# US Election Polls: Put up or Shut up!



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Rather than arguing about polls, here's your chance to predict the election. We then can look back on Nov 3rd and see who got it right first. No prizes will be awarded except glory and bragging rights.

I'm no expert but to get the ball rolling, here's my stab in the dark:

President: John Kerry
His popular vote: 53%


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

FN, I can't tell you how much I hope you are correct, in that this would make for a true decision on the part of the US electorate. Sadly, if I would have to predict (even though I voted for Kerry in Georgia), from what I have been reading, short of a last minute miracle, it shall be Kerry with 51% of the popular vote and Bush as president.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I officially predict all the pollsters will be stunned and Kerry will have a decisive victory with about 57% of the vote. 

Many will have totally underestimated the large turnout of voters who didn't vote in the last election but voted this time to oust Bush who weren't included in any Gallop polls because they weren't considered "likely voters." 

I also predict that I will rub this in Macnutts face hard... I left him off easy with the Canadian Federal election but not this one.







I'm willing to have my face rubbed in it if I'm wrong.. but I won't be.  

Bush is history. Print it out.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Too close to call at this point with so many variables...... my gut says *"contested election result"*


----------



## Tonto (Feb 9, 2004)

You're right there, it IS too close to call.

My bet is on Kerry... just!

Whether he can pull the world together is anybody's guess, but he's gotta be better than Dubya!


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

I agree it’s way to close to really and I think that it will be contested . However I will predict a Bush win with 51% of the popular vote. 

But more to the point Bush will get 275 electoral college votes, and that’s what counts..


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

My inherent cynicism tells me that Bush is going to edge out Kerry, but then who can say for certain? Maybe enough apathetic voters will show up at the polls and decide that their vote indeed does count for something.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

ditto pg.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmmmph seems I started a stampede of bet hedging....


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Don't worry, if it get's too close Tom Ridge will be making a public information announcement......

"Dear Democrat voters, we have become aware of a non-specified threat by Al Qaeda against registered Democrats and undecided Republicans. We strongly advise you to remain indoors with the radio and TV set off on election day. We expect the problem to resolve itself 24 hours later and you will be free to run around the streets, enlist in our armed forces or claim your social security freebies."


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Barring any shenanigans in Florida, I predict Kerry by a nose.


----------



## kermit (Oct 9, 2004)

If dubbya still has the connections in Florida that fixed the last election for him, he may still have a chance.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ehMax, I REALLY hope that you are correct, and I REALLY hope that Macdoc is incorrect. I want a strong Kerry victory. If Bush wins, as Stinand states, it's the electoral count that matters and I don't want a repeat of 2000.

However, as Jim predicts, re a threat to Democratic voters, an even more frightening possibility is that the election is "postponed". I don't think that Bush would dare do this, but imagine if Cheney became president in the next two weeks due to an unforeseen death of Bush?? I fear Cheney far more than Bush.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I agree with Posterboy - Kerry will squeak in. Amidst allegations of voting irregularity and a rising tide of civil unrest in America... it's already really crazy down there and I seriously fear for the situation should the count be extremely close.

I've never seen such unrest and division in America... not as an adult, anyway. It's like they're smelling blood and don't care if they rip one another apart. I like to hang at MacCentral's lounge forum and it's resembled an armed camp lately... an atmosphere thoroughly poisoned by political bashings from both miserable polarities.

Whatever happens, I hope Americans find some sense of unity. What's happening now among the electorate - never mind the circus running the show - is sheer spectacle.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Max, you might not have been around in 1968 as an adult. The entire world was in turmoil. I was a delegate for Eugene McCarthy from the 7th 
Congressional District in Queens, NY. Needless to say, it was no picnic in Chicago during the convention.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

No Dr. G - you're spot-on: I was but an 8 yr old. I do remember "the living room war", Walter K. and the grainy, black and white footage of body-bags... it wasn't until much later that I began to do a humble amount of research on Vietnam.

It does appear to me that there are frightening parallels, though. Today there's certainly cause for concern. Iraq is a trap with massive consequences for the US. I hope they can extricate themselves as quickly, and as bloodlessly, as possible.

Cheers.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Max, might "Walter K" be Walter Cronkite? When I was 8 years old, in 1956, I was going around with my mother campaigning for Adlai Stevenson against Ike. We also were doing a great deal of "Ban the Bomb" marches, so I guess my liberal social activism started early.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

According to CNN "If the election were held today, Bush would win 277 electoral votes to Kerry's 261, according to a new CNN survey based on state polling, interviews with campaign aides and independent analysts. A candidate wins the election with 270 electoral votes, regardless of the popular vote."

Folks, this is just how it was back in 1968. Humphrey would have overtaken Nixon had the election been held on the second Tuesday in November.......at least in my opinion.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Just watching a PBS profile on both candidates and something caught my eye with Kerry.

Kerry's smile is genuine. He grins and looks down and gives every indication of pure delight. Sometimes in the debates that smile just lit the screen.
And that has strengthened over the campaign from a bit tentative and forced in the beginning to full blown lately.

It one of the things that has bothered me with Bush since day one.....the smirk.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, my wife said the same thing as you re the Bush "smirk". I tend to listen to debates rather than watch, so that I am not swayed by facial expressions. I also like to read the transcripts of these debates to be able to critically analyze what was said.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Whoops! Yeah, I meant Walter C. My bad. Can't believe I got that wrong. Zigged left when I should have zigged "my other left."

(;->))


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Of all the characters in this sordid election mess, the one I'd most like to see as the next Prez is.... Theresa! (Of course, she'd need to have the Arnold Amendment pass before she could run)









M


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I believe Kerry will win the popular votewith about 53 per cent, but Bush will win the electorial college.

I also predict substantial jiggery pokery with the ballots in several states so that in 2008 UN election observers will need to be called in.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Take another tranquilizer, you guys.









This is just your handlers setting up a potential conspiracy theory that can be rapidly deployed in the event of a Bush re-election. A quick save to explain the situation, and to keep everyone loyal "to the cause" and pissed off at the same time.. Nothing more.

If Kerry wins, we'll hear no more about this at all. There won't be a single peep about the sort of ballot box irregularities that Lyndon B. Johnson or JFK were well known for, I'd bet.

If Kerry wins, it'll be proclaimed as "an honest victory".

If Bush wins it'll be because he "Stole" the Presidency....all over again.

Watch and see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, might I have permission to use the following statement in my class next week?

"Kerry wouldn't be a distracted buffoon like Clinton, or a well-meaning failure like Carter. Nor would he be as corrupt as LBJ, or as dangerous as Kennedy.

Kerry MIGHT end up being the first decent Democratic President since FDR. IF he wins. And IF the following two scenarios don't happen...."

This is a couse on the teaching of Social Studies in the primary/elementary grade classroom. We are dealing with helping students learn to detect overt and covert examples of bias in a text, and how the author uses language to direct the reader away from critical analysis. I am not an advocate of teaching students that "this or that" is the correct way to think, but rather, to help student understand the importance of critical reflection, and to have certain strategies to become an effective analyzer of information.

What you wrote is a great example that we might utilize to have them disect the logic/rationale/motives/fallacies embedded within the written text. Might I have permission to use this short sample of your writing, so long as I give it proper citation and source information? Merci.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I don't see any clear winner at this point. (sorry to disappoint you, Mr. Mayor).

A few weeks back I'd have said Bush by a clear margin...but now it seems to be a lot closer. Kerry has pulled it all together at the final hours and he did do rather well in the debates, after all.

I think it's quite possible that Bush will still take the election...but it's certainly no longer a sure bet.  

A John Kerry Presidency would not be a disaster in my mind. I've been saying this for some time now, BTW.

Kerry wouldn't be a distracted buffoon like Clinton, or a well-meaning failure like Carter. Nor would he be as corrupt as LBJ, or as dangerous as Kennedy.

Kerry MIGHT end up being the first decent Democratic President since FDR. IF he wins. And IF the following two scenarios don't happen....

#1) Kerry and Edwards have been campaigning on a major move back to protectionism in the USA. They've been sucessfully working the labor crowds by promising to eliminate a whole bunch of reasons for American companies to look outward from the USA to get their work done or their products made.

This sounds great on paper...but it means that the US will be withdrawing back within it's own borders in an economic sense, for a while. This is NOT a good thing for anyone.

ESPECIALLY for Canada.  

We could be in for a very nasty ride here. Unless he suddenly changes his mind and does exactly the opposite...which he is well known for doing on some important issues.

#2) The terrorists who have been taking pokes at this continent full of "infidels" for several years now MAY just want to see just how much resolve this new Pres really has. 

Is he a powerless and distracted weakling like Clinton? Or is he a tough and resolute SOB like Bush?

It will only take a few dozen dedicated suicide bombers to actually find this out. And don't think for one minute that they won't try to quantify Kerry if he is elected. Probably pretty early on, as well.

To sum all of this up, I'd just like to cut through the thick fog of ideology here...and point out that IF Kerry wins the elections two weeks from now, then we could be suddenly faced with two brand new problems:

-Stuff could start blowing up here at home.

-Canada might find itself wrestling with a whole buncha brand new tarriffs and trade barriers with it's biggest trading partner.

Careful what you wish for, people.

You might just get it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> Barring any shenanigans in Florida, I predict Kerry by a nose.


Well, the stage is already set for Florida Shenanigans, Part 2: The Re-Election. See Something Rotten In The State Of Florida

My prediction, at this point in time, is that Bush's backers will use all manner of dirty tricks, (they've already started, see here and here ), and if the race remains close, will win by hook and by crook. Seeing Bush's absolutely pathetic debate performances and the resulting poll bounce for Kerry, gave me some hope that Kerry may win, but I think that his win will have to be by double-digit popular vote margins to beat out the Rovian dirty tricks.

The world is outraged at what is happening in the USA, but not enough US citizens have yet seen through the extemist neo-con BS. Maybe they will after another 4 year dose of it.

Sorry to be depressing, I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Handlers, Macnutt?

What is this strange notion that I or others on this forum have handlers? Care to explain?

What exactly is a handler, anyway? Just a buzzword, or is there some deep dark conspiracy theory afoot that you would like to enlighten us all on.

It would be nice if your reply included a reference or two, even a link from one of your sources, (we know you really do know how to add a link), so we could judge for ourselves what might be fact or fiction, rather than only relying on your self important but, in reality, rather fallable opinion. I mean, there is *someone* out there on the web who shares your point of view, isn't there?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Dr. G...
You have my full permission to use anything I have said here as a teaching aid.

You might also want to mention to your students that both the First, and the Second World Wars, were started while a democrat was in office in Washington.

You might ALSO want to add that a Democrat (JFK) was the President that advanced the Viet Nam war from a simple "police action" into a total bloodbath for the American people

One that consumed as many as 500+ American lives _PER WEEK!_ for several YEARS! (compare this with a grand total of one thousand American lives, during the whole YEAR of the Iraq invasion and occupation)

You might ALSO Want to point out that yet another Democrat (LBJ) escalated this terrible and unwinnable war until it became the dominant anti-establishment social force of nationwide protest for a whole generation. While NOT accomplishing ANYTHING!  

You might also want to explain to your students that a Democratic President initiated the building of the very first Atomic Bomb.

And that a second Democratic President actually USED this atomic bomb. TWICE. On a foreign nation. One that was already devastated and destroyed by conventional bombs, BTW.

This was the ONLY time in human history that ANY leader of ANY Nation has EVER used an atomic weapon on ANY other nation.

And it was a Democrat that did it.

You might also want to tell your students that NO Republican President has EVER used an atomic bomb on any nation on the planet.

AND...that a Republican President ENDED the Viet Nam war.

AND...that a Republican President made bold moves that turned a potentially deadly enemy (China) into a fat and happy trading partner who is about as far as possible from making war on us as can be right now..

And...that Another Republican President made the bold moves that ENDED the wordwide tyranny of the Soviet Union. And, in doing so, freed hundreds of millions of innocent hard working people from that yoke of despair called communism, while again disarming a major potential enemy. Without ever firing a single shot.

Oh yeah and that particular Republican (President Reagan) also ENDED a forty year Cold War, as well. With a third of the planet

He did this without launching a single missile, BTW. Or dropping ANY nuclear weapons. On ANYBODY.

His successor (The first President Bush) conducted the single most successful invasion in US history when he chased the Iraqis back from their illegal invasion of Kuwait.

More American soldiers were killed while unloading equipment than were killed by enemy gunfire in THAT particular war. And it only took two or three weeks, as well.

The current Republican President (George W. Bush) has managed, in a very short time, to rout and dispose of several despotic middle eastern tyrants during his first term in office. There are now free elections in Afghanistan, and free elections will be held in Iraq within a few months.

