Reasons Why People Voted Bush

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

American Voters Explain Why They Voted Bush

Warning, scary religious nutters views are represented there.

Stunman, Friday, 5 November 2004 02:53 (twenty years ago)

OK I JUST POSTED THIS!

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:56 (twenty years ago)

Sorry Ally. But maybe others will have missed it too!

Stunman, Friday, 5 November 2004 02:57 (twenty years ago)

Xiu Xiu speaks!

I voted for Bush, so that he can clean up all his mess during his second term. No-one else should be made responsible for all his folly and self-disillusioned war on terror. The only war that the world needs to fight is to eradicate poverty, diseases, genocide, atrocity and many unjust situations in many parts of the world. These are the real terrors that breeds human terrorists. Go to the roots of the cause. Don't try to be a fool to treat symptoms of these terrors.
Jaime Stuart

lysander spooner, Friday, 5 November 2004 03:03 (twenty years ago)

I voted for Bush because I am ProLife and against gay marriage. Bush stands more for these issues than does the Democratic Party.
David Schultz, Fenton, Iowa, USA

Isn't that country full of guns? Why hasn't one been used against this whackjob?

Adamdrome Crankypants (Autumn Almanac), Friday, 5 November 2004 03:06 (twenty years ago)

http://therices.typepad.com/brutally_honest/images/Desperados-X.gif

Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Friday, 5 November 2004 03:07 (twenty years ago)

I should note that the second sentence of Schultz's post is, in fact, perfectly accurate and impossible to argue against.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 November 2004 03:08 (twenty years ago)

It never ceases to amaze me that people think their biggotry to be more important than their personal well-being financially, health and safety-wise.

Of course they somehow think that pissing off the muslum world some more is going to make us safer, so they don't really seem to have a good grasp on the reasons behind terrorism to start with.

trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Friday, 5 November 2004 03:43 (twenty years ago)

muslim even

trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Friday, 5 November 2004 03:44 (twenty years ago)

I should note that the second sentence of Schultz's post is, in fact, perfectly accurate and impossible to argue against.

Yes. It's also blindingly obvious.

Adamdrome Crankypants (Autumn Almanac), Friday, 5 November 2004 03:50 (twenty years ago)

Yes, but it seems to have been ignored by many in terms of, you know, *why* certain people voted the way they did.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 November 2004 03:53 (twenty years ago)

The really sad thing is that, other than on the gay marriage and abortion issues, none of the reasons anyone gave are actually true.

Hurting (Hurting), Friday, 5 November 2004 03:55 (twenty years ago)

I voted for Bush because I will not have Bruce Springsteen, Gerhard Schroeder, Osama Bin Laden and Michael Moore telling me who to vote for. The world will respect Americans more because they have elected a strong leader and did not succumb to our enemies' demands for electing Kerry who would be more likely to appease terrorists and America haters then Bush.
Peter Sosniak, New York

FIGHT THE REAL ENEMY...GERHARD SCHROEDER.

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Friday, 5 November 2004 03:56 (twenty years ago)

Abortion and gay marriages =>less cannon fodder.

estela (estela), Friday, 5 November 2004 03:56 (twenty years ago)

"I voted for Bush because I will not have Bruce Springsteen, Gerhard Schroeder, Osama Bin Laden and Michael Moore telling me who to vote for"

I hope Bruce Springsteen, Gerhard Schroeder, Osama Bin Laden, and Michael Moore tell this guy NOT to kill himself.

