President's Record

[Bob Gates]

Yo Dale.....

Story goes that in 1978 a guy named Jim Jones had a "church"(???) with a little over 900 members....They all packed up and went to Guyana in South America...creating a town name JonesTown...This of course was a cult with people being totally brainwashed by this guy. You know... anything he said they sucked it up as truth...gave him there 13 year daughters to be his "wife" etc...you get the picture...
There was an investigation into human rights violations so before he takes the fall they all drink....KOOL-AID...laced with cyanide...913 of them died.

Today in America we have alot of "Kool-Aid" drinkers....they believe ANYTHING they are told...they are weak minded (amoung other things) so it makes it easy to control them....Hell, they don't even know they are brainwashed

 

[oneness]

Bush won a clean sweep ? This just shows how close minded you people are. Did you all cow pokes even see the election ? Almost 50% of the voting public voted against the cowboy. For you dont understand people, that means 1/2 of the U.S. did not want Bush to be president. Are you not seeing this. Not to mention, the States with the highest probability of being attacked voted for Kerry.

I can only agree with CODY, God help us. I just hope, that next year or maybe in 2006 when we go to war with Iran/North Korea, that CaroliProWash, Clean County, crispy crittr, Dan S, Dave Olson, Everett, Mark, Michael T, Oldtimer, oneness, Scott Stone, SPOTLESS, squirtgun, Stan, Walt Graner are the first ones to strap on the ole camo and walk the walk.

Talk your Talk about who won, but 50% of this county (not only your country) voted against your rhetoric and your beliefs.

We will see.......

In the 1996 election, clinton won with only 43.3% of the popular vote. This means 56.7% of the public voted "against" him. Yet he still won. In 1996 he only got 50% of the vote, meaning the other 1/2 voted against him. In 1980, Reagan only got 50.7% of the vote...less than GW did in this election. So why is it when Bush gets 51% of the vote, it seemingly isn't good enough, or is so close that it really doesn't make much of a statement?

Talk your talk, but 51% of the vote is pretty damned good for any candidate.

As far as Dale's silly post about 25% of voters electing Bush, that's pretty typical...can't help the lazy and apathetic losers who won't register, or won't vote. I could say the same thing about Clinton in 1992...He only got 43.3% of the 55.2% of eligible voters who voted...Meaning 23.9% of eligible voters chose him... As for "one state hardly being unanimous" I don't know what that is supposed to mean...Bush carried many states...many more than Kerry.

In the past few years, it seems the people are speaking...CA elects a REPUBLICAN governor...The Republicans take back many seat in the House and Senate in 1998...They retake the White House in 2000, and after 4 years of what some call a fumbled Presidency, they RE-ELECT Bush to another 4 years, while increasing the Republican majority in both the House and the Senate. The South, a long-standing Democratic stronghold has fallen and went COMPLETELY for Bush...Like it or not, it appears things ARE changing.

 

[Dale Walkowsk]

In the 1996 election, clinton won with only 43.3% of the popular vote. This means 56.7% of the public voted "against" him. Yet he still won. In 1996 he only got 50% of the vote, meaning the other 1/2 voted against him. In 1980, Reagan only got 50.7% of the vote...less than GW did in this election. So why is it when Bush gets 51% of the vote, it seemingly isn't good enough, or is so close that it really doesn't make much of a statement?

Talk your talk, but 51% of the vote is pretty damned good for any candidate.

As far as Dale's silly post about 25% of voters electing Bush, that's pretty typical...can't help the lazy and apathetic losers who won't register, or won't vote. I could say the same thing about Clinton in 1992...He only got 43.3% of the 55.2% of eligible voters who voted...Meaning 23.9% of eligible voters chose him... As for "one state hardly being unanimous" I don't know what that is supposed to mean...Bush carried many states...many more than Kerry.

In the past few years, it seems the people are speaking...CA elects a REPUBLICAN governor...The Republicans take back many seat in the House and Senate in 1998...They retake the White House in 2000, and after 4 years of what some call a fumbled Presidency, they RE-ELECT Bush to another 4 years, while increasing the Republican majority in both the House and the Senate. The South, a long-standing Democratic stronghold has fallen and went COMPLETELY for Bush...Like it or not, it appears things ARE changing.

