It is a landslide, read your history buddy.

No, I think you're confused. The popular vote was split 51% to 48%. This is not a landslide. But by all means, enjoy whatever juvenile satisfaction you get from this. I hope the next four years are everything you hoped.

~Steve

Bush wins by a landslide

Which election were you watching? This wasn't a landslide by any stretch of the imagination.

And by the way, it won't make your signature any less ridiculous, but you'd look a little more intelligent if you fixed the "its."

~Steve

You don't? If mankind was inherently 'evil', the world would be much worse than it is today.

You know, I edited that out of my post when I realized that Creston was being sarcastic. I didn't claim anything about mankind's inherent evilness, only that it's pretty fucking obvious that we're not inherently good. If you're going to try and make that argument, you'll have to do way better. But please don't, it's a completely moot point and I seriously doubt you have anything substantive to put forth here.

Sure, we didn't find any WMDs, but Saddam was a WMD in his own way.

My, how poetic! Way to completely warp the terminology. You know, this all seems quite analogous to what Nietzsche was alluding to in writing about the man of intuition versus the man of concepts and abstractions in "On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense." But it's ok, I'm not going to get into it and I don't expect you to be interested.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Nov 3, 12:21.

Kerry doesn't have any real plans.. Why else would SNL make fun of that?

Sir, I am in awe of your brilliant powers of reasoning.

The level of discourse here is ridiculously low. I'm done, enjoy the wanking.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Nov 3, 12:07.

When you discuss the fall of morality, Creston, what morals do you speak of?

Surely it's those awful gays?

Unlike what a lot of you seem to believe, the entire PLANET is made up of around 50% people who prefer the conservative way, and 50% people who prefer the liberal way.

But this is deceptive. First, of course this cannot be said with much accuracy, but every indication has shown that the majority of the world did not want to see Bush re-elected, for whatever that's worth (nothing, I know). More importantly, what do you mean when you say conservative? Fiscal conservative? Social conservative? The people who should vote Democrat because of their economic situation are voting Republican because of their moral beliefs. Third, the Bush administration has been anything but conservative in the standard sense. That's why so many major conservative publications endorsed Kerry; Bush made a mockery of what a conservative president is supposed to be.

And again, I couldn't care less what x% of people think. A whole lot of people in this country, the "land of the free," thought that slavery was a good idea for quite some time. Does that mean that it was just? Plenty of Christians who considered themselves good, moral people owned slaves and treated them horribly. There was no excuse for that then just as there is now no excuse for bigotry, intolerance, or the desire to prevent certain groups from exercising their rights or to impose one's antiquated religious beliefs on everyone else.

~Steve
This comment was edited on Nov 3, 11:20.

Which, we might add, is the MINORITY VIEW, no matter how much spin you put on it. Oh no wait, it's the RIGHT view, and the rest of us are just stupid.

Creston, of course you're correct in a sense, but you all really need to stop reducing things so much. No, just because a majority of voters thinks something does not mean it's true. If the majority of voters in a state don't think gays should have rights, that doesn't mean that they aren't bigots or that their views are consistent with the principles of this nation.

If a majority of voters thinks that Iraq had WMDs, that doesn't make it true. If a majority of voters thinks that Saddam Hussein flew planes into the WTC, that doesn't make it true. etc.

But, as someone else said today,

With Bush's victory, truth has become officially irrelevant.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Nov 3, 11:06.

WHY DON'T YOU MOVE IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT???

Are you kidding? Because it's not feasible. I'm a student. Hopefully I'll be able to study abroad, away from this mess, but if not, I'm stuck here.

It's nice that you had such an easy time relocating, but for some who would like to, it's more difficult, and many others are torn between continuing to fight to save this country and abandoning ship.

What the country needs is a candidate that can win the support of moderates on both sides.

Yeah, and Bush has been a uniter, not a divider, just like he promised... right? And he's been a compassionate conservative, rather than flouting traditional conservative ideals and playing to religious extremists... right?

Sigh.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Nov 3, 10:57.

More people liked Bush than they liked Kerry.

Sure, look at it simply if that's easier for you. But the "why" here is going to prove significant, and I don't think the answers bode well for this country.

I was livid when the Yankees went to game seven a dead man walking, then I just shrugged and said, "Is it worth it?".

Right, because that's a totally analogous issue.

Is this what the people who thought Bush was morally superior to Kerry meant? Is it their Christian beliefs that living together out of wedlock is wrong and that gays are sick people that has decided this election?

Looks like that might be the case. Sad, sad, sad.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Nov 3, 10:44.

All the other news stations don't mention anything about that. But they bristle when you call them liberal media. Whatever keeps you happy, ABC/CNN/NBC.

No one wants to be seen as the network who calls the election too early, like in 2000. "Liberal media" has nothing to do with it. If you think the media is really that liberal, blah blah blah bridge to sell you blah blah.

~Steve

What a shame... People who voted for Bush are hurt by his economic policies. These people voted for him because they don't want women to be able to get abortions, they don't want gays to marry, they think we should be invading middle-eastern countries, and damn if they care about the facts of this administration's failure. Oh well. Go ahead, start a theocracy you dumb bastards. I'll be spending as much of the next four years in Europe as I can.

~Steve

How do you know the rest of the world overwhelmingly wants Kerry to win? Was there a global presidential vote that I missed?

As a matter of fact there was.

http://217.160.163.211/globalvote2004/

This is hardly the first time that this sentiment has been presented.