Hurting (Hurting), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:00 (twenty years ago)

telling me who to vote for

I've discovered a new pet hate - people who think that appealing for votes equal telling them what to do. Rove, Vincent Gallo and the shock jocks 'told' you who to vote for too! (breaks into sobs)

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:00 (twenty years ago)

He is a good man with clarity in his beliefs, and he sets a good example for my children. God Bless President Bush.
Carrie, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

*cough*
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/w1nt3rmut3/animatedbush.gif

trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:14 (twenty years ago)

1. Strong on defence
2. Strong on moral values
3. Staunch supporter of economic freedom for all Americans and freedom for all nations
4. Decisive and unambiguous
5. Will take care of North Korea's and Iran's nuclear arms ambitions
6. Will never sign the Kyoto insane Protocol
7. Didn't forget Poland!!!
I have flown six thousand miles (from Poland) just to re-elect him. I shall do the same for Condi Rice!
Miek Kondracki, American in Poland

(I wish)

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:19 (twenty years ago)

http://www.youforgotpoland.com/video.html

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:27 (twenty years ago)

Pan Kondracki:

If other Poles were like you, our motherland would still be crawling with Russian and German soldiers. Tadeusz Kosciuszko is rolling in his grave, and Marshal Pilsudski spits on you from the great beyond.

Eisbär, Polish-American from New Jersey who voted proudly for Kerry.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:29 (twenty years ago)

You wouldn't be crawling with BOTH Russian and German soldiers, let's be serious here for a second.

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:31 (twenty years ago)

Do we not send Polish-Americans absentee ballots?

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:32 (twenty years ago)

One thing thats really bugged me about this whole moral bulltwang: am I wrong here, or is it common (and proven) knowledge he has at some point used illegal drugs? I mean Hunter S Thompson saying he passed out in his bathtub is all well and good but has it ever been proven and accepted that yeah, in the 70s he was a coke fiend or whatever?

Cuz if so, why the fuck are all these upstanding niceyniceys voting for a drughead? I DONT GET THAT.

Trayce (trayce), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:32 (twenty years ago)

Hasn't he kind of under the table admitted that himself?

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:33 (twenty years ago)

Someone should tell Mr Kondracki he can vote by post. (x-post)

Didn't know where to put this, and it was gett ing heavy:

Forget red vs. blue states -- it was more like purple

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:33 (twenty years ago)

Yeah thats what I thought! And yet no one used that against him, no one said "well you know guys btw this man has snorted coke".

xpost

Trayce (trayce), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:34 (twenty years ago)

Well he's accepted Jesus into his heart now, so it's all good.

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:34 (twenty years ago)

What? Where did that come from! That wasn't what I wanted to post!

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:35 (twenty years ago)

MAN TIHS REAdING SHIT IS HURTIN MY I'S, JESUS DO U HAVE ANY COKEAINE?

http://getreligion.typepad.com/getreligion/bushjesus.jpg

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:36 (twenty years ago)

Hm here we go, found one source:

During his 2000 presidential campaign there were persistent questions about a history of cocaine use. Eventually Bush denied using cocaine since 1992, then quickly extended the cocaine-free period back to 1974 (age 28). NBC reporter David Bloom then noted "that current White House appointees must disclose any drug use since their 18th birthday" [12]. Bush, however, refused to make a disclosure, instead admitting he'd made mistakes in the past, and if voters didn't like that "they can go find somebody else to vote for. That's the wonderful thing about democracy" [12].

(from http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/g43.htm#7 and I have no idea what kind of site that is)

Trayce (trayce), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:36 (twenty years ago)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3984237.stm

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:36 (twenty years ago)

1992??? He was like in his 40s then wasn't he? WTF?

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:37 (twenty years ago)

I know! And I love this "Bush, however, refused to make a disclosure, instead admitting he'd made mistakes in the past, and if voters didn't like that "they can go find somebody else to vote for. That's the wonderful thing about democracy""

W T FFFFFFF

Trayce (trayce), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:37 (twenty years ago)

You wouldn't be crawling with BOTH Russian and German soldiers, let's be serious here for a second.

actually, during the great partition (approx. 1790-1918), poland was partitioned and occupied by russia, germany, and austria.

Cuz if so, why the fuck are all these upstanding niceyniceys voting for a drughead? I DONT GET THAT.

'cause when you've been "born again," EVERY SHITTY THING YOU'VE EVER DONE is forgiven by the other "born agains" (insert some rubbish about "the blood of Christ wiping yer slate clean" or something like that). it's the ultimate "get out of jail free" card for bible-thumping morons!