Oneness. You misread my post . I said 25% of the eligible voters...not those that actually voted. We'll never know their thoughts or preferences. But they are still part of this country lazy or not. So to imply that 51% of the American people chose Bush is simply innaccurate. Don't you agree?
And I'll stand by my evaluation of Bush not getting some sort of mandate.
Remember I only stated that this election was one of the closest.
Using your figures the difference between this election and Reagans is .3% thats 3 tenths of one percent. Thats good enough..I never said it wasn't..just pointing out that its not that unusal.My only point was that this was ONE of the closest...don't you agree. Don't spin/read into what I said any more than I actually said.
You're comparision to the numbers in Clintons election are right. That doesn't diminish the accuracy of my post.

In my mentioning "only one state" is also accurate. As its been pointed out we govern by the electoral college and not the number of states and it came down to one state. Don't you agree? How is this silly?

 

[onecallpowerw]

Just shows how little you know

The south has always and I mean always been a republican. Where in the world you ever received that information about the south being a democratic stonghold shows just how little you know about politics.

I said I would not comment on this thread any longer but that statement by ONENESS had to have a response.

For someone that talks the talk, how little you do know about the history of the south.

 

[Cody]

<font color=e87400>Henry - I believe that Ralph Nader has about as much integrity as any politician to date.

Oneness. Thanks for the personal attacks. <i>Trust me, we won't miss your kind"</i> I'm taking the high road & am reframing from saying what I would like to say. Please back-off on the personal attacks as they are beginning to annoy me & my tolerance is wearing thin! Thank You.

Others - Florida was a shoe in for Bush. Lots of Old religious retirees, lots of Redneck good ole boys, & lots of Space Program workers. Space workers were gauranteed Bush since rumor has it Kerry wants to dump the space program. But Nation wide, Retirees & good ole boys were a shoe in for Bush. which in the end won him the election.</font>

 

[oneness]

It didn't come down to "one state" simply because Ohio was the last state to be called for Bush...Bush won with, assumedly, 286 electoral votes. This means he surpassed the 270 requirement by 16...So you could just as easily say it came down to 5 states...MT, ND, SD, ID, and NE...That's 18 electoral votes which, had they gone to Kerry, would have won him the election. Many states could have gone either way, had more voters from either side turned out or not turned out...

As far as it being very close in the electoral college, yes it was. Not counting the 2000 election, which was even closer, the last time it was this close was 1916.

The only difference in the electoral college this time around from 2000 is that Iowa and New Mexico went for Kerry and New Hampshire went for Bush.

I still maintain that to say it came down to one state is silly. It came down to 50 states and DC...No one state carried the election for Bush...31 states carried the election for Bush.

 

[oneness]

Oneness. Thanks for the personal attacks. <i>Trust me, we won't miss your kind"</i> I'm taking the high road & am reframing from saying what I would like to say. Please back-off on the personal attacks as they are beginning to annoy me & my tolerance is wearing thin! Thank You.

Well, I surely wouldn't want to wear out your tolerance...though I meant what I said...We certainly won't miss the kind of people who are willing to leave the country if a particlar candidate is elected...You just fell into the same sad category with Affleck and Streisand (who of course DIDN'T leave when W was elected in 2000 as they "threatened".

The proper term is "Refraining".

 

[Dale Walkowsk]

It didn't come down to "one state" simply because Ohio was the last state to be called for Bush...Bush won with, assumedly, 286 electoral votes. This means he surpassed the 270 requirement by 16...So you could just as easily say it came down to 5 states...MT, ND, SD, ID, and NE...That's 18 electoral votes which, had they gone to Kerry, would have won him the election. Many states could have gone either way, had more voters from either side turned out or not turned out...

As far as it being very close in the electoral college, yes it was. Not counting the 2000 election, which was even closer, the last time it was this close was 1916.

The only difference in the electoral college this time around from 2000 is that Iowa and New Mexico went for Kerry and New Hampshire went for Bush.

I still maintain that to say it came down to one state is silly. It came down to 50 states and DC...No one state carried the election for Bush...31 states carried the election for Bush.

