe) and will always be that way. the only real split is iraq and that's fueled mostly by the media... btw, the "angry mob" scenario you speak of is the reason we are not a democracy, but a republic. furthermore, you may scoff at the republicans "pulling your strings" but what exactly happens when a democrat raises my taxes? basically, the "angry mob" is telling me that my personal property must be used to help others, whether i like it or not. it goes both ways kumquat... taks

statistically speaking, the larger a population becomes, the harder it is to win by any margin. we've gotten so big that a two party system rules and everybody picks one side or the other... even america's "once and future king" JFK only won by 115,000 votes, btw, and there were about 70,000,000 votes cast in that one. i'd like to see your evidence of that... nowhere is your level of education listed on a ballot so i'd be willing to bet this is another number from those "accurate" pollsters from early yesterday. taks

but both of those pale in comparison to other issues that set his "liberal" standard. particularly taxes, defense and social programs. granted, bush blew it on the social programs thing, too... hence my gripe there. he's against gay marriage only because he knows it's political suicide to favor it. i suppose in some sense, he's so poll driven that he's liberal only because that's what he thinks it takes to get elected (in mass., it is). all US politicians are moderate to conservative compared to european standards, i agree. that's why i set the standard as the US "swing" vote in the middle... kerry is far to the left of them whereas bush is only a hair to the right. being moderate, btw, didn't really help bush, IMO. a lot of the swing vote went for kerry in spite of his liberal tendencies simply because they don't like bush, i.e. they were voting for "not bush" instead of kerry. taks

the US has been in some form of war or another nearly since its inception. iraq is no different other than the fact that it is unpopular with the rest of the world. to say a president wants an endless war is pointless since there nearly always is a war going on, i.e. he's already got what you're asking if he wants with or without iraq. taks

that's the will of 80% of the population of the US, not a religious "offensive"... a society is allowed to decide what type of behavior it defines as acceptable, whether you like it or not. taks

he's got nothing to lose, now. as well, he's got a stronger presence in both the house and senate. the only good thing i could have seen coming from a kerry presidency would have been a spending stalemate due to republican control of the legislative branch. clinton had the same problem and we had a surplus... taks

no kidding. gov't function is supposed to be primarily defending our rights... not controlling our lives. taks

??? kerry is one of the most liberal senators based on his voting record. however, overall, bush is very moderate, i agree. my primary contention with bush is his fiscal policies, particularly the medicare drug bill... either way, that wasn't my point. my point is that conservative principles (in theory) are contrary to liberal principles (in theory) and the two will never meet. there will always be those on the left and those on the right with a bulk "swinging" in the middle. that's not to say the middle won't shift one way or another thereby redefining what is right and what is left. i was just getting at the point that there will always be "sides"... taks

ill-informed, ill-advised and generally immature beliefs about what it takes to make a country work. sorry to say, but the young crowd that spawns these beliefs just doesn't have the experience in life to know better, and the the old crowd that supports them is so out of touch with reality they're of no help either. fear of the apocalypse or whatever ill may befall our nation is easy fodder for a slick politician. we see too much of this, resulting in such a great "divide" according to some... oh well, taks

so, what, you're upset that they don't have the government dole like in europe? you mean, dangit, theyre actually going to have to WORK FOR A FREAKING LIVING! bummer, dude. i'd have never considered that option. in case you were wondering, go back and look at the numbers i posted... 82% of the burden is on the upper class, yet it was 78% when clinton was in office. exactly how much are we supposed to give the lower class? everything? just give them a free ride and hope for the best? taks

i retract what i said earlier, bush sr. did get over 50% of the vote... taks

no, it doesn't. it wants to protect itself. also, what difference is there from the world enforcing its will on us? that's a crock, phosphor. there's no "uniting" needed. nearly every election is a split and, oddly enough, this is the first time in a hundred years that one party has actually acheived 50%. furthermore, his "big industry special interests" are a myth, particularly compared to kerry-heinz. historically, the top 1% of the nation votes democratic (nearly all billionaires do). where's the link? taks

present in any society, btw. it's actually better in a capitalist society than any other, however. as it stands, one in 20 americans (or better) are millionaires. not a bad thing since it's one in 200 in europe. the US is paying for the contracts that are forced on drug companies overseas. the way it works is "charge a few pennies over cost or we'll violate your patents and make the drugs ourselves." not very free trade spirited, is it? anyway, it's hardly the US gov't's fault if the world thinks such policies are OK (when we do things like that it's baaaaad). as if there's a problem? we're one of the most religious nations on earth and also one of the most religiously diverse. get over it. government run education is typically a disaster. nothing new there. the more money we throw at it, the worse it gets. maybe money isn't the answer? (hint: it isn't). uh, safest country in the world to work in... OSHA anyone? kwinkidentally not nearly as bleak as environmentalists would lead us to believe... rhetoric rules this hot topic. are you worried he'll continue to ignore the whining from those that want the US weakened overall? given that he's received over 50% of the popular vote, hardly a problem. remember, part of the reason we're divided because he didn't receive it last time. 5 point lead is significant and 50% hasn't been acheived in a looooong time (not even clinton). these things indicate that maybe the divide wasn't as strong as kerry-edwards would have liked us to believe? furthermore, if you think that ANY president has a chance to "unite" the left with the right you're sorely mistaken. conservative principles are contrary to liberal principles period. taks

oh yeah, and what the rest of the world thinks of us is soooo important. let their social democracies bitch and whine and when the all start failing, maybe they'll figure it out (socialism of any form does NOT work). in spite of your rhetoric, the economy is doing quite well and now the stock market will actually reflect it. perhaps you'll figure it out some day, too... taks

they were unimpressed with my humor... something about "it's been a long day, just vote, please!" taks

we had young'uns doing the process where i voted. well, relatively young (a few were in their late teens, however). they asked me if it was my first time voting... i responded with "it is my first time today, why?" taks

uh, i said that... they're state representatives. but they are NOT voted on nationally. only the president is, which is precisely what we meant when we said "there is only one national vote." taks

this is precisely what colorado ballots look like. btw, before this turns into a "let's bash US voting methods" thread keep in mind one thing: in spite of the frenzied media coverage in florida for the 2000 election, the problems they had still fell under the stastical counting error of ANY form of popular vote. i.e. had ANY other state been subjected to as much scrutiny, we would have had the same problems there as well. it just so happened that florida is big and evenly split (nearly) so small swings had a big impact. taks

uh, hate to tell you but senate and house elections are state only, not national. folks in florida don't vote for colorado senators. they hold national offices, but they are state representatives. taks