Eisbär (llamasfur), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:38 (twenty years ago)

Tad, I KNOW that but what I'm saying is that there's no way that would STILL be occurring, do you see?

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:38 (twenty years ago)

You wouldn't be crawling with BOTH Russian and German soldiers, let's be serious here for a second.

-- Allyzay Science Explosion (allyza...), November 5th, 2004.

the western half would be crawling with germans, the eastern half with russians. there's plenty of poland for everyone!

amateur!!st, Friday, 5 November 2004 04:38 (twenty years ago)

1992??? He was like in his 40s then wasn't he? WTF?

He was getting some good shit from Jose Canseco.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:39 (twenty years ago)

JESUS HAD A MULLET?!?

Eisbär (llamasfur), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:39 (twenty years ago)

ok duh xpost

amateur!!st, Friday, 5 November 2004 04:39 (twenty years ago)

(maybe THAT'S the secret to his red-state appeal! does he listen to foghat and van halen and drive around in a camaro, too?)

Eisbär (llamasfur), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:40 (twenty years ago)

dude, I do that, shut up.

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:42 (twenty years ago)

no wonder yer roomie is so fucked-up hostile!

Eisbär (llamasfur), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:43 (twenty years ago)

Didn't you read my link? Bush has a new dog! And it's called Miss Beazley! Girly-man! And it'll probably shit everywhere!

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:43 (twenty years ago)

his ex-sister-in-law (i think) says he did coke at camp david when George the First was in office

Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:52 (twenty years ago)

It's a proven fact that "moral values" was a code word for "against gay marriage" in this election. Get with it guys.

Hurting (Hurting), Friday, 5 November 2004 04:57 (twenty years ago)

Just wait until the tories go in this route and gets the Daily Mail behind it.
Theres an article on the BBC site somewhere about a christian party that gains more votes each time theres an election. If someone comes across it please post the link as I cannot find it.

Stunman, Friday, 5 November 2004 08:23 (twenty years ago)

I really can't see this being a problem in the UK. We don't have the same type of fundamentalist Christianity here, for a start. The US religious right hasn't just come from nowhere - it has been a powerful political force fr some time, waiting for someone to harness it. Britain is much less religious than the US, and the average voter doesn't have much time for religious 'nuts', as they would see them. There are groups like the Christian Coalition, but they get squat really (even if they get more votes each election, that doesn't really mean anything. As much as I would like it to be the case, the fact that the Scottish Socialist Party do better with each election doesn't mean we are a powerful political force - and we have elected representatives). Politics, religion and culture are just too different in the UK for this to be a problem. It's worth keeping a lazy eye on, but if such a force does develop, it won't be hard to spot coming.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 5 November 2004 08:32 (twenty years ago)

I thought you scots had a big religious thing going on up there? (or is that just a Celtic V Rangers thing (which is something i dont understand , so pardon my ignorance with these questions)

I seem to remember the catholic and protestent churches uniting over Section 28.
Every uk election gets more americanised so perhaps the uk will slowly go that way.

Stunman, Friday, 5 November 2004 08:37 (twenty years ago)

I really can't see this being a problem in the UK. We don't have the same type of fundamentalist Christianity here, for a start. The US religious right hasn't just come from nowhere - it has been a powerful political force fr some time, waiting for someone to harness it. Britain is much less religious than the US, and the average voter doesn't have much time for religious 'nuts', as they would see them

they are here they are growing, just google for howard conder, mathew ashimolowo, golbert deya, peniel church. I witnessed one of these fucks threaten to disembowel one of my bosses this week. Every day and every way they are getting more money swaying more people. Tony Blair has even given control of schools to people like these fucks, flat earthers, anti-choicers, evolution denyers. They are out there in Britain and they must be fought.