And, after the worst terrorist attacks on American soil in history...NOTHING new has blown up, since George W. went pro-active and began dealing with the problem in a realistic way.

This is a positive change. No matter how you look at it.

The human cost for this massive positive change...after a whole YEAR... was less than a fraction of what the Democratic Presidents during WW1 or 2 dealt with each WEEK of THEIR wars.  

Bush's casualties, after a whole YEAR, are about equal to two weeks worth of casualties for the Democrats who ran the Viet Nam war. Which lasted for most of a decade, BTW.

Powerful stuff. Especially for students of math. Or politics. 

You might want to point all of this out to your students, Dr. G.

Just in order to be truthful and up front with them.

Or...you could put a terrible spin on all of this and use the "Michael Moore method" to show the Republicans in a bad light, while building up the reputations of the now discredited Democrats.

You could even omit important data and LIE about certain events to your students, if you choose to. Just like Michael Moore does in his "documentaries".

But...I suspect that you have much more integrity than that.

I'll bet that, no matter WHAT your upbringing, you can actually see the REAL truth, and weed it out from all of the politically motivated dreck that is out there these days.  

Or...are you a "Handler"? Just spouting the old party line? No matter how wrong it seems to be, these days?

No matter how terribly WRONG history has shown it to be?

Ask yourself this. Ask the question honestly...to yourself... and without any preconcieved notions.

The answers might just surprise you.  

[ October 17, 2004, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

A few points to nitpick:

*You might also want to mention to your students that both the First, and the Second World Wars, were started while a democrat was in office in Washington.*

Which doesn't really mean anything, because both the first and second world wars were started a world away and had very little to do with the United States at their outsets.

*[a] Democratic President actually USED this atomic bomb. TWICE. [...] This was the ONLY time in human history that ANY leader of ANY Nation has EVER used an atomic weapon on ANY other nation.*

It took two of them to make the Japanese surrender, and an invasion was pretty much out of the question. Like it or not, the use of the atomic bomb saved countless American lives (and Japanese, too) and ended a war that was started by a Japanese sneak attack.

*a Republican President ENDED the Viet Nam war.*

Johnson started the process of stopping the war in 1968. He ordered a stop to all air, naval and artillery bombardment on Nov. 1 1968 because of the peace talks in Paris. One year later, new president Nixon asked the "silent majority" for solidarity in support of the Vietnam war. He didn't start to de-escalate until nearly a year after that. 

In other words, Nixon tried to keep the war going for two years before bowing to pressure to stop it, and he wouldn't get it stopped until more than two years after that.

*Another Republican President made the bold moves that ENDED the wordwide tyranny of the Soviet Union.[...] Without ever firing a single shot.*

Unless you count the training and supplying of the Afghanis. The only thing that kept it from being a full blown proxy war was that there wasn't any regular troops there.

Oh, and it's unrelated, but your Republican president did secretly sell arms to Iran, and gave the proceeds to a rebel group trying to overthrow a democratically elected leader, not only violating UN sanctions but acts of congress in the process.

But he sure had charisma.

*(The first President Bush) conducted the single most successful invasion in US history when he chased the Iraqis back from their illegal invasion of Kuwait.*

An illegal invasion he was fine with right up until the allies of the US started to say "Uh, what the hell is going on here?"

*And, after the worst terrorist attacks on American soil in history...NOTHING new has blown up, since George W. went pro-active and began dealing with the problem in a realistic way.*

...

I thought you said you paid attention to the news? There was actually more significant attacks in 2003 than in 2002 or 2001. Or do only attacks on US soil count?


*The human cost for this massive positive change...after a whole YEAR... was less than a fraction of what the Democratic Presidents during WW1 or 2 dealt with each WEEK of THEIR wars*

Just to re-interate: The US was not involved directly in the start of World War One or Two, and in fact only entered the second war because they were attacked first. I just don't see how you can honestly think this is any kind of comparison.


*If Kerry wins, it'll be proclaimed as "an honest victory".*

Unless they find he was involved in some kind of voter fraud type thing.

*If Bush wins it'll be because he "Stole" the Presidency....all over again.*

Well, it's not that hard to imagine, Florida being so screwed up last time. The black people in Florida voted almost 90% for Gore last time according to exit polls, but thousands and thousands of them were denied the right to vote. More than enough to have tipped the scale.

*Or...are you a "Handler"? Just spouting the old party line? No matter how wrong it seems to be, these days?*

By those criteria Macnutt, you are the biggest handler we have here. Always spouting the party line regardless of whether it's right or wrong, factually accurate or not.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Oh there you go again PB, confusing Macnutt with the *facts*.  

Can he respond, and actually argue points for once, or will we be entertained with another long rant, quoting the party line?

And I'll repeat, from my previous post, it would be nice if his reply included a reference or two, even a link from one of his sources, (we know he really does know how to add a link), so we could judge for ourselves what might be fact or fiction, rather than only relying on his self important but, in reality, rather fallable opinion. I mean, there *must be someone* out there on the web who shares his point of view, isn't there?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PosterBoy, now that I have Macnutt's permission to use his writings, might I have yours re your rebuttal to Macnutt's posting of his view of "the facts"? I think that Macnutt missed my point, in that he did not see my concern for the way he portrayed those Democratic presidents. Rather, I wanted to use his post to demonstrate where a critical reader could see where a writer could use words to form a biased opinion which is unsubstantiated. However, your rebuttal might be utilized to demonstrate when a critical thinker might do when reading a personal interpretation of one's views and beliefs. Might I have your permission, along with the proper citations?


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Despite a new poll this morning suggesting that Bush and Kerry are tied, I still think that the GOP's going to pull this one off...as a squeaker. Of course if I'm wrong I will be anything but disappointed.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio are the key states now. Whomever wins all three is the next president. Whomever wins two of these three will most likely be the next president. Win only one, and it looks bleak. We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

What's this???

Macnutt's not rising to the challenge, of defending himself from PosterBoy's disputing of his shaky "facts". His oh-so-cherished opinions that he likes to refer to as "the REAL truth" that we should be able to "weed out from all of the politically motivated dreck that is out there these days".

Could it be that his opinions are actually nothing more than unsubstantiated neo-con fantasies? Hmmm, strange, I often notice how Macnutt tends to disappear from a thread, once the facts appear. Only to reiterate his "REAL truth", yet again, in some other thread.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No Gratuitous Applesauce, those are most definitely NOT "Neo-Con fantasies" that I mentioned in my previous rant.

They are ALL historic facts. Check for yourself.

And yes, PosterBoy...you can nitpick all you want. But the facts remain. And I will stand by them.

True, I have used a tiny bit of simplification to better emphasise those facts...but the solid reality remains as a core to my basic argument.

FACT-NO Republican President has ever been in power when the USA went to war on a global scale.

-That was always done by a Democrat in the Whitehouse.

FACT-NO Republican President EVER authorised the original building of the very first atomic bomb.

-That was a Democrat.

FACT-NO Republican President EVER actually USED a nuclear weapon on ANY other soverign nation on earth.

-THAT was done by a Democrat, as well. Twice.

And not the same Democrat that actually built the weapon, either. It was a later Democrat that ordered the destruction by nuclear weapons of a foreign city. TWICE in one month.

FACT-The longest and most expensive war the the USA ever engaged in...the Cold War...started while a Democrat was in office. It was ended by a Republican, almost forty years later.

This Republican President who finally ended this extended and terribly expensive war, did so without ever firing a single shot, or deploying ANY troops, BTW.

(The forty-year Cold War had the potential to END civilisation as we know it, on this planet earth. In a matter of days, once it had finally heated up. It was an imminent threat to every single human being on this planet. For FOUR DECADES, no less.)

FACT-The biggest potential enemy that the USA has EVER had....China...was antagonised and alienated by a series of Democratic Presidents in thew Whitehouse. Over a period of decades. They could have been thge worst and most scary enemy that the world has ever known...if thingss had gone the way that the Dems were heading...

BUT...that situation was disarmed forever, and the potential enemy nation of more than one BILLION people was turned into a happy trading partner by a Republican. At a time in history when no one thought that this was posiible.

I could go on...but you get the idea.

At least I HOPE you do. 

[ October 19, 2004, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW...I am NOT a "Handler"

Rather, I am a guy who is dedicated to making some of you out there actually QUESTION your long-term handlers.

To make you all stop and ask them about some serious stuff that they have no really good answers for. That they can't easily explain, or spin toward their own agenda.

History is, after all, a tough taskmaster. Especially when you are armed with the facts.

And those poor manipulators of public opinion are working without a net, these days. They are teetering on the brink, as we speak.

It's my mission to push them off that silly ideological tightrope that they've chosen for themselves. And then...to watch em fall, and go SPLAT! 
















Nothing could be more satisfying. Or more rewarding. 

Really. 

[ October 19, 2004, 04:42 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> "_Especially when you are armed with the facts_


coming from Macnutt.......









and this classic


> "_ that silly ideological tightrope that they've chosen for themselves. And then...to watch em fall, and go SPLAT!_


You mean like your Canadian election call. The crow feathers must have cleared the digestive tract given your propensity to spew again.

Here we'll take up a collection for you to be paid up member

http://www.freedominion.ca

You'll just love the headspace.
I mean just check out their avatars....you'll fit right in































Friendly far sighted group - you'll be right at home.

















Scratch the NeoCon surface and this is what lurks underneath.
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=57&sid=

I'll pass.........along with 70%+ of the rest of Canada.

Go wallow, you'll love it. All those right thinking buds to mingle with.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macnutt laughably said:


> History is, after all, a tough taskmaster. Especially when you are armed with the facts.


Looks like it’s far too tough a taskmaster for Macnutt, who can’t seem to get it straight and seems to be armed with nothing more than duds. 

History is, after all easy to distort. Especially when you play fast and loose with the facts.

*FACT-NO Republican President has ever been in power when the USA went to war on a global scale.*

As PosterBoy has already said and as Macnutt conveniently ignored, WW1 and WW2 were started elsewhere and the USA entered those wars along with other allies. So what if a Democrat was in office at the time? A Republican would have done the same. So what is the “solid reality at the core of [Mr. Macnutt’s] basic argument” that this fact is designed to defend? Macnutt said this: “You might also want to mention to your students that both the First, and the Second World Wars, were started while a democrat (sic) was in office in Washington.” Macnutt was trying to imply that a Democratic president somehow was involved in the start of those wars, which is, of course, completely untrue.

Now Mr. Macnutt’s boy, George W., did actually started a war, arguably on a global scale, at least by the right wing, who believe that their world-wide “Coalition of the Willing” represent a world-wide reaction to Saddam Hussein. That this war was started based on a lie, doesn’t seem to bother him. Interesting.

*FACT-NO Republican President EVER authorised the original building of the very first atomic bomb.

-That was a Democrat.

FACT-NO Republican President EVER actually USED a nuclear weapon on ANY other soverign nation on earth.

-THAT was done by a Democrat, as well. Twice.*

Again, Mr. Macnutt seems to be implying that had a Republican been president these events would not have happened. I highly doubt that. Is he saying that as a conservative he was against the development of atomic weapons, in a race against the Nazi’s nuclear weapons program? I doubt that too.

A Republican president would have done the same, so his fact is nothing more than an attempt to smear the Democratic party with some kind of implication that they started the world on the path to nuclear weapons. In fact the one’s who started the world on that path are the Nazi’s. Aided and abetted, incidentally, by many corporate sympathizers and bagmen in the USA and elsewhere, including Dubya's grandpappy, Prescott Bush, who was later brought up on charges of trading with the enemy.

And Republican presidents have been just as quick to build and deploy more nuclear weapons, such as Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr. as well as Macnutt’s boy, Dubya, who is planning on bringing us space-based nuclear weapons, in his version of Reagan’s scientifically preposterous fantasy, Star Wars.

*FACT-The longest and most expensive war the the USA ever engaged in...the Cold War...started while a Democrat was in office. It was ended by a Republican, almost forty years later.*


cold war

n. 1. often Cold War. A state of political tension and military rivalry between nations that stops short of full-scale war, especially that which existed between the United States and Soviet Union following World War II.

2. A state of rivalry and tension between two factions, groups, or individuals that stops short of open, violent confrontation. (Source: American Heritage Dictionary)

So we can see that the Cold War, is not really a war, but a military rivalry. A rivalry that Mr. Macnutt’s exalted Republicans engaged in, around the world, with equal or greater fervour to their Democratic colleagues. To blame the Cold War on Democrats is simply twisting the facts.