Scheese!!..Oneness..I'm agreeing with you. But in the real world it was not a hypothetical.." you could just as easily say"...thats spin. It wasn't 5 states...what was is at Ohio the "score" was 242-246...the ONE state that won it for Bush was Ohio. Why in the world do you feel it has to be more? as I stated 3 tenths of one percent is enough.

Do you find it odd that the regions that are most likely to get hit from a terrorist attack..in fact the one that actually started this whole thing NY and other cities on the east and west coast..also the ones who have a more direct contact with living on a daily basis with "liberal" ideas and gays etc. are the ones who voted for change?
This should interest people because I've heard it said often here that why should those people in Hollywood or new york tell us how to live or whats right to do......funny huh? should work both ways don't you think?

 

[oneness]

Scheese!!..Oneness..I'm agreeing with you. But in the real world it was not a hypothetical.." you could just as easily say"...thats spin. It wasn't 5 states...what was is at Ohio the "score" was 242-246...the ONE state that won it for Bush was Ohio. Why in the world do you feel it has to be more? as I stated 3 tenths of one percent is enough.

It isn't what I "feel"...it is simply how it is. My viewpoint on this appears to be different than yours...why do you feel yours has to be fact and mine has to be "spin"? You say it was Ohio that won it...I simply disagree...Ohio was just the last state called that put Bush over the top. Were it not for the provisional ballots there, it would have been called for Bush before several other states. Some states were way closer than Ohio, but without a large number of provisional ballots in those states, they were easy to call earlier. To say that Ohio won the election for Bush is to say that the other 30 states Bush won really don't count. They don't matter. It was the voice of Ohio that elected Bush. That's just silly.

Not sure what you mean by "what was is at Ohio the "score" was 242-246"...Without Ohio factored in, it would have been 252-264. Nor do I understand what you mean by 3/10 of 1 percent.

 

[Walt Graner]

It's over

It's nice when the quiet moral majority stands up and gets counted.
It's over folks now lets all stand behind the chosen leader of this great country.

 

[Dale Walkowsk]

It isn't what I "feel"...it is simply how it is. My viewpoint on this appears to be different than yours...why do you feel yours has to be fact and mine has to be "spin"? You say it was Ohio that won it...I simply disagree...Ohio was just the last state called that put Bush over the top. Were it not for the provisional ballots there, it would have been called for Bush before several other states. Some states were way closer than Ohio, but without a large number of provisional ballots in those states, they were easy to call earlier. To say that Ohio won the election for Bush is to say that the other 30 states Bush won really don't count. They don't matter. It was the voice of Ohio that elected Bush. That's just silly.

Not sure what you mean by "what was is at Ohio the "score" was 242-246"...Without Ohio factored in, it would have been 252-264. Nor do I understand what you mean by 3/10 of 1 percent.

Gotta agree with Walt on this.
I started out posting it was a fair election and Bush won.
I stated it was one of the closest elections making it fair from a mandate by the "American People".
When questioned about how I arrived at my conclusion I pointed out that of the 100% of eligible American People voters a little over 54% voted.
Of that 54%+- a little over 50% voted for Bush.
That makes Bush chosen by a little over 26% of the eligible American People voters. I agreed with Oneness' pointing out that using that method Clinton was elected by 26+% of Americans...thats right.
The 3 tenths of one percent reference was a comparision to the difference in number of voters that elected Reagan vs. Bush. I'll say it again and repeat my first post election post..he won..looks fair...3/10 % is enough.

 

[oneness]

I agreed with Oneness' pointing out that using that method Clinton was elected by 26+% of Americans...

Actually, if I recall correctly, it was 23% or so.

 

[Clean County]

Whats the difference about what % Bush won by or what % Kerry lost by. The bottom line is Bush WON and that is all that matters. Kerry gave it a go and he lost. Sometimes when one loses by such a small margin it can really hurt. This is the best way to win if your really competitive because it just kills the side that lost.

It was nice in the 80's when Reagan just trounced anyone who ran against him. It made for simpler times and most people benefited from Reagans leadership......I know I did when I was in Beriut back in 83 serving this great country.