Ed (dali), Friday, 5 November 2004 09:03 (twenty years ago)

Just to let you know, as someone who voted for Bush in 2000 and, up until almost two years ago was a real fan of Rush Limbaugh's, the reason why so many people turn to that way of thinking, this really ultra-rightist ideology, is because it's far easier to think in those terms than it is to really reflect and think critically of the issues that face the U.S., both domestically and internationally. I myself found it way less complicated to view the world in clear-cut "Us vs. Them" (or black and white) terms than to really reflect upon the paradox of having nations who adore the U.S. when it comes to pop culture, long-distance friendships, etc., but who hate its government, and in fact fear the U.S. for its global influence. I didn't even consider how influential we are as a nation on a global scale until this forum really exposed this truth to me on a daily basis.

Also, when you're really into the whole "ditto, Rush!" mindset, you tend to look at the people who are supposedly "against" you -- foreigners, Democrats, atheists, etc. -- as being this one huge caricature, this leftover from the hippie granola era who is all peace and happiness toward the U.S.'s enemies but who fights the U.S. every step of the way, regardless of the scenario, because this being, this caricature is supposed to hate the U.S., loathe its existence with everything it's got, work toward destroying the U.S. The stereotype is shown as giving away America's power through "compromise" and "peace" while perhaps not-so-secretly cheering on the formation of this One Giant, Godless Global Socialist Empire. I've since come to understand that this is not the case with about 95% of those individuals whose politics clash[ed] so very much with mine.

I also tend to think that maybe the so-called "religious right" are that way in the U.S., also because it's easier for them to view things in purely black or white, instead of through shades of grey, and that's really sad, because if they were to pay close attention to the teachings of Jesus the Lord, they would see that he himself did not advocate looking at sin in those terms, that he wanted first and foremost for people to treat each other humanely and that he advocated not following rules and regulations if following them led to denying someone, anyone, their humanity. See, for example, the story of the woman at the well, or the story of that tax collector who climbed a tree just to take a look at Jesus.

Anyway, it makes me sad that the religious right are forgetting these lessons and relying on outdated regulations outlined by a God overseeing an agrarian and almost barbaric society some several thousand years ago. It also makes me sad that the people who'd view everyone who frequents this forum as an "enemy" are blinding themselves to just how wonderful and great so many of you actually are, and how we all share common hopes and dreams and aspirations and that we all, as fellow human beings spending our lives on planet Earth, basically need the same things. We need food, water, air, land, support systems, friends, shelter, and a means to get it all.

Um... that's it as far as my $0.40 goes.

Accept No Substitutes (Dee the Lurker), Friday, 5 November 2004 09:05 (twenty years ago)

Okay, at least I have the slightest clue where the vatican is coming from.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 5 November 2004 12:58 (twenty years ago)

This might be revealing for some of you

Could someone with a blogger account please log onto that and argue his points? I just tried and I can't sign on.

The main thing I want to know is if the UN goes, what the fuck is going to replace it? Surely as a "democrat" he doesn't believe the answer is "SUPER-AMERICA"?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Friday, 5 November 2004 13:21 (twenty years ago)

It never ceases to amaze me that people think their biggotry to be more important than their personal well-being financially, health and safety-wise.

in the short run, their 'bigotry' is marginally more important to their personal well-being than the other stuff

gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 5 November 2004 14:04 (twenty years ago)

Some interesting tables here:

Average income per state, with state election outcome

State average IQ, together with election result

Not so sure you can working out the avarage IQ of a state, though the guy who made the table did explain how he got his figures.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Friday, 5 November 2004 14:10 (twenty years ago)

Also (yes yes, we already know this, but I fear it may have been forgotten in anger):


Not all christians are bigots

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Friday, 5 November 2004 15:13 (twenty years ago)

An excellent link there, Steve.n. This part in particular:

However, there are many Christians who are not necessarily bigots, but have been taught, trained, and just absolutely indoctrinated in their teaching, but who can be reminded that being a good Christian means loving everybody, instead of preaching hate. We need to reach out to these people and remind them to look to the Gospel to learn what it means to be a good Christian.