As far as the oft-repeated myth that Reagan ended the Cold War, that is purely revisionist history, but a myth that idealogues like Mr. Macnutt find useful to repeat constantly. Reagan did more to build up the USA’s nuclear arsenal than any other president and was aggressively waging the Cold War with no signs of a let up. Reagan was a believer that a nuclear war could be won and proceeded to spend the USA into a massive deficit in an attempt to out gun the Soviets. It was a dangerous path, that could have led the world to ruin if a true believer on the scale of Reagan had remained in the Kremlin. If Yuri Andropov’s kidney’s had not failed and the reformer Gorbachev had not been thrust into power, the Cold War would have likely raged on for many more years.

Gorbachev knew that nuclear war was not winnable and that his country was going bankrupt trying to engage the US. He was the one who offered the climb down from the cliff, not Reagan. But the end of the Cold War came because people around the world were disgusted with it. The anti-nuclear movement of the early eighties had broad public support and no politician, including Reagan, could afford to ignore it, so he took the olive branch offered by Gorbachev. See: How We Ended The Cold War

*FACT-The biggest potential enemy that the USA has EVER had....China...was antagonised and alienated by a series of Democratic Presidents in thew Whitehouse. Over a period of decades. They could have been thge worst and most scary enemy that the world has ever known...if thingss had gone the way that the Dems were heading...

BUT...that situation was disarmed forever, and the potential enemy nation of more than one BILLION people was turned into a happy trading partner by a Republican. At a time in history when no one thought that this was posiible.*

Well actually, it was that commie, Trudeau, who thought it was possible not Richard Nixon. Trudeau was one of the first Western leaders to make overtures to China and incidentally, to Cuba as well. He broke with the US and other countries and established diplomatic relations with “Red” China in 1970. At the time he was savagely condemned by Nixon’s government. Other countries followed his lead afterwards, including Nixon in 1972. But being Americans, they like to take credit for that historic move. Strangely, their live and let live philosophy to Communist China, doesn’t seem to have translated to tiny Cuba.

*I could go on...but you get the idea.*

Yes I think we get the idea. That twisting facts and selectively quoting questionable history, or simply making it up, to prop up a creaky neo-con world view is standard for Mr. Macnutt.

*It's my mission to push them off that silly ideological tightrope that they've chosen for themselves. And then...to watch em fall, and go SPLAT! 

Nothing could be more satisfying. Or more rewarding.*

Strange mission. Especially when he is the one walking the “silly ideological tightrope”. One that is propped up with revisionist history and half-truths. But true to most missionaries and prosletyzers of crackpots faiths of all kinds, “facts” don’t really matter. I guess being a true believer is its own reward.

So I expect a response full of the usual religeous zeal, re-iterating the same tired articles of faith. But it would be nice, for all of us, if Mr. Macnutt, could check a few facts, first.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, re your comment that "Yes I think we get the idea. That twisting facts and selectively quoting questionable history, or simply making it up, to prop up a creaky neo-con world view is standard for Mr. Macnutt.", I could not have said it any better. Kudos.

As it is written in "The World According to Macnutt", "If you don't have anything of value to say, be sure to say something. The truth may enslave you, but your own words shall never be used against you.........most of the time. Trust me on this one."


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*And yes, PosterBoy...you can nitpick all you want. But the facts remain. And I will stand by them.*

Translation: "I like my 'interpretation' better, so I am going to stick with it."

Macnutt, I'm not nitpicking your ideas of history, I am hole punching them (kind of like GA just did, too). 

I'd continue, but for the moment it looks like GA has everything covered. I do have a question though, where did you/do you learn your history?

It's funny you know, you seem to be employing the same tactics as Michael Moore at the moment. You're using a series of incredibly small truths to construct a bloody great big lie. Interesting, that.

Oh, and Dr. G, you can indeed use my rebuttal to Macnutt. If nothing else, it helps to have two sides of the story. You can use any of my other rebuttals to his somewhat ridiculous interpretations of history, too. (Like this one or this one)

[ October 20, 2004, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: PosterBoy ]


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PosterBoy, thank you for your permission. I also appreciate the inclusion of other samples of your rebuttal to Macnutt's half-truths. Sadly, it's like the National Enquirer -- they publish some aspect of the truth (e.g., John Kerry once wanted to be an astronaut) and then they twist it outside of the realm of possiblity (e.g., John Kerry abducted by aliens), or with a bit of possibility to the story (e.g., Kerry wants to include aliens in his alliances). Still, you have more patience than I in trying to rebut Macnutt's comments, especially those about Carter and Clinton.

Still, as it is written in "The World According to Macnutt", "Patience is a virtue. The wise man or woman has the endurance to withstand the onslaught of illogical comments, while the fool is a sloth, believing in any and all statements of half-truths. However, beware the wise man or woman, for they shall be difficult to enslave or mislead. Send forth your commentary and eventually, someone shall listen and believe you, no matter how foolish you may sound at times. And be sure to convince these people to trust you, for blind trust causes logic and critical interpretation to fade away like the morning mist beside your yacht."


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I said, earlier in this thread: 

*Could it be that his opinions are actually nothing more than unsubstantiated neo-con fantasies? Hmmm, strange, I often notice how Macnutt tends to disappear from a thread, once the facts appear. Only to reiterate his "REAL truth", yet again, in some other thread. *

In the next post, Macnutt said:

*They are ALL historic facts. Check for yourself.*

Oh Macnuu-uut. I can see you’re back on the board again. Did you not notice that PosterBoy and I did check out your “facts”. Care to thank us for our efforts and retract your inaccuracies? Or did you hope that this thread would sink far, far, out of sight?

As Dr. G. has said in his chronicles of “The World According to Macnutt”:

*"When your own words are thrown back in your face, and you are forced to eat crow, leave the table, and don't return for a short period of time. Take the attitude that no one is going to remember except for those who shall never agree with you in the final analysis. For those who forget your words, make sure they trust you, for trust cannot be purchased."*


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, re your question to "The Sage from Salt Spring" as to whether he would "Care to thank us for our efforts and retract your inaccuracies?", I recall something written on this topic in "The World According to Macnutt". "Never retract anything you have stated, even if it is grossly inaccurate. Only retract things that are historically true, for this will totally confuse your audience. When all else fails, forget to remember."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Notice he didn't mention NIXON by name. Bit of an embarrassment no doubt.

One oversight - Bush Sr - justifiably - also "started a war".
The US was NOT attacked but Kuwait was an he led a true coalition which pushed Iraq out of Kuwait but did not overthrow Iraqi sovereignity - a condition the coalition was built upon.

Still it was Republican going to war - something I'm sure his oil and weapon contractor connections rewarded him well for in increased Bush family wealth.
Still an honourable role as world cop with wide support.

Not so with Jr.
Anyone care to count the San Juan charge and the Mexican war in the list.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I wonder if Bush shall make a similar speech over one of the 1000+ graves of a soldier who fought and died in Iraq. If he does, he has the election hands-down.

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address Nov. 19, 1863

"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. 

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who died here that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have hallowed it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. 

It is rather for us the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." 

Sadly, I don't see this ever taking place. Trust me on this.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Thus spoke The Sage of Salt Spring, on the previous page:

*They are ALL historic facts. Check for yourself.*

Your “facts” were checked and found wanting, by PosterBoy and myself. Don't you have any response to that at all, Mr. Macnutt? Surely, you're not *avoiding* this thread, are you? You seemed to have time for a classic rant or two, last night.

The corrections to your "facts" are posted >> *HERE* << for all to see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, don't take it personally. "The Sage from Salt Spring" does not avoid topics. From what I know of him, he is selective of his time and efforts. For, in "The World According to Macnutt", he states that "Do not waste time on things that are either beyond your control, or with things for things you do not want to be bothered. In this way, you do not have to think about the things you do not want to think about, nor think about things you do want to think about. Thus, you shall be able to say what you will, free of rebuttal or the possibility of having the facts of history interpreted in another manner."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Getting rather Joycian there Dr. G......or perhaps even Swiftish in a Brobignagian sort of way


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, re your comment "Getting rather Joycian there Dr. G......or perhaps even Swiftish in a Brobignagian sort of way ", I beg to differ. I am just being myself in a genre of which Mark Twain would be proud.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Getting rather Joycian there Dr. G......or perhaps even Swiftish in a Brobignagian sort of way


Um, er, ah, ahem, sure.

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

GA...the historical facts remain, just as I have stated them.

It's an interesting amount of leftist spin that says... "yes..it WAS a Democrat that built the first nuclear weapon, and another Democrat that first used it in anger against a foreign nation...but it _COULD_ have been a Republican!







"

But it wasn't, was it?
















And so on and so forth, for your whole deeply flawed "rebuttal" of the previously posted, and very well-established facts.

But I gotta give credit to your handlers...they've got you very well trained.









Tell you what..the next time they have you in their thrall, and are filling your head with half-cooked pablum, try blurting out the following:

"Marx wasn't a right wing Republican! Neither was Lenin! Fidel Castro isn't EITHER!!...but they _COULDA been_ !! Couldn't they? You know..if things were a bit different??"

Then look up at them with big batty cow eyes as though you are about to barf up a piano.

I guarantee that they will have to either snuff you on the spot... or else take you back in for emergency re-indoctrination. (Probably using high-powered cattle prods, this time out. Or psychotropic drug therapy. Or both.)

Either way, keep us all posted.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*GA...the historical facts remain, just as I have stated them.*

Aaah, the Sage of Salt Spring speaks!

Alas, not to rebut the charges, but only to promote some kind of vaguely paranoid indoctrination fantasy. It's clear here, who suffers from a programmed mind, since he couldn't debate the facts, but simply descended into obfuscation.

While it is true that the a Democrat was in the WH when the atomic bomb was created, to use this to illustrate the point he was making, that somehow Democrats = bad, Republicans = good, is completely disingenuous and very misleading. Not that that's stopped him before. As we all know it was Hitler who started the race for atomic weapons and it's of no importance that the party that the US president of the day belonged to, was not Macnutt's sainted Republican party. Is he arguing that the great Republican Wendell Willkie, if he had become president instead of FDR, would have sat on his hands while the Nazi's were trying to build an atomic weapon? In fact the Republicans of the day didn't have too much of a problem with what Hitler was up to, many thought he had the right idea. Macnutt is, once again, making a highly fallacious argument, as is his style.

That he stands by his "facts", and chooses to repeat them, even though some are actually completely incorrect and others are purposefully misleading, is a tactic used by many on the right, including the aforementioned Nazi party leader. 

Macnutt waves away the corrections to his inaccuracies with *"And so on and so forth, for your whole deeply flawed "rebuttal" of the previously posted, and very well-established facts."*

We can see by the fact that he is unwilling to argue the points, whose argument is deeply flawed. But I guess standards of logical argument don't apply, when you're a missionary with a cause.

*It's my mission to push them off that silly ideological tightrope that they've chosen for themselves. And then...to watch em fall, and go SPLAT!*

Hmmm, very revealing indeed.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I think GA covered everything, but I'd just like to point out one thing:

*Marx wasn't a right wing Republican!*

You know what, Macnutt? You're right. But he wasn't a left wing liberal either. He wasn't even a Marxist. You know why? Because he didn't like the idea of ideologies, he thought that they prevented people from seeing the condition of their lives clearly. It wasn't until Marx was dead and Engels took the reigns that Marxism became an entire school of thought.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, once again, your words are truthful and make the point far better than I could re the context.

PB, I think that you hit upon a oftentimes overlooked bit of history re your comment that "It wasn't until Marx was dead and Engels took the reigns that Marxism became an entire school of thought." Well put!.

However, I think that we all need to "sing from the same hymn book". In "The History of the World According to Macnutt", not to be mistaken with his bestseller "The World According to Macnutt", there is a telling note in the dedication of this history text. 

"This book is dedicated to all historians who see things in the way that I view the world. Historiography might be a social science, but it must be remembered that history is written by the victors. The strong get to write the history we are to study. Every totalitarian regieme, regardless of their "wing", has sought to discredit or bury the history of the past. It must always be remembered that the Bird of Life has two wings. When only one is used, this bird shall merely fly around in circles, rather than to soar to the heavens in the quest for an understanding of truth. Historians, are the keeper of the flame..........a flame which can be used to light the way to an interpretation of these truths,since there is really no One Truth, or a flame to set a pile of books on fire. Such a flame can be used either way. Trust me on this."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

* 15,000 lawyers *!!!   

Yep you read that right, 15,000 lawyers HAVE ALREADY BEEN HIRED by both sides to deal with election procedural problems in the US.