What makes you think Kerry will get ANYONE on board, let alone everyone?

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/008259.html

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004103122070002462667&dt=20041031220700&w=RTR&coview=

~Steve

This comment was edited on Nov 2, 14:53.

Must...resist...smartass remark...far...too easy.

Methinks you missed the point. Ahem.

Now that I'm quite a bit older, the breed I've quite taken a fancy to are the Wiener Dogs.

EDIT: "There's an old joke. Uh, two elderly women are at a Catskills mountain resort, and one of 'em says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know, and such small portions." Well, that's essentially how I feel about life. Full of loneliness and misery and suffering and unhappiness, and it's all over much too quickly."

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 30, 15:30.

Derrida and Foucault would be proud of Blue for realizing this. Makes me glad I'm male.

Reminds me of a great essay...

http://tinyurl.com/2lrk

RIP Derrida... Difference, differance, let's call the whole thing off.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 30, 15:23.

Do you remember the first time you was offered a cookie from a web site?

Yes, I remembers the first time a cookie were to me offered.

~Steve

So what's up with the chat then? As you can see I never got into the original.

The funny thing is how predictable it is. When someone dies, he'll yell "BS" or "wtf" and then make some stupid comment about how he shouldn't have died, like "shotguns don't have that kind of range!" If someone doesn't like you, he'll tell you you're gay or call you a faggot ad nauseum. If you get lots of headshots they'll tell you you're cheating or shout "aimbot!" If someone gets killed while defusing a bomb, or falls off a cliff and dies, or does something sort of funny but not really, ten people will say "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA" like it was the funniest shit they'd ever seen.

~Steve

No, but when the author can't even get the basic facts straight in the first couple paragraphs

I guess that depends on what you call "the basic facts." He seemed to have those down just fine. I'm not going to waste time arguing the specifics.

Nothing empty about it. Just because I wasn't specifically addressing you doesn't mean it's empty, does it? Are you that self-centered? Can I not make general comments in addition to specific ones? I didn't realize that was a restricted activity.

First, your attempts at wit and sarcasm are tiresome and add nothing to the discussion.

Second, it had nothing to do with comments being addressed to me -- your statement didn't say anything, hence it was empty. We were looking at a study which showed that on six separate issues, the majority of Bush supporters were wrong about Bush's positions while the majority of Kerry supporters were correct about his. I said, "Bush supporters don't know Bush's positions." You replied with: "Yeah, but you can say that about either candidate." Well, not on these issues, according to the numbers. Which issues were you talking about? What support were you using? None. The same study showed that Kerry supporters mis-perceive some of his positions as well, and I'm sure this is true on other issues. But the amount of misperception was clearly much heavier on the Bush side. On average, 71% of Kerry supporters correctly perceived his positions, while 38.5% of Bush supporters were correct about his. This is a significant disparity. You dismissing this fact by making a vague and unsupported statement about how it goes both ways doesn't make it true, and it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Anyway, I'm thoroughly sick of talking about the election with you. I won't reply to your posts on the subject in the future, and you can feel free to do the same to me.

~Steve

warhawk, I think we can all agree that the 2000 election was not the central point of that editorial. Calling it "biased" is rather meaningless - it's an editorial. Give up on the "you Democrats" crap. Nobody here wrote the article, and I don't see where the author stated a party affiliation.

I don't see how you can call it "just another hit piece on Bush" like it's part of some kind of smear campaign talking about the guy's fictional illegitimate children or something. It dealt with his record as well as Senator Kerry's record and made a perfectly reasonable case.

As for the rest "not being worth your time," I don't see how you figure that. The whole article is "mute" (moot) because you disagree about the handling of the 2000 election debacle? But I suppose it is your time after all. It seems that if you are still supporting Bush it would be well worth your time to consider. But I can't say I expected any different from someone with your attitudes.

EDIT:

Which clearly indicates I wasn't referring to the study you were looking at but was making a more general statement on the candidates.

You mean you were making an empty statement? I agree.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 26, 13:10.

Sad part is, that can be said about both candidates

Maybe, but that's not what this study showed.

~Steve

That was more of a blanket statement, yes, each side is individually wrong and right at times, unfortunately, both are telling their respective sides they are always right and the other side is always wrong, because it is easier, and people believe it.

I see what you're saying of course, but to be fair, it's not as if the study only showed what percentage of Bush supporters believed in disproven ideas, which it might have it were just trying to make them look bad. It also showed how many Kerry supporters were mistaken, which was sometimes a significant amount, though never a majority or nearly as large as the Bush number.

I feel like your objections are based more on how you think people will react to the report than the report itself, which is not unworthy of consideration, but it's still a different point.

Perhaps more disturbing than the WMD/Iraq/war misperceptions, however, is the percentage of Bush supporters who are wrong about his policies. They think their candidate represents their views, but he does not. And yet they'll still vote for him... isn't that wrong?

~Steve

All it is is yet another thing trying to divide the people on sides, simply because it is easier to have a side you believe is right and the other side is wrong.

Well, I guess, but if you believe that Iraq had an active WMD program or were behind 9/11, despite the evidence to the contrary, you *are* wrong, aren't you? That seemed to be the point. It didn't need any conclusions to paint the picture, and that picture doesn't seem to be a positive one of Bush supporters (not to be confused with Republicans), with or without the accompanying text.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Oct 25, 19:48.