And if that isn't a good counteraction to all the 'dismiss them all unreservedly' hoohah going around, I don't know what is. The key point is addressed -- TALK with them rather than shout.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 November 2004 15:17 (twenty years ago)

From that blog post Don linked to:

"Just because it says something in the Bible doesn't mean there are no ancillary arguments supporting it. And just because someone uses the Bible as a source of their morality doesn't mean that any particular view of theirs is wrong. Actually, stuff that's lasted for thousands of years is more likely to be useful than stuff that was dreamed up in a French philosophy book."

AGEIST!

And DREAMED UP! Oh, wait, though - it's a FRENCH Philosophy book. That's OK, then.

Next thing you know, we'll be able to politely justify Bill Kristol's wretched off-the-cuff comment about the media's "strange obsession" with Abu Gharib. (Maybe he said "unecessary obsession", I can't recall, but still.)

David R. (popshots75`), Friday, 5 November 2004 15:21 (twenty years ago)

IQ is bullshit.

k3rry (dymaxia), Friday, 5 November 2004 15:21 (twenty years ago)

Yes I agree with you k3rry.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Friday, 5 November 2004 15:23 (twenty years ago)


What's funny is that I just got an e-mail saying that people with 'some college' or 'more college' voted for Bush. So lots of people with 'low IQ's are going to college. :)

k3rry (dymaxia), Friday, 5 November 2004 15:25 (twenty years ago)

I always like reading these demographic breakdowns

k3rry (dymaxia), Friday, 5 November 2004 15:26 (twenty years ago)

Actually, you're wrong about that.
During World War II, Germany extended its "borders" west halfway into Poland, while Russia expanded it's "borders" eastward halfway until Germany and the Soviet Union met in the middle. End Result: a magic trick! Yaaay! Let's make Poland "Dissappear"! While that was going on, That land WAS crawling with BOTH Russian and German troops. Sure, the Germans all got killed eventually, but for awhile they were there.

OK HI DUMBASSES I AM AWARE OF THIS FACT, AS IS THE ENTIRE KNOWN WORLD ABOVE THE AGE OF, SAY, 12. WHEN GERMANY ATTACKED RUSSIA, THIS WAS KIND OF OUT THE WINDOW. HENCE MAKING THE IDEA THAT POLAND WOULD STILL BE CRAWLING WITH RUSSIANS AND GERMANS ERRONEOUS, SINCE THEY REFUSED TO GET ALONG FOR MORE THAN 2 YEARS. PLEASE NOTE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE USE OF THE WORD "STILL" REPEATEDLY IN THIS REALLY ASININE AND STUPID CONVERSATION.

Jesus people pick up a damn history book already.

(Tad this isn't directed towards you since you were making a flipping joke)

What is "some college" versus "more college"???

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Friday, 5 November 2004 15:45 (twenty years ago)

ideal kerry voter: single twentysomething unemployed black jewish female atheist lesbian postgrad urbanite

= zadie smith (okay not really)(also not american)

m. (mitchlnw), Friday, 5 November 2004 15:54 (twenty years ago)

(btw i am 7 of those things. hmmm.)

m. (mitchlnw), Friday, 5 November 2004 15:58 (twenty years ago)

x-post: that was a typo, i meant 'college degree'. it's too early for me.

k3rry (dymaxia), Friday, 5 November 2004 15:59 (twenty years ago)

The IQ link is an Internet hoax that went around after the 2000 elections.

don weiner, Friday, 5 November 2004 16:09 (twenty years ago)

No, if you follow the link, it says Bush and Kerry tied among all college graduates. Bush won only the 'college graduate' category that is distinguished from a 'post-graduate' category, which latter Kerry won by more than 10 points.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 5 November 2004 16:12 (twenty years ago)

(xp)

gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 5 November 2004 16:12 (twenty years ago)

"Whether the Democrats want to admit it or not had there been a Democrat president in office at the time the most he would have done is throw a few harsh words at Osama and then would have forgot the whole thing happened.
John, St Paul, US"