Guy on CNN figured there would be a legal challenge by noon the next day.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Turns out that Michael Moore's figures were incorrect in F9/11 re the 23,000 African-Americans disenfranchised in the 2000 election in Florida. The latest independent figures from a non-partisan voer's right group now puts the figures at 27,000. I think that a few of these people might have voted for Gore.  

Still, as it is written in "History According to Macnutt", "Elections do not determine who is right, or who is the best candidate. Elections determine who wins, regardless of the procedure."


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Every single historical fact that I originally quoted is STILL a historical FACT . Check for yourself. It's all there.

No matter WHAT sort of spin that anyone cares to put on it.*

Do you even read our replies? The problem is not so much with your facts, but rather the spin you put on them. They are out of context half truths that you're using as a crutch for your ridiculous theories. Same thing Moore does.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

MacNutt, please write in proper paragraphs. As an English graduate and a person who is overwhelmed by too many free-floating sentences, I implore you to use paragraphs. I beseech anyone else who doesn't use paragraphs to please also try their best to use them. I quite dislike reading sentences with needless line breaks before and after them.

If I'm alone on this one, then so be it.

As for the election, only time will tell. Polls are not definite and reading too much into any of them is reading into the spin and politics behind each polling company.

Sure, Bush may win. Bush winning won't be the surprise; it'll be Bush proving in his second term that he is actually a competent leader. He hasn't convinced me and he hasn't convinced a large portion of the American public of this yet.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Fair enough, PosterBoy...

(And...just for the record...I read EVERY SINGLE ONE of your replies. Word for word. I often re-read them...carefully. At length.)


Now...Care to deal with the historical facts? As they have been recorded in practically every textbook and document for the past half-century? 

On a point by point basis?

WITHOUT The spin? WITHOUT the excuses? Without any sort of apologies?

Then fly at it.  

-Was a Republican President in charge of the USA when ALL of the major wars of the twentieth century started?

-Or was it a series of Democrats?

-Was it a Rebublican President who initiated the building of the very first Atomic bomb? 

-Or was it a Democrat?

-Did a different Republican actually launch nuclear weapons against a foreign nation in anger...TWICE...(the only time in history that this has EVER been done, BTW)...

-Or was it a Democrat? A DIFFERENT Democrat than the one who actually had this terrible wqeapon built in the first place?

-Was it a Republican who escalated the Viet Nam war from a simple police action into a horrible meatgrinder that consumed hundreds of American soldiers each week? While not accomplishing ANYTHING?

-Or was it a Democrat? (Or, rather, a series of successive Democrats?)

-Was it a Democrat who finally ENDED this needless and demoralising war?

-Or was it a Republican?

-Was it a Democrat who effectively disarmed the threat of Communist China, more than thirty years ago? And turned them into a fat and happy trading partner who are more of an economic than a military threat these days?

-Or...was it a Republican?

-Was a Republican in charge of the Whitehouse when the terribly expensive and horridly dangerous forty year Cold War first began?

-Or...was it a Democrat?

-Was it a Democrat that made the final decisive moves that finally ended this four-decade-old undeclared conflict...and, just incidentally, freed hundreds of millions of innocent people from the terrible yoke of communism?

-Or...was it a Republican?

I could go on at length....but you get the idea.  

And, before you reply...

You might just want to watch yourself as you are typing. If you seem to be making excuses and attempting to spin the historical facts....

Then you might just want to take a moment to stop and examine exactly _WHY_ you are choosing to do this.

The answers might be quite illuminating.  

For yourself...and for everyone who is reading.(IF you are ready to acept those answers, that is.)

Just my thoughts on this.


----------



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

Hi.

Partisanship is stupid.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yeah.

But facts are real.

Try to deal with the reality.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Aaaaaaaaaaahhhh the white space it burnzes my eyes!!!


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

What is real?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good question.

This is a journey that you may want to make for yourself, CC. All on your own.

The truth...the REAL truth...is always worth the hunt. And definitely worth a fight.

Trust me on this.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, for the record, yes, Richard Nixon was the president that did bridge the divide between the US and China. Yet, it was the same Richard Nixon that undertook the war in Vietnam for a longer period of time, with more US troops committed into combat, with more deaths on both sides of the conflict, and who kept seeing the "light at the end of the tunnel".

Yes, Harry Truman did give the order to drop the two atomic bombs in Auc. of 1945. However, I don't think he did so "...in anger" as you state. It was also Truman who was the president during the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, and the president who undertook the Berlin airlift. 

You really need to see the total fabric of history for the events you describe in your previous posting. Most historians who understand historiography realize that a single moment in time must be viewed in context to gain a proper frame-of-reference. This is the idea behind seeing history as a "zeitgeist" (i.e., the spirit of the time and the mood and rationale underlying am outlook which might be characteristic of a period or generation). Thus, Roosevelt was the president when the second world war began, but the roots of this war began in 1919 and on through the start of the Depression.

All I shall say to you is you need to LEARN from history rather than going on and on and on stating isolated historical facts. As YOU say, "The truth...the REAL truth...is always worth the hunt. And definitely worth a fight." Sadly, most rational people realize that there are truths, but no such thing as a "REAL truth", since, as you are fond of doing, a person can put an intpretative "spin" on any fact. Thus, truths are accepted in the light of rational and analytic critical thinking. You might want to try some of this........you might like it in the final analysis.

Trust me on this.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; and put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" Isaiah 5:20/21


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Anyone who says "trust me" is trying to sell something. Dr. G. I assume you ended on this statement as bit of tongue-in-cheek mimicry.

There is no real truth, MacNutt. In fact, that word pairing is redundant (among other things). Mr. Bush wants to sell a Truth. His "core values" follows this so-called Truth. However, truths to each person are varied, changing and complicated. Besides how can any one trust the Bush administration which is full of seasoned liars. Bush himself is either a practiced liar or a dull-witted puppet.

History is a re-telling of the complex and nuanced events of human life. Drawing quick and dirty conclusions is dangerous if not foolish. Some historical events may be indisputable but much of the details are blurry. Before anyone gets their feathers ruffled, I am not pointing fingers at any one person here; I am just pedantically stating what _anyone_ enters into when they start siting historical examples.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Care to deal with the historical facts? As they have been recorded in practically every textbook and document for the past half-century? On a point by point basis? WITHOUT The spin? WITHOUT the excuses? Without any sort of apologies?*

You know what I'd like? For you to do the same.

*Was a Republican President in charge of the USA when ALL of the major wars of the twentieth century started?*

No, not all of them. The problem with this "fact", though is that it is pretty much meaningless. 

A Democrat was in office when WW1 started, but the US didn't start it.

A democrat was in office when WW2 started, but the US didn't start it.

A democrat was in office when the Korean War started, but the US didn't start it (nor go in alone, there was a UN Mandate in place and a coalition force).

The Vietnam War (never declared) saw fighting break out after lots of meddling by Republican and Democrat presidents. It was ended by a Republican, but only _after_ he tried to continue the war against popular support, initiated more extensive carpet bombing than previously carried out, and expanded the war into neighbouring countries. It was also a Republican that supported the Diem dictatorship in the mid-late 50s and helped him not hold the democratic elections that the Geneva Conventions stipulated were to happen in 1956, and proved so brutal that monks lit themselves on fire in protest,

*-Was it a Republican President who initiated the building of the very first Atomic bomb? Or was it a Democrat?*

It was a Democrat, yes, reacting to Hitler starting an atomic program. Do you honestly think that a Republican would have done different?

*Did a different Republican actually launch nuclear weapons against a foreign nation in anger...TWICE..*

Truman, a Democrat, did drop two nuclear weapons on Japan, and in doing so force Japan to surrender unconditionally, saving lots and lots of lives. Context, Remember?

*-Was it a Republican who escalated the Viet Nam war from a simple police action into a horrible [meat grinder]*

No, it was a democrat. Acting with the full support of his nation, and in accordance with established doctrines.

*-Was it a Democrat who finally ENDED [the Vietnam] war?*

No, it was a Republican, who as previously noted attempted to continue the war for ~2 years before bowing down to public pressure.

*Was it a Democrat who effectively disarmed the threat of Communist China, more than thirty years ago?*

No, it was a Canadian Liberal who went in first, got China trading first, and started the ball rolling for almost every shift away from left wing economic policy that has happened since. Your Republican was a day late, but gets much of the credit.

*-Was a Republican in charge of the [White House] when the terribly expensive and horridly dangerous forty year Cold War first began?*

No, it was a Democrat, but the US didn't start the Cold War by themselves. The Cold War, a fancy term for military rivalry, was caused by mutual distrust, mutual misconceptions, and mutual diplomatic screw ups.

*Was it a Democrat that made the final decisive moves that finally ended this four-decade-old undeclared conflict...and, just incidentally, freed hundreds of millions of innocent people from the terrible yoke of communism?*

No, not really. Reagan had a hand in the end of the Cold War, but it was due more than anything to Gorbachev's Glasnost and Perestroika. That is democratization and economic reform, internally in Soviet Russia.

*You might just want to watch yourself as you are typing. If you seem to be making excuses and attempting to spin the historical facts.... 
Then you might just want to take a moment to stop and examine exactly WHY you are choosing to do this.*

You know, it's funny you should accuse anyone of this. Have you ever actually picked up a history text book that was written after the Cold War was over? Have you ever asked yourself why you have such a one sided view of history? Your answers may be illuminating, if you're able to accept them.

The biggest problem with your facts, as I have stated previously, is the context (or lack thereof) in which you place them. What you call "excuses" are actually the rest of the story. Stating a simple fact, such as "FDR was in the White House at the start of World War 2" is not an argument for, or against, anything. History is like the best novel you ever read, you can't read one sentence and understand a whole chapter.

But now it's your turn. You've been accusing like a broken record for quite a while now, and I think it's high time you put your money where your mouth is. Here is a series of questions for _you_ to answer, Macnutt. They're a little more complicated than the questions you asked me, but I don't think any of them are unreasonable if you're willing to actually think about your responses,

Considering that I (and others) have taken the time to answer your oft' repeated questions, and seeing as you've avoided actually answering questions or rebutting arguments in the past, I'd say it's time for you to put up, or shut up. So I'll wait here for your answers.

(Note: these questions are intended for macnutt to answer, so please let him.)

- Do you think that a Republican president would still have stayed out of WW1 after reading the Zimmerman Telegram, and after the huge uprising in anti-German sentiment among the US people caused by said telegram? Why?

- Do you think that a Republican president would have stayed out of WW2 after the Japanese attack on Pearl harbour (the most devastating _sneak attack_ in recent military history? Why?

- Do you think a Republican president would not have started an Atomic Weapons program despite having full knowledge that Hitler had started his own? Why?

- Do you think that the US could have forced an unconditional surrender out of Japan any other way than dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan (bearing in mind it took two to get them to surrender)? How would they do it with less loss of life? Why would they not use a weapon that they spent so much time and energy developing?

- Was it a Republican who rebuilt Europe and Japan after the wars conclusion, or was it a Democrat?

- Was it a Republican who kept the free city of Berlin free by sending in a plane every 90 seconds for a year with food, water and supplies, or was it a Democrat?

- Why do you imply that just because Democrats were in charge during the outbreak of most conflicts in the short 20th century they must have been responsible?

- While it was a Democrat who escalated the Vietnam conflict, how do you not take into account the meddling of the Republican president that preceded the Democratic presidents of the 1960s? Why?

- While it was a Democrat who escalated the Vietnam conflict, how do you not take into account that it was a Democrat (Johnson) who made the first overtures for peace? How do you not take into account that Nixon continued the War for ~2 years before starting to bring the war to a close, and who "secretly" authorized the bombing of Neighbouring Cambodia? Why?

- Was it a Democrat who was forced to resign in discgrace after his involvement in a burglary and attempted wiretapping of the other party's headquarters, or was it a Republican?

- Was it a Democrat who tripled the national debt of the US in the 1980s, or was it a Republican?

- Was it a Democrat who sold weapons to Iran and gave the proceeds to a rebel group trying to overthrow a democratically elected leader in Nicaragua, violating, multiple acts of Congress and multiple UN Sanctions, or was it a Republican?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PosterBoy, I have read some very mean and nasty things said about Macnutt, but your comment is just about the worst blow against our dear friend. You write that "Do you even read our replies? The problem is not so much with your facts, but rather the spin you put on them. They are out of context half truths that you're using as a crutch for your ridiculous theories. Same thing Moore does." Compare Macnutt to many things, if you will, but to compare him to Michael Moore has gone too far. You have gone beyond the realm of decent rebuttal and have hit way "below the belt". Shame on you. 