I'll say this about President Bush....He's been a very capable leader who could have done a few things better but he sure knows how to surround himself with great people. We should all be so lucky to have this skill in business.

Support your president no matter what party you are registered with. Hopefully for the Democrats they can bring a better candidate to the table for the next go around. For there sake they better hope it isn't Hilllary because she alone will set the democrats way back and there party sure doesn't need that.

OK so what will the next controversial thread be

 

[Dale Walkowsk]

Whats the difference about what % Bush won by or what % Kerry lost by. The bottom line is Bush WON and that is all that matters. Kerry gave it a go and he lost. Sometimes when one loses by such a small margin it can really hurt. This is the best way to win if your really competitive because it just kills the side that lost.

It was nice in the 80's when Reagan just trounced anyone who ran against him. It made for simpler times and most people benefited from Reagans leadership......I know I did when I was in Beriut back in 83 serving this great country.

I'll say this about President Bush....He's been a very capable leader who could have done a few things better but he sure knows how to surround himself with great people. We should all be so lucky to have this skill in business.

Support your president no matter what party you are registered with. Hopefully for the Democrats they can bring a better candidate to the table for the next go around. For there sake they better hope it isn't Hilllary because she alone will set the democrats way back and there party sure doesn't need that.

OK so what will the next controversial thread be

I agree. It was one close one and Bush won fair and square.
Controversial threads are fun. I think it good exercise to questioned and have to defend your position so one knows what their views actulaay are.

The next one? hmm. it seems like the only controversial topics are politics or religion...maybe economics.....the dollar is crashing because we have a 7 trillion dollar debt and our money is not backed by anything but IOUs. How do we deal with it?

 

[Henry Bockman]

We get another president of course...LOL

Just kidding, I hate to see such an active post die out!

 

[oneness]

I hate to see such an active post die out!

Yeah, 316 posts in a thread about politics/religion, and no one got killed or even threatened! Cool!

 

[Dan S]

Okay all you voters It's test time:

What is provisional ballets?

What is electro ballets?

And where and how does the public vote count?

And could you pick a Vice Presdident and a different Vise Presdient
They run together but what if you wanted Bush and not Cheney? > Kerry and not Edwards.

Wonder why you could not Vote for one of each?

 

[oneness]

Okay all you voters It's test time:

What is provisional ballets?

If there's a problem with a person's registration to vote, or if they don't show up on the voter rolls, they can cast a provisional ballot. These aren't counted unless the margin of victory for the winner is less than the number of provisional ballots. I have no idea how they verify that the person casting the provisional ballot is actually a registered voter, or that they haven't already voted in other precinct.

What is electro ballets?

I think you mean electoral votes...each state has a certain number of electoral votes, which is actually what elects the President. A state has 1 electoral vote for each person in Congress...Meaning no state will have less than three votes (1 for each senator, and 1 for each House Representative...some states only have one member in the House). Each party selects electors who are chosen from party faithful based on the majority of the votes in each state...If the Republican candidate wins that state, then the Republican electors are sent to go vote for President.

And where and how does the public vote count?

Only state by state. The Nationwide public vote means nothing. It is even possible for a Republican elector to cast his vote for the Democratic candidate, or vice-versa...thus the reason the party picks the electors from the party faithful. If 17 Bush electors cast their vote for Kerry, Kerry is the new President. That's what folks were worried about in 2000...if a few Republican electors felt GW had stolen the election and cast their vote for Gore, Gore would be the winner.

And could you pick a Vice Presdident and a different Vise Presdient
They run together but what if you wanted Bush and not Cheney? > Kerry and not Edwards.

Wonder why you could not Vote for one of each?

We don't technically vote for VP, as far as I understand it. There's no way to vote for, say, Bush/Edwards or Kerry/Cheney...

 

[Dale Walkowsk]

LOL. I guess religion can't be questioned. My new thread was killed before it started. Kinda predictable...if it scares you kill it.

 

[oneness]

I'm not scared...what's your post? Just use this thread to continue it on...I can't imagine why Mark would kill a thread like that, provided it was in good taste and wasn't too insulting to anyone. Mark?