Replace "harsh words" with "tons of air-to-ground ordinance" and you have what is exactly Bush's Get Bin Laden strategy (or, for that matter, what most likely would have been exactly Gore's Get Bin Laden strategy, although I like to hope in my heart of hearts that Al Gore would've at least not invaded Iraq until AFTER confirming Bin Laden captured/dead).

nickalicious (nickalicious), Friday, 5 November 2004 16:14 (twenty years ago)

or indeed, while we're talking hypotheticals, not invaded iraq at all.

m. (mitchlnw), Friday, 5 November 2004 16:18 (twenty years ago)

What weirds me out the most about those comments is the number of Bush supporters who use language straight out of the Bush campaign manual. Bush has a "strong moral compass." Bush is "resolute." I don't remember ever hearing someone described as resolute before a couple of months ago. Is it that the Bush campaign was best able to articulate what it is his supporters like about him or that many of his supporters didn't know what to say when asked why they liked about him until they were supplied with soundbites?

Graeme (Graeme), Friday, 5 November 2004 16:18 (twenty years ago)

gabbneb, I think you're misunderstanding my point.

I'm having a hard time following all of the threads on ilx, but there does seem to be a lot of smug sentiment around here that 'educated' people are not to blame for any of this.

Or has ilx gotten so bad that even a college degree doesn't count as 'educated' anymore?

k3rry (dymaxia), Friday, 5 November 2004 16:20 (twenty years ago)

Yes, from now on let's concetrate on Europe and doctrinal Catholic idiocy as opposed to evangelical Protestant idiocy!
Actually, it was an apparent behind the scenes, last-minute push from the Catholics that finally won Bush the 4 million voters he needed.

Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Friday, 5 November 2004 16:37 (twenty years ago)

resolute = pig headed

Ed (dali), Friday, 5 November 2004 16:40 (twenty years ago)

"Just because it says something in the Bible doesn't mean there are no ancillary arguments supporting it. And just because someone uses the Bible as a source of their morality doesn't mean that any particular view of theirs is wrong. Actually, stuff that's lasted for thousands of years is more likely to be useful than stuff that was dreamed up in a French philosophy book."

Now that IS stupid.

Soon Over Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 5 November 2004 16:48 (twenty years ago)

The Backseat Philosopher makes a good enough general point (that lots of other people are making) which is that Dems need to listen to the people who are voting Republican and try to understand where they're coming from. However, when he gets to specifics, I think he fails to come up with anything concrete and relevant:

The UN - Kerry never said we should delegate decisions to the UN. He made it clear that he thinks the UN is flawed.

Casualties being unacceptable - I don't recall Kerry ever making the point that a certain number of casualties is unacceptable. He has stated that the president should be able to use military force if necessary.

No pre-emption - Kerry maintained that we do have the right of pre-emption.

States allowed to define marriage - Kerry supported this.

Drawing a line on where human life starts - Kerry's not opposed to this, he just doesn't think that the line should be drawn at conception.

Just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it's wrong - Obviously, who would disagree with this?

Maybe there are specific arguments that the Dems aren't hearing, but they're not the ones that the Backseat Philosopher listed.

o. nate (onate), Friday, 5 November 2004 16:54 (twenty years ago)

Actually, stuff that's lasted for thousands of years is more likely to be useful than stuff that was dreamed up in a French philosophy book.

No it's not!!! GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

oops (Oops), Friday, 5 November 2004 16:56 (twenty years ago)

define useful though

oops (Oops), Friday, 5 November 2004 16:56 (twenty years ago)

What stuff and what philosophy book? The "French" part outs the Backseat Philosopher as a Republican, obviously.