Seriously,for the record, I think you are totally correct and your phrase "out of context half truths" should become a slogan of ehMacLand, along with "Death before dishonor" and "Trust me on this". Kudos to you, PB.

[ October 27, 2004, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Dr.G. ]


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Well, what you said, PB, is much better. Good post.

We await your reply MacNutt.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PosterBoy, an outstanding posting. To your credit, you are a true student of history. You sense the ebb and flow of historical patterns, albeit, at times, random patterns. As well, you sense the context within which Macnutt's "facts" reside. I salute you for your understanding of the transformational nature of history.

CC, your comment ("History is a re-telling of the complex and nuanced events of human life. Drawing quick and dirty conclusions is dangerous if not foolish. Some historical events may be indisputable but much of the details are blurry.") also earns you this sort of praise that I just shared with PB. In three sentences, you have provided a definition of history that Edward Gibbon or Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. 
might be proud to call his own. Kudos to you as well.

Democracy, in time, will demand accountability of those who use "historical facts" for their own benefit. Trust me on this.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CC, re your question "Anyone who says "trust me" is trying to sell something. Dr. G. I assume you ended on this statement as bit of tongue-in-cheek mimicry.", I have nothing to sell. I share views and let the receiver accept or reject my premise. I have no absolute truths, other than my belief that there are no absolute truths.

As for me using a bit of "tongue-in-cheek mimicry", I must admit "guilty as charged". I just get SO very tired of Macnutt's endless stating of the facts, without a deeper understanding and appreciation of these facts. This is what made PosterBoy's recent long rebuttal post so educational and enlightening. Still, Macnutt is free to say/believe what he will in this forum, just as you and I. I have no claim upon rightousness or correctness, and shall admit when I am incorrect about some point. I always liked Christ's statement that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Being a pacifist, I am not much of one to throw stones, even at Macnutt. 

For, as it is written in "The World According to Macnutt", "The true measure of a man or woman is not how far they have come in life, but how far they intend to go. Just be careful of the obstacles that are placed in your way by those who claim to know The Truth. Usually, this pathway seems well laid out and free of stones, up until the moment you go over the cliff."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Very little in history is inevitable. The cyclical rhythm we have identified in our national affairs offers no guarantee of national salvation. It will work only as men and women rise to a towering challenge. But nothing is stronger than the aspiration of a free people. If the energy now bottled up in American society can win its release in the decade ahead, we will reverse the downward curve of American power and charge the promise of American life with new meaning." Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. From "The Politics of Hope"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I think history is to the nation as memory is to the individual and an individual deprived of memory doesn't know where he's been and where he's going." CNN interview of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Sept.13th, 2004

From the same interview:

" Schlesinger calls himself a short-term pessimist and long-term optimist, worried about current events, but not about the future.

He enjoys the story of a "panicky" State Department meeting, in 1948, when the Soviet Union was blockading Berlin and World War III appeared imminent. A young aide wondered why Secretary of State George C. Marshall appeared so calm. Responded Gen. Marshall, the Army's chief of staff during World War II, "I've seen worse."

"I feel that way about the present, and I would have said the same on September 12, 2001," Schlesinger says. "The threats from the terrorists are extreme and hard to deal with, but the threat from the second world war was far more menacing, and so was the Cold War.

"And so I say, with Gen. Marshall, 'I've seen worse.' "


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I don;t really see terrorism as anything new I DO see shifting alliances breaking up as threat to stability and the 5.5 billion people who want what the first world take for granted.

Long term as populations fall and "green technology" takes hod as it has in Europe the world will be in better balance.

Getting there without a massive war or huge bio-diversity loss ( tho since 60% of the coral reefs are dead we've already seen partial catastrophe ) seems a tough challenge.
Both religious extremism ( on both sides ) and not listening to the scientific community's warnings simply put enormous obstacles into an already difficult path that face both the human community and our companion species.  

The planet will roll on - question is in what form will the human community reach an equilibrium with resources and a healthy biosphere.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Bottom line here?

Every single historical fact that I originally quoted is STILL a historical *FACT* . Check for yourself. It's all there.

No matter WHAT sort of spin that anyone cares to put on it. 







 

You want another nasty dose of reality, while we're at it?

Pretty much all of the polls show George W. Bush to be in a slight lead right now. The latest ones show him to be leading John Kerry by more than the margin for error, as well. He has always been leading in the electoral college votes, in pretty much all of the polls, BTW.

While the outcome of the election is certainly not a sure thing....you, who are the opponents of Bush and his policies, just HAVE to be prepared for the possibility that Kerry will LOSE....and that Bush will win.

And then...you may just have to find some excuses to explain this "shocking development" (your handlers will help you with this, no doubt).

I'm not certain any of you are really prepared for this eventuality, at this point.

Especially since you still can't seem to explain why the "wildly unpopular" Bush is not deeply in the bucket right now...

And why the "far better choice" of Kerry/Edwards isn't walking happily to an easy victory in this last week of the election.

Even Michael Moore is confidently predicting a Democratic win next week...and is publicly claiming that "if the election is, again, _STOLEN_ from it's rightful winner...then the whole nation will be in the STREETS!" 

This sounds a lot like his earlier predictions of "Payback Tuesday" for the Congressional elections from two years ago. He was dead wrong on that one too...and hastily withdrew his predictions from his website after the Democrats, unexpectedly, LOST.









Given all of this.....I JUST gotta ask...

Are you guys all on _NARCOTICS_ ? 









Or...are you simply unable to see that Kerry is barely holding his own against a guy who should...by all rights...be fishbait, right now??

Better fire up the "excuse machine" right now. Get it warmed up and waiting. 

Looks like you might be needing it!  

(In point of fact, you already DO need it. But we won't dwell on that...at least not right now.)


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Go, PosterBoy, Go!*


> But now it's your turn. You've been accusing like a broken record for quite a while now, and I think it's high time you put your money where your mouth is.


Great post!

Let's see if the Sage of Salt Spring can actually make a real argument. Don't count on it though, the Vegas odds are 10 to 1 that he disappears until this all dies down and 20 to 1 that he actually sits down and tries to make a rational, logical argument. 

*C'mon Macnutt, surprise us all*, we all know you can do better than your usual rhetoric. Try it, you might like it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, put me down for a Jackson on PB. He has that Seabiscuit-style of winning attitude.

Seriously, I feel that PB's recent long post was a dedicated effort to provide a well composed piece of writing as a rebuttal to Macnutt's viewpoints. If I was a history professor, I would grade it a solid "A".

PosterBoy, go to the head of the class. Paix.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*the Vegas odds are 10 to 1 that he disappears until this all dies down*

Oh, don't worry. If he dodges the questions or doesn't answer, I don't plan on letting him live it down any time soon.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, with PB's current "attitude", put me down for a Jackson and a Grant.

Is betting allowed in ehMacLand???? 

PosterBoy, "carpe diem".


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

I'm going to predict a marginal Kerry victory, based on my belief that voter turnout will be much higher for this election than in 2000.

Low turnout favors Republicans (about 40% of registered voters). However, if turnout is high, generally that means a Democrat victory, since nearly all Republicans vote anyway, while about 1/3 of registered Democrats stayed home in 2000.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Cudos Dr. G.

Good observation Gordguide. I think (and dearly hope) that voter turn out will be higher in this election.

What were the polls like right before the 2000 election? I recall they were close but how close?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

There is an estimated 800,000+ university students that might vote this time around. There is no telling whom they would vote for, but this is a large block of unknowns. I only hope that the votes ARE counted FAIRLY this year. We shall see. I would love to see a strong Kerry victory, but if I was to bet my winnings from the PosterBoy/Macnutt challenge match, I would still have to bet on Bush. Still, I would gladly give up all of my PB winnings for a Kerry victory.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I feel that if a debate is actually going to occur here someone should step up and take the role of announcer. I don't mean a moderator; I mean a Madison-square-gardens-style boxing announcer. 

_In the right corner, weighing in at _X_ pounds, is MacNutt! And standing slightly left of center, refusing to go into the lefthand corner, is PosterBoy!_


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Commentary says there is a strong concern about the draft in the university crowd and that should favour Kerry.
Ohio might be key to that as Kent State may be a focal point for long memories.

I'm still calling a disputed result. 15,000 lawyers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CC, Madison Square Garden is not the best venue for this fight. A fight of this monumental proportion could be held in only one locale -- Yankee Stadium. Remember, this is where the rematch between Joe Lewis and Max Schmeling finally took place. On June 22, 1938, at Yankee Stadium, Schmeling finally gave Lewis a shot at regaining the title from the only man who ever knocked him out. Many fans around the world saw this fight as a war symbol between what Nazi Germany stood for, and what America stood for (even though Lewis could not be served in most eating establishments in much of the southern US). The fight ended in a TKO, since the German handlers of Schmeling did not want to admit that Lewis knocked out Schmeling after less than 2 minutes of the first round.

So, since the Yankees are not in need of this ballpark, why not hold the fight here?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*bump*

Can't let this fall of the main page just yet. Still waiting for a reply.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

All is quiet on the reply front.

Does this mean MacNutt is mustering his reubuttal within the trenches or has he fled like so many French soldiers before him. Zut alors!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CC, nothing here but the Maginot Line. No combatants in sight. Yankee Stadium awaits.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

There better be over-priced beer and hotdogs at the stadium.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CC, Yankee Stadium shall be a doxie-friendly venue. Thus, no hot dogs or beer. We do have homemade blueberry muffins and herbal tea. The battle of the wits shall be a sight to see.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Well, I'll bring my binoculars just in case. The muffins sound good; however, I'll be smuggling some rootbeer into the stadium because it seems more appropriate to the venue for me. Maybe we could do tea afterwards when we discuss the highlights of this destined contest.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Yes, this should be a "barn burner". There shall be an array of right and left uppercuts and jabs. Not sure if there shall be any knockout punches, however, given the nature of the match. Still, a clean fight should be attained.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Let's see if the Sage of Salt Spring can actually make a real argument. Don't count on it though, the Vegas odds are 10 to 1 that he disappears until this all dies down and 20 to 1 that he actually sits down and tries to make a rational, logical argument. 

C'mon Macnutt, surprise us all, we all know you can do better than your usual rhetoric. Try it, you might like it.*

The Vegas odds have changed today, given the no show on this thread by Macnutt, during his nightly visitation. He did have the time to lay a rant on the Eminem thread. Now it's 20 - 1 that he disappears and waits until it blows over and 30 - 1 that he tries to answer the questions.

Someone could make a huge whack of cash here, betting on the long shot


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, in "The Way of Warfare According to Macnutt", it is written that "Know your enemy. Allow him to come to you. Never give up the high ground, but never worry about taking the low road if this route will allow you to avoid fighting. Fight only on your terms and only when you are assured of victory. Distract your opponent with facts and details that make no sense. Remember that it's not a lie if you truly believe the fact to be true, no matter how absurd the contention might be. When all else fails, either cheat or chicken out. This way, you shall never lose even a single battle. Trust me on this....it worked for George Bush."


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macnutt was here, but did not answer. How "surprising". *cough*

*Know your enemy. Allow him to come to you.*

I'm bringin' it, then.

Check my signature.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PosterBoy, aka "The Brawler from Burnaby, BC" vs Macnutt, aka "The Marvelously Malevolent Mauler".


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Well, Docta G so far fans are disappointed. Poster Boy has definitely _put up_ with no signs of shutting up; his moxy alone has guaranteed him the support of the fans. Sure, sometimes fans may love an underdog but we're yet to see any factual KOs from MacNutt.

Fans are getting anxious. If this turns out to be a no show, they may go soccer-hooligan and tear up the stadium.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CC, tear up Yankee Stadium?!??!!!!    

"Say it ain't so!", Macnutt. Take the challenge.............show PosterBoy what you are made of..........do it for all the "little people" who have wanted a leader with the moxie to stand up to the Liberals and the Democrats............do it for the "storied pomp" as the "wretched refuse" tries to make it the "teeming shore" of Salt Spring Island....do it for the "tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free", only to be turned back because of the land prices on SSI.......the sun is rising on a new day, a new beginning of truth, justice and the Macnuttian way.

http://shw.fotopages.com/2650341.html


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Macnutt, ask yourself 'What would George W. Bush do?'


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Brainstrained, Bush would declare the "Patriot Act" in place, and hunker down until the firestorm engulfed all liberal-thinking persons.


----------



## dibenga (Oct 30, 2001)

rock the vote


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

dibenga, that is hilarious.

Great post!

He he he.

Cheers


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)




----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Fantabulous........a grin from ear to ear.  
As much as the election is serious it's nice to get some levity into the situation. Sort of like the Boston win being a nice spark of "feel good" for America and baseball fans everywhere.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Good old, Macdoc. Ever the optimist. Let us all hope that this Bosox victory, at long last, marks the start of a string of victories for those who reside in Mass. We shall see on Tuesday. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Another good sign would be the release of the Care worker in Iraq.

Perhaps we should start a "good news" thread called

"Positive Signs.....things that are WELL with the world".

I think it would be a a good thing is our "champion of long threads"* Dr. G*handi started said thread.

I know I'd be a daily contributor. What think you ehMacland.???? A good news thread by Dr. G??????


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Gets my vote, MacDoc!

I have a dandy item to start it off if no one else wants to.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, Sinc, it has been done. Strangely, there is nothing that I can find in "The World According to Macnutt" that mentions discussing simple acts of good deeds/mitzvahs for anyone, or in discussing only the good news of the day. Strange.......


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PosterBoy, I think that the reason for Manutt's silence to your "challenge" may be found in his own words from page 5 of this thread. He seemed to be directing his statement at you, writing that: 
"And, before you reply...

You might just want to watch yourself as you are typing. If you seem to be making excuses and attempting to spin the historical facts....

Then you might just want to take a moment to stop and examine exactly WHY you are choosing to do this.

The answers might be quite illuminating."

Maybe he watched himself writing a rebuttal to your challenge, realizing that while he was typing he was, in fact, merely "making excuses and attempting to spin the historical facts". Maybe he did, in fact, "stop and examine exactly WHY..." he was saying the things he was typing. Your challenge might have brought to Macnutt an epiphany...........much like Saul on the road to Damascus. Maybe a bolt of lightening came from that sunny blue Salt Spring Island sky and knocked Macnutt out of his yacht??? Maybe he then heard the voice of Macdoc call out to him "Macnutt, Macnutt, why do you persecute me?" Could it be that the "Sage from Saltspring" has transformed into a liberal-minded humanitarian????? Will he give up his worldly possessions and seek enlightenment by giving of himself to those who hunger, are sick and are homeless and without hope???????? If this be the case, then you should be ashamed of yourself to challenge such a benevolent and worthy man. Your challenge is not worthy of Macnutt's reply, since this challenge goes beyond the realm of a mere battle of words. It becomes a race, but a race without conquest and without winners or losers. This may be so, because I have been told by pilgrims returning from a moment with Macnutt under the Bo tree that he now beleives that there are no losers in the one race that really counts -- the human race.

Macnutt will come to speak to us when he is ready to share with us his enlightenment. Until that day, peace, my friend.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Even if Macnutt has transformed into his polar opposite, I am still interested to read his answers. 

I'd like to see them answered one at a time, too. 

Could be that he's taking his time answering them, some of them are similar to essay questions I've had on my history exams.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PosterBoy, fair enough. "I'd like to see them answered one at a time" is a reasonable request. "Could be that he's taking his time answering them, some of them are similar to essay questions I've had on my history exams." is also a possibility. I am still hoping for an epiphany. We shall see.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Dr. G. perhaps if you search ancient texts and tablets you might find mention of such a unthinkable transformation. In turn such a discovery may shed light on what and where MacNutt is now. Does anyone know Nostradamus' predictions? Something of this gravity should be foretold there. 

Where for art thou Mother MacNuteresa?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CC, what about Saul on the road to Damascus? It IS possible, you know. Just think of former Chief Justice Earl Warren of the US Supreme Court. 

Sparking enmity within some liberal circles to this day was Warren's role during WWII in orchestrating removal of persons of Japanese descent to internment camps. In his autobiography, Warren confessed: "I have since deeply regretted the removal order and my own testimony advocating it, because it was not in keeping with our American concept of freedom and the rights of citizens. Whenever I thought of the innocent little children who were torn from home, school friends and congenial surroundings, I was conscience-stricken."

The year after he became chief justice, Warren wrote for a unanimous court in banning segregation in the nation's schools in the landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. The "Warren Court" proceeded to issue a stream of decisions broadening civil rights.

As a result of the Warren Court's liberal bent, the leader of that court became a target of the right in the early to mid 1960s. Although Warren had been a vocal anti-Communist as governor of California, he was denounced by Robert Welch, head of the John Birch Society, as a knowing member of the Communist conspiracy. "Impeach Earl Warren" bumper stickers were affixed to the bumpers of cars across the US.

So, if Earl Warren, whe ran as Thomas E. Dewey's VP running mate in 1948, and a governor who advocated the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII could change, maybe, just maybe, Macnutt might also "see the light". Let us pray....


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Dr.G., I read your post about Saul; however, I was looking for something with a specific reference to MacNutt or a MacNutt-like figure. Maybe some ancient cave etchings in the Scottish highlands that foretell of such an event.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CC, play nicely in the sandbox, SVP. For all we know, we shall see Macnutt post a picture of himself this weekend campaigning for Kerry down in Idaho..........or waving an "I'm voting for a majority Liberal government with Paul Martin" at a Ralph Klein rally in Calgary. You never know, but it could happen. Trust me on this one, CC.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Both of your suggestions Dr.G. are sublime.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

And the Lord said unto Macnutt, "Vindication is mine, and you shall be transformed to show the non-believers my omnipotence and benevolence. Let them doubt I created the Grand Canyon, but those sunshine liberals will see my greatest creation. Macnutt, you shall be the true voice of utopian socialism throughout the land. You shall make the pacifist Man of Glass look like a warrior, and the Boy on the Poster to be a barbarian. Trust me on this. Now, go forth and multiply."


----------



## thewitt (Jan 27, 2003)

I would like to see out resident 'nutt's answers to PB's questions as well. Unfortunately the further they get buried in this thread, the less likely that will happen. He has shown time and again that he must not read large sections of posts (or chooses to ignore them) before posting his boring repetitious replies. He has even shown that he can cast his own brand of illumination without even reading the topic (and certainly without anything relevant too it)

For those out there they keep saying "I support 'nutt and his right to be here"; open your eyes, no one is saying he doesn't have a right to be here. I am just saying I am tired of him clogging up threads with the same boorish lines time and again.

Broken record anyone?

Broken record, broken record
Sunny day at the oasis
As the roasted take their places
And the undertaker mumbles
You're screwing it wrong...
You're screwing it wrong...
Like a broken record, broken record
Like a broken record, broken record
Like a broken record, broken record
Like a broken record, broken record
Sir Repetitious:
What a beauty to be needled
The new position's looking fetal
So take a letter, sayonara
We're putting you on, like a...
Broken record, broken record
Like a broken record, broken record
Like a broken record, broken record
Like a broken record, broken record, broken record


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

thewitt, PosterBoys specific questions to Macnutt cannot truly be buried within any thread, since it is attached to his signature in each of his posts. I honestly cannot say why he is waiting to take the challenge. Maybe if Bush wins on Tuesday, he shall feel vidicated. We shall see.


----------



## thewitt (Jan 27, 2003)

The man ignores a lot of facts... A signature would be pretty easy to ignore as well.

Dang, seems you are always quick to answer. Is it me who is always here, or you?


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

A valid point TheWitt.

Poster Boy, maybe you ought to re-post your questions.

If poetry can teach us anything, it's that repetition is a poweful tool. Repetition is a powerful tool.

If I make that kind of tired joke again I'm a tool... or what it an annoying fool?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

thewitt, I will bet a doxie or two that Macnutt is aware of PosterBoy's challenge. He has his own reasons for being silent (e.g., work, racing, his yacht, fear, etc), but he does know of the challenge. The minute PB made this challenge, and we all rushed to get our ringside tickets for the Battle at Yankee Stadium, he went incommunicado. PosterBoy may or may not repost his challenge, which is his choice, but I'll bet all four of my doxies that Macnutt knows of the challenge.


----------



## thewitt (Jan 27, 2003)

One must know in order to 'ignore'.

My entire point is that the guy doesn't answer questions or stay on topic.

I would love a sensible answer to PB's well thought out query. Though I doubt we will see one.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

thewitt, you shall have to ask Macnutt why he does not stay on topic or answer questions put to him, all the while demanding that we all answer his questions, which many of us do, and do, and do again.







Still, I love my doxies and would not put them in harms way if I thought that Macnutt was unaware of PB's challenge. He shall surface at some point, and then we shall know the rationale for his silence. I don't think he has been banned, so I can't see that as a reason.


----------



## thewitt (Jan 27, 2003)

Did someone mention him being banned? That would be odd.

I was searching for a example of him being off topic and remembered his posting here. He was the first (or one of the first) to reply with a bunch of 60's musicians, completely off topic, showing that he doesn't even read a topic. It was followed up with a dose of 'trust me' and 'you will find...'.

But now that post is missing.

Where did it go?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

thewitt, I wrote that "I don't think he has been banned, so I can't see that as a reason." Can't explain the missing post, however.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I can't explain a missing post, other than to question are you SURE it was in that thread?

As for the banned talk, take a valium guys. Here is today's list of:

Crazy Posters!

Dr.G. - 7346 posts

MacDoc - 6284 posts

macnutt - 5730 posts

MACSPECTRUM - 5346 posts

PosterBoy - 4812 posts

Seems to me you are making mountains out of mole hills as my Grandad used to say!

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Crazy Posters! Dr.G."


----------



## thewitt (Jan 27, 2003)

Dr.G> Sometimes you loose me.  But I still like to read it.

But sometimes I loose myself.

The thread I meant was this and it is a great example of 'nutt not even reading the topic.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

While I am doing my best to make sure that Macnutt can;t forgett o at least *try* to answer the questions (I even sent him a PM), I would agree that every extra post in the thread gives him more change to ignore them.

I might start a new thread if he comes back and doesn't answer them here.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Goofy??? Moi????









I should report that I sent a PM to Macnutt to see if he was still alive and well. He was in the process of rewiring his house, which is the reason for the silence. Once this task is complete, he shall be with us all once again.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, that Dr. G. is one goofy guy!

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, I trust that this is someone else on the list, since I am supporting John Kerry.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

He just looked like a friendly face to me, Dr. G.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, I'll take that as a "This is not your twin brother, Dr.G.". Merci for the clarification, mon ami.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here's hoping - what a swing........  









News from the Votemaster


It was bound to happen and it happened. Today we have more state polls than there are states. There are 54 new polls in 22 states today. Furthermore, the lead has changed in five states, and all five changes favor Kerry. As a result, Kerry has now passed Bush in the electoral college. If today's results are the final results Wednesday morning, John Kerry will be elected as the 44th President of the United States, with 283 votes in the electoral college to George Bush's 246. But don't count on it. Many of Kerry's leads are razor thin. Counting only the strong + weak states, Bush leads 229 to 196, with 113 electoral votes in the tossup category Kerry's leads in the tossup states mean little to nothing. *The turnout Tuesday will determine who wins.*

I'm still calling it to tie......I'm very encouraged by this.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, an electoral college ties gets thrown over to the newly elected House of Representatives, which is predicted to be even more conservative than the current 435 reps.  Do NOT pray for a tie. Rather, a strong Kerry victory will, hopefully, ensure that the election cannot be disputed.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A tie is what I THINK will happen not what I WANT to happen.

There's too much shenanigans possible in Florida and I think it will be a disputed election with Kerry winning the popular vote by a small margin.

It's certainly not what I want - I'd prefer to see a resounding American vote against what Bush has wrought in the last 4 years and conversely a mandate to Kerry for significant change.

Even if it meant some economic hardship in Canada as a result of Kerry's election and a "repairing of America"... the long term effects on the planet's geopolitics would be positive.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, this is why I am hoping for a strong Kerry victory, with no margin of error or room for any doubt.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

This is turning out to be like the Wizard of Oz, with Bush as the scarecrow, wanting a brain, Cheney as the tinman wanting a heart, Kerry as Dorothy, wanting to return a democrat back home to the White House, and Karl Rove as the wicked witch.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

That is a bit of good news! I too have been predicting an equivocal result (i.e. both candidates within the error of measurement of each other) but have been hoping for a Kerry win.

Actually, if I could wave a magic wand and make anything happen, I'd wish for a Nader win, but I would encourage anyone thinking of voting for Nader to hold their noses and vote for Kerry this time. The US has a long way to go to become a truly democratic state, but long journeys begin with a single step, and Kerry is a (small) step in the right direction.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Latest 8.01 tonight



> The closeness of the 2004 election also is reflected in a number of USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup polls in so-called battleground states. Polls of likely voters in those states were as follows:
> 
> • Florida: *Kerry* with 49%, Bush with 46%.
> 
> ...