Soon Over Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 5 November 2004 16:58 (twenty years ago)

Is there a specific logical fallacy that addresses the "old=better" thing?

oops (Oops), Friday, 5 November 2004 17:00 (twenty years ago)

The same argument does not appear to hold for "Old" Europe

Soon Over Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 5 November 2004 17:01 (twenty years ago)

I don't know - it's just the basis for conservative ideas as a whole. Ways of living, ideas, systems that are older (and have therefore not failed\been disproved) are seen as more stable,

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 5 November 2004 17:02 (twenty years ago)

But but but this guy is a "Democrat"! Waaap waaap waaaap waaaaaaaaaaah

Soon Over Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 5 November 2004 17:03 (twenty years ago)

I disagree with many of his policies and would not have voted for him except for the fact that I am sick and tired of these people telling me that I am not smart enough to figure out for myself what is right and what is wrong.

too stupid to vote

stevie (stevie), Friday, 5 November 2004 17:05 (twenty years ago)

Spite voting: Dud or How do you get dressed in the morning???

oops (Oops), Friday, 5 November 2004 17:08 (twenty years ago)

gabbneb, I think you're misunderstanding my point.

I wasn't addressing your point. I was, as usual, being an annoyingly aggressive fact-checking pedant.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 5 November 2004 17:18 (twenty years ago)

Barney Frank came up with some good points:

Democrats, he said, should continue to point out GOP faults and hold the party accountable to the people.
"Our job will be to point out [the bad policy decisions] and say, 'Look, this is what you get,'" he said.
Reached at his home minutes after Senator John Kerry delivered his concession speech, Frank said now that Republicans have ultimate government control of Congress and the Presidency, the nation will be truly tested on whether they approve of Bush's policies.
"I think a large part of the public likes the conservatives' theme music," he said. "Now they will be tested on whether they like the lyrics."
As to what Kerry supporters will do now, Frank said it was too early to tell.
"Some will be energized," some won't, he said. "What can you do about it?"

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 November 2004 17:19 (twenty years ago)

"I think a large part of the public likes the conservatives' theme music," he said. "Now they will be tested on whether they like the lyrics."

I like this metaphor.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 5 November 2004 17:21 (twenty years ago)

Rockist.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 November 2004 17:22 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, I guess Scotty Dog ownrship is the only reason I can think of. I have a scotty dog, they are cool, please don't judge me too harshly.

jel -- (jel), Friday, 5 November 2004 17:32 (twenty years ago)

Actually, stuff that's lasted for thousands of years is more likely to be useful than stuff that was dreamed up in a French philosophy book.

Like, you know, Rosseau, Voltaire, de Montesquieu...all that annoying shit our founding fathers had a nodding acquaintance with.

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Friday, 5 November 2004 17:41 (twenty years ago)

I think we can guess what side Bush/ Rumsfeld etc would have been on in 1776

Soon Over Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 5 November 2004 17:43 (twenty years ago)

What about non-existent people who voted for Bush?

k3rry (dymaxia), Friday, 5 November 2004 19:23 (twenty years ago)

Hey, before we start pointing fingers, maybe we should try to ENGAGE the imaginary Republicans. :)

briania (briania), Friday, 5 November 2004 19:53 (twenty years ago)

Maybe we shouldn't expect to have the result on the same day as the election. Maybe it would be a good idea to VERIFY the voting, and report the results later. I know I wouldn't mind waiting.

dave225 (Dave225), Friday, 5 November 2004 20:01 (twenty years ago)

steel cage match, one on one. the only fair way.

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Friday, 5 November 2004 20:07 (twenty years ago)

Maybe you shouldn't have such a big country. Only bad things can come from it. Go EU!

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Friday, 5 November 2004 20:10 (twenty years ago)

the eagle spread its mighty wings
and pounced upon its prey
and all the skies
so brilliant blue
turned suddenly to grey
the cherished things
are perishing
and buried in their tombs
there is no hope
no reasoning
this rainy day in... november?

m. (mitchlnw), Friday, 5 November 2004 20:27 (twenty years ago)

haha that was meant to go in the other window, the one that said "relevant lyrics for post-election malaise". but maybe i like it better here.

m. (mitchlnw), Friday, 5 November 2004 20:28 (twenty years ago)

My favorite.

I voted for Bush to usher in the complete and utter destruction of the United States. Sometimes, you just have to tear it all down and start over again. No one will destroy America faster than Bush. Go Bush!
Tim, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Adam Bruneau (oliver8bit), Friday, 5 November 2004 20:59 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.