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> This is turning out to be like the Wizard of Oz, with Bush as the scarecrow, wanting a brain, Cheney as the tinman wanting a heart, Kerry as Dorothy, wanting to return a democrat back home to the White House, and Karl Rove as the wicked witch.


dr. g, did you come up with that? it's brilliant!  (you don't mind if i use that and pretend it's my own, do you?







)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

TMR, I cannot tell a lie. The basis of this analogy came from a comdey show on the CBC.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, no Republican candidate has won the White House without winning Ohio, and NO Democrat or Republican has beaten the Washington Redskins victory/defeat predictor. If the Redskins last home game prior to an election is a victory, the Republican candidate wins. If they lost this last home game, the Democratic candidate wins. Yesterday, the Redskins LOST their last home game.

"The Packers victory could be good news for Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. Since 1936, every time the Redskins won their final home game before an election, the incumbent President has been re-elected, but a Washington loss has always preceded a victory by the challenger."


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

While the partisans hang onto to football games and specific polls the only hope for the States is a major win for one candidate or the other. 

Neither Kerry or Bush can overcome the divide without that mandate.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Back in 1968, I ran as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in the 7th Congressional District in New York State, pledging to support Eugene McCarthy. After the convention in Chicago, which nominated Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, many of the "Keep Clean for Gene" supporters said, "A pox on your election", and faded away. I stayed on to help, and Humphrey nearly beat Richard Nixon back then, and the rest, as they say, is history.

The district leader of the Democratic party who was guiding the campaign for HHH would tell us the story of what Knute Rockne, football coach of the Univ. of Notre Dame, told his players. For some reason, he thought that Notre Dame was in Minn. rather than where it really is located, in Indiana. I think that he took the line from the 1940's movie "Knute Rockne -- All American", with none other than Ronald Reagan as George Gipp. Still, he would do it to raise our spirits to go out there and campaign for HHH in the dying days of the campaign. Humphrey was closing the gap in the polls and might have won had the election campaign gone on one more week, as more and more people realized the implications of voting for Nixon.

So, in the spirit of fighting for what might seem like a lost cause, I give you the fictional version of the "Win one for the Gipper" speech. May it raise our spirits and may our positive Karma/Vibes/prayers/etc flow south to the voters in the US tomorrow. It can't hurt.....trust me on this.

"I gotta go, Rock. It's alright, I'm not afraid. Sometime, Rock, when the team's up against it, and things are wrong and the breaks are beating the boys, tell then to go in there with all they've got and win just one for the Gipper. I don't know where I'll be then, Rock, but I'll know about it, and I'll be happy."


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr. G., 

I rather doubt that Cheney wants a heart... he certainly is _wanting_ in the heart department. If there's anything inside that man, it's the evil black goop from a first-year episode of Start Trek; TNG (the "Tasha Dies" episode).

M


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not likely will the world see a clear mandate anytime soon. - In Clinton's book he identified the divide well back in the early 70s springing out of the violence both at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago and the Civil Rights legislation with it's subsequent violence and protests.

It's just gotten deeper and more vitriolic as the broken representative system shows up - Canadian television was trying to find a Congressional seat that was actually a contest. It's all predetermined. The only one was where an incumbent had died in Pennsylvania and his replacement was a right to lifer that didn't play too well in the moderate riding.

It's clearly a busted and corrupted system of governance at the Federal level and at least they have the individual states to rely on for some sanity.

ie A number of states are moving ahead with stem cell research rather than lose the best and the brightest to places like Shanghai's Bioscience super-centre.

Other states are considering alternative health care programs and working in conjunction with the Canadian system etc.

I find it interesting that EU, India and China have effectively "experimental zones" where various programs from highly socialized (in India even one almost communist state doing quite well ) to just about laissez faire capitalism on others. Even city states economic zones like Shanghai are "work in progress" societal experiments trying out economic and governance models.

I see little of that dynamic for change in the US. It's stultified, much by it's own litigious systems.
The lawyer count for this election is now 20,000 plus - that India could have successful and close elections with 18 official languages and a billion plus citizens while the US is floundering is just plain horrendous. 

[ November 01, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CM, Dick Cheney's may not be "in the right place", but it is not strong. God help us all if he is ever in the position of president.

Macdoc, talk about a divided nation, just imagine if abortion was at the forefront of the campaign, rather than Iraq and the economy???


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND 
words and music by Woody Guthrie

Chorus:
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me

As I was walking a ribbon of highway
I saw above me an endless skyway
I saw below me a golden valley
This land was made for you and me

Chorus

I've roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G I think it's a strong underlying issue that hardens the divide.
It's not just abortion tho but religion in a variety of ways, including things like stem cell research.
These muddy waters run deep

http://www.voanews.com/english/2004-10-15-voa91.cfm


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, what the US needs is an African-Amercian woman who is Jewish and in a wheelchair, with an athiest who is also proudly gay as her running mate for VP. Now THAT would make all sorts of issues brought to the forefront. Can't see this taking place any time soon.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The next president may also be able to nominate at least one Supreme Court justice.

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist disclosed Monday that he's undergoing radiation and chemotherapy for thyroid cancer and said he is delaying his expected return to the Supreme Court, a sign he may have a more serious form of the illness.

Rehnquist, 80, revealed the cancer diagnosis a week ago, prompting speculation about a court vacancy for the first time in more than a decade. The winner of Tuesday's presidential election is expected to name one or more justices to a court that is deeply divided on issues like abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I wonder the impact of those voters who favor Ralph Nader and either maintain their support for RN, or switch their vote at the last moment? We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Reports show Nader below 1% this time around. Lesson learned methinks, I hope........like please.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, 1% of a larger group of voters in various states could mean the difference. I wonder if Nader thinks that if Bush is reelected that he will nominate another Supreme Court justice that is friendly to the environment, the consumer, the democratic tradition of "one person, one vote" that IS counted, etc.? We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Ohio is slated to become the battle state with the "hanging chads" this election. Florida has progressed to potential high-tech electoral fraud and theft. Let us ALL hope for a free, fair and decisive (and not devisive) election tomorrow.

Aren't we "lucky" that here in Canada over the past dozen years or so, up until the last election, the CBC could announce a Liberal majority government even before the voting ended in Ontario?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Senate apparently is also too close to call.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

For the purpose of a deadlocked Electoral College, it is the composition of the newly elected House of Reps that matters, and this shall go to the Republicans, unless there is a groundswell of Democratic support. We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

New ad on TV I just caught from this MOB.

http://www.mob.org/  



> We are Mothers (and others) opposing Bush because this administration’s policies endanger our families and our country.
> 
> Our mission is to get the facts out, get the voters out and get this administration out of office.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Amen, mothers,sisters, grandmothers and aunts, and amen brothers, fathers, grandfathers and uncles who support the cause.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Each voter tomorrow should carry a little card with them with a part of the song, "God Bless America" -- "God bless Amercia, land that I love. Stand beside her and guide her, through the night with the light from above." On the flip side of the card, is a quote from JFK -- "God's work here on earth must truly be our own."


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay...power is back on here (temporarily), and I have have a spare hour or two to relax, while ranting at ehmac.  

In answer to PosterBoy's questions (which were in answer to an earlier rant by myself)...


I just have to say this:

I think you missed the entire point of it all, my old buddy.  

What I was trying to do is un-demonise the Republican Party by listing all the "horrible things" that they DIDN"T DO.

While listing all of the "horrible things" that the Democrats DID DO.  

Look back over the list that I posted. 

Any one or any group of those major and very controversial moves, if made by any Republican President (like being the originator of the Atomic Bomb...or being the only President to have ever dropped it an anger, on a foreign country) would have been major fuel for the spin doctors from the left/lib side of the political equation.

They'd have been shrieking and howling and pointing fingers about this. Even decades later. Rather loudly.

IF any Republican President had aver done any of this stuff. Which NONE of them ever did, by the way.  

It was all done by Democrats. 

So these left/lib spin doctors try not to bring this stuff up. They shy away from the questions and wait for the nitpickers to 'splain it all away, instead (which you did PB, rather admirably).

They do this while, at the same time, attempting to demonise ALL Republican Presidents and potential Republican Presidents as "pure EVIL" and just plain BAD.  

People that you DON"T want to ever vote for. Just on principle! 

(Well-read students of history might want to differ on this point, BTW. And they frequently do.







)

Think about it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Oh yeah.....one more thing...

PosterBoy, you are DEAD WRONG About Gorbachev and the end of the forty year Cold War.

Gorby was a Soviet politburo answer to Reagan's clever chess move re: the Space Based Defense Initiative (called "Star Wars" by the spin doctors).

He was supposed to put a happy and friendly face on a terrible tyranny that had us all fearing for our lives. And, in doing so...it was hoped that the decadent capitalist pig dog buisnessmen in the west would invest billions in a newly "open" Soviet Empire to get a chunk of the action.

And this new investment would allow them to finance their response to the technical challenges that Reagan had put before them. (At that point...Soviet citizens were lined up for hours to buy a few mouldy cucumbers at mostly empty stores, and the whole rotten empire was squandering 75% of ALL of it's yearly income on weapons. At the same time, the USA was spending barely 10% on their military, BTW. )

But it got away from them. All of this new openness and the relaxing of the iron grip of the politburo gave the imprisoned millions a new hope for major positive change. And freedom ensued. And the whole Marxist mess collapsed under the weight of it's own lies and bullsh*t. Never to be seen in that area ever again.

Thank goodness!

PB...you might want to ask yourself THIS question:

"How come the Russian people aren't erecting any statues to Gorbachev? Especially if HE was the guy who finally freed them from this terrible yoke? You'd think that they'd have some sort of affection for the one man that finally gave them back their lives? Wouldn't you?"

So why do they HATE Gorbachev with a passion? Why did they NEVER elect him to any sort of popular public office, after the Soviet Union collapsed?

You might want to ask a Russian, who was there at the time, about this. Or a Hungarian. Or a Pole. Or a Czeck. Or a Romanian. Or...

You might also want to ask them why they think that Ronald Reagan is such a cool guy, while you're at it.   

And why there are several statues of good old Ronnie planned for the former satellite states of the now collapsed Soviet Union. But NONE of Gorbachev.

Odd about that, eh?

[ November 02, 2004, 02:17 AM: Message edited by: MacNutt ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay...back to the Presidential election polls.

Which is the subject of this thread...right?

A day or two back, I used my dad's PC (yecchhh) to check my emails while I was fixing one of his many many Windoze glitches. At that lunchtime moment, I stopped in and checked ehmac for the latest rants.

Macdoc was crowing loudly about how the polls had "reversed" and that now Kerry was clearly in the lead! He was also making loud noises about how pissed off I'd be, once I found out! 









Too funny.

At the very SAME moment that I was reading macdoc's fresh post...the CTV News was reporting that a Newsweek poll showed George W. to be at 50% while John Kerry had dropped back to 43%.

So...I dialed up Google and typed "Presidential poll" into the search box.

Guess what I got?

The Rasmussen Report was the first thing on the list. It claimed that Bush had a certain 222 Electoral College votes versus Kerry's 186.

It went on to note that, while the numbers seemed to be in a virtual dead heat right now (this was sunday)...John Kerry had only actually been AHEAD of George Bush for _ONE SINGLE DAY_ since last may!

ALL of the rest of the time, George Bush had actually been ahead of Kerry, or dead even with him.

Quite a giant lead, eh macdoc?









Too funny. You should pipe some sat feeds down into that dark cave you live in, old buddy. Or dump some of the silly ideology.

It clouds the vision. Or so it would seem.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Funny posts on the US elections. Still putting forward discredited world views I see.......nothing new there.
Did you ever figure out the author of that quote about telling a big enough tale often enough........








••••••

Now on topic

Well I'm in good company with Bob Woodward who is still calling a tie tonight.

He tho is calling a Kerry win after the dispute and a slight win for Bush on popular vote and that would look like a reasonable conclusion unless both Ohio and Florida get into serious vte counting disputes......something that is already happening in a big way.

20,000 lawyers need something to do after all.  

•••••

Last update on the consolidated Electoral Vote Predictor.
18 hours we'll see the real thing. I'll take this one just as it is.










Here's hoping the Votemaster gets to bed early and satisfied with his prediction effort


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually, macdoc...it's called "History" and "Facts".  

Except in your deep dark cave. (I'd think that almost anything goes, down there!)









Now...on to the polls.

The ONLY poll that really counts is the one that happens when the citizens of an area actually get to cast their votes.

And...surprise surprise! I'll be pretty happy with EITHER result!

John Kerry would make a rather good President, I'd expect. And I've said so, quite clearly. On numerous occasions here at ehmac. Check for yourself.

I also think that he's going to have to step UP the war in Iraq in order to restore order. As he has solemnly promised to do. In public.

This means MORE troops. Not less.

Bush will likely do the same thing if re-elected. Especially if he doesn't have to worry about running again.

Sounds like a budding and stable democracy is in the works for Iraq, no matter WHO wins.

Sounds good to me!


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Good news for Kerry! I have just looked into my crystal ball and here is what I see.

l. No incumbent president has ever been re-elected if the Redskins lost the last game before the elections - Packers beat the Redskins on Sun.

2. Shorter hemlines indicate a Democrat victory - fall hemlines are shorter this year.

3. Falling stock market in October indicates a win for the challenger - market dipped below 10,000.

4. No Republican candidate for president has been elected if he lost Ohio - Kerry is leading in Ohio.

5. No president has been elected if his approval record was below 50% - Bush is at 49%.

6. No president with a four letter name has ever been re-elected.

7. The weather is rainy in several states - in Illinos we prayed for bad weather because more 
Democrats came out to vote
.
8. The tallest candidate has the edge - at 6'4 Kerry towers over Bush
.
9. The Red Sox WON - that has to count for something!

10. My four year old Poinsettia suddenly curled up and died this morning - that has to an omen for Bush.

Hey, I didn't make this stuff up, it's tradition. 

[ November 02, 2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: lotus ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm laughing both at Lotus crystal ball and Macnutts Neocon hallucinations.

At least one has some cred of history.......after all the Redskins have got it right a whole bunch of times.....on the other hand.......


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, you are correct, to a degree, re you comment that "The ONLY poll that really counts is the one that happens when the citizens of an area actually get to cast their votes." Keep in mind that when these citizens get a chance to cast their votes, these votes need to be tabulated fairly. As well, eligible voters need to be able to cast this vote, if they have proper identification, without overt challenges.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G a are sharply worded editorial from today's Globe. The tone was surprising. 


> *A tangled web of U.S. ballots*
> 
> Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - Page A16
> Whenever democracy comes to a part of the world that has had little experience in setting up and running such basic necessities of representative government as free and fair elections, the United States is quick to offer its considerable experience. It is also quick to denounce practices that fall short of international standards and to punish the governments involved.
> ...


 

Damned with NO praise. Harsh words, too true.

I sent Kerry an email last night wishing him well.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yikes - my tie call is looking only too real.  

Last call - dead heat.
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004:   Kerry 262   Bush 261
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Vote big America.......damn the rain get out and vote.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, getting a uniform voting system is the entire US shall require an amendment, I fear. When I was in first Waycross, Georgia, back in 1973, I had to pass a literacy test. No problem. Then they asked me to explain the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. No problem once again. My one problem was that I had no proof, other than a pay stub, that I was a resident of Georgia. Luckily, the US Postal Service had delivered this pay stub to my home on Williams Street, and it is against Federal law for the USPS to deliver mail to the incorrect person. Thus, the fact that I had a pay stub showed I was a taxpayer, and the fact that the USPS delivered it to ME, as prescribed by law. Thus, the legend of The Yankee from Georgia was born (this is what my students called me_.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

So it begins -- 
"High court clears way for Ohio poll challengers
Tuesday, November 2, 2004 Posted: 1322 GMT (2122 HKT) 
CINCINNATI, Ohio (AP) -- Giving a pre-dawn Election Day boost to the GOP, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to stay an appeals court ruling allowing political parties to send people to polls in Ohio to challenge voters' eligibility.

Under state law, voters may be challenged on their citizenship, age or residency. Poll workers generally would challenge someone if his or her signature didn't match the one in the poll book, or if the poll worker recognized the individual as someone who didn't belong in that precinct.

Republicans have said they plan to check names of voters against lists of absentee ballots and of people who have died recently."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CNN just called it for Bush, based on the actual vote count in NH.

"The mountain hamlet of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, followed tradition as one of the first municipalities to count and announce vote totals. The tiny community with 26 voters gave Bush 19 votes to Kerry's 7. Independent candidate Ralph Nader received no votes in Dixville Notch. (New Hampshire)

Fifty miles away in Hart's Location, the vote was tighter -- 16 for Bush, 14 for Kerry -- and Nader got on the tally board with one."

However, only four times since 1900 has New Hampshire not selected the winning candidate in a presidential election, and those elections were in 1932, 1948, 1960 and 1976. In each of these elections, a Democratic candidate was elected. 

Thus, on this basis, I call it for Kerry.

We shall see if CNN or Dr.G. and DNN (the Doxie News Network) is correct. Stay tuned for further updates.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*I think you missed the entire point of it all, my old buddy. *

No, I got what you were trying to do. It just that you can't do it when you ignore the big picture. You can't demonize the democrats anymore than you can demonize the republicans unless you look at the whole picture. Why do you think that Fahrenheit 9/11 had so little impact? Because Moore only took what he needed, not the whole picture, just like you've been doing.

*Any one or any group of those major and very controversial moves, if made by any Republican President (like being the originator of the Atomic Bomb..) would have been major fuel for the spin doctors from the left/lib side of the political equation.*

No, I don't think it would have. If the Republicans had sat on their hands while Hitler started developing nukes, that would have been major fuel for the fire, though.

Explain how exactly a republican sitting in office and not starting wars would have been fuel for the fire? That's what those democrats did, they entered wars but did not initiate them, unlike the current president who initiated two (see the difference?). You can go on about Vietnam all you want, but the blame for the start of the Vietnam ordeal does not lie with any one president, really. Yes, Johnson escalated it, but bear in mind that at the time his actions were supported.

*They do this while, at the same time, attempting to demonise ALL Republican Presidents and potential Republican Presidents as "pure EVIL" and just plain BAD.*

Name one time I have tried to demonize "all the republican presidents". I can't remember seeing anyone else doing this in full honesty, either. I see a lot of people trying to demonize Bush, but there are two major differences with his presidency:

1. The country has been getting progressively more polarized in it's two party system
2. Bush and his administration have been involved in a number of shady dealings (such as calling voters homes in the guise of John Kerry just the other day).

*Well-read students of history might want to differ on this point, BTW. And they frequently do.*

Well read students of history don't ignore the details, they look at the whole picture.

*PosterBoy, you are DEAD WRONG About Gorbachev and the end of the forty year Cold War.*

No, not really. History can answer all your questions about it, too.

Try reading some history!

<blockquote>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev#Biography

On the death of Konstantin Chernenko, Mikhail Gorbachev, at age 54, was elected General Secretary of the Communist Party on March 11, 1985. As the de facto ruler of the Soviet Union, he tried to reform the stagnating Communist Party rule and the state economy by introducing glasnost ("openness"), perestroika ("restructuring") and uskorenie ("acceleration", of economic development) which were launched at the 27th Congress of CPSU in February 1986.

On October 11, 1986, Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan met in Reykjavik, Iceland, to discuss reducing intermediate nuclear missile arsenals in Europe. This led to the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in 1987. In 1988, Gorbachev announced that the Soviet Union would abandon the Brezhnev Doctrine, and allow the Eastern bloc nations to turn to democracy, if they wished. He jokingly called his new doctrine the Sinatra Doctrine.

Gorbachev's foreign policy reforms led to the string of revolutions in Eastern Europe throughout 1989 in which communism collapsed. With the exception of Romania, the democratic revolutions were all peaceful ones. The collapse of the pro-Soviet regimes in Eastern Europe coincided with the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. These events effectively ended the Cold War, and for this Gorbachev was awarded the Nobel peace prize on October 15, 1990.

However, the democratization of the USSR and Eastern Europe tore away the power of the CPSU and Gorbachev himself. Gorbachev's relaxation of censorship and attempts to create more political openness had the unintended effect of re-awakening long suppressed nationalist and anti-Russian feelings in the Soviet republics. Calls for greater independence from Moscow's rule grew louder, especially in the Baltic republics of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, which had been annexed into the Soviet Union by Joseph Stalin in 1940. Nationalist feeling also took hold in other Soviet republics such as the Ukraine and Azerbaijan. Gorbachev had accidentally unleashed a force that would ultimately destroy the Soviet Union.

[...]

Gorbachev was elected as the first executive president of the Soviet Union on March 15, 1990 but would later resign on December 25, 1991. Gorbachev is generally well regarded in the West for having ended the Cold War. However in Russia, his reputation is very low because it is perceived that he brought about the collapse of the country and is responsible for the misery that followed. Nevertheless polls indicate that a majority of Russians are pleased with the result of the individual aims of perestroika, Gorbachev's chief legislative legacy.[/b]</blockquote>

*Why did they NEVER elect [Gorbachev] to any sort of popular public office, after the Soviet Union collapsed?*

They did. He was the first executive President of the Soviet Union, c. 1990. This is after the Soviets had to give up their monopoly of power, and after most of the satellite nations had broken away in democratic revolutions.

Granted, it wasn't until Yeltsin was in power that the major restructuring of the Russian economy and government started to happen.

*And why there are several statues of good old Ronnie planned for the former satellite states of the now collapsed Soviet Union. *

Prove it?

-----

But all of this, and you didn't rise to my challenge. It's disappointing, to say the least. Maybe I'll post it again, in plainer view.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macnutt's world.

A few million are inappropriately scammed from a unification campaign and it's grounds for "blue bloody murder" - conveniently ignoring of course the same gov 's sterling economic policy having reduced the nation's debt ratios to a real conservatives wet dream. With the continuing best economy in the G8 year after year...naw THEY are ALL crooks......









BUT the NeoCon band of pirates in the US can pillage the US taxpayer to the tune of 1/2 a trillion dollar deficit AND proceed to pillage Iraq for more billions and billions - abrogating world treaties going back to 1917.
And it's not just OK......it's a sterling example of freedom and democracy at work.










Is it any wonder why Macnutt's world is laughed at. Carnival mirrors are more accurate.  

•••

Good summary on Gorby. 
Always one of my favourite statesmen and I was disappointed he was not able to continue moving Russia to a mixed economic/political model. 
He certainly had the respect of the world and indeed a world altering deal with EU may well have been in the wind already had he been able to maintain power.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, you made the following point: 

"So these left/lib spin doctors try not to bring this stuff up. They shy away from the questions and wait for the nitpickers to 'splain it all away, instead (which you did PB, rather admirably). They do this while, at the same time, attempting to demonise ALL Republican Presidents and potential Republican Presidents as "pure EVIL" and just plain BAD. People that you DON"T want to ever vote for. Just on principle!"

You concluded this point with the comment that "Well-read students of history might want to differ on this point, BTW. And they frequently do.







" 

Herein lies the quandary, in my mind. You stated your views, which is your right. Then you conclude your thesis by the comment that a well-read student of history might want to, and usually does, in fact, differ with this view. You have basically said that someone who is well-read, and who views the total context of the situation, as PosterBoy stated quite well in his reply, would differ with your view. Thus, PosterBoy did not knock you out, you knocked yourself out. You have basically said that if you are not well-read, and view only specific facts in isolation, then you are correct in this thesis. 

I think that you might want to reconsider how you present your points-of-view. They may be well founded, but they come across as foolish. As you say, "Think about it."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I was going to post this in the Good News column but given the penchant for hijacking topics I'll keep it here.

* high turn outs in the voting in the US*  

I'm amazed at some of the lineups - some people were out at 5.30 am lining up to vote.

Good for America.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, even better news is if all of these votes shall be counted fairly. We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*The Sage has returned to instruct the flock!*









Macnutt, Macnutt, Macnutt. Your answers to PosterBoy were a very poor effort, I'm disappointed. I'm *sure* you can do better.

I think it's only fair that since you have asked so many questions, that have been very patiently responded to, that you at least try and answer the questions he posed to you. Now I know that fair isn't an important word to most neo-cons, but I sense that you have a greater spirit than that.

But please, a favour to all of us. If you're going to use "historic fact" to back up an argument, can you please make sure you know what you are talking about. Please inform yourself of the facts, not just what you imagine them to be. Otherwise, how can anyone here take you seriously?

Broadband internet is a wonderful way to research things. The Wikipedia link that PB kindly provided you with is an excellent resource. It disputes your contention that Reagan somehow bullied Gorbachev into accepting his terms. The facts show that it didn't go like that at all. My link, that I provided to you, ten or so pages back in this thread might be useful in explaining the facts, too. How We Won The Cold War

Gorbachev was reformer who, long before he met Reagan, knew that his country would not survive unless they embraced a more open, modern approach. He had already moved to make many of the changes long before the summit meetings. To label him as some doctrinaire Commie who just rolled over is not true.

Actually Gorbachev's meeting with Alexander Yakovlev, at the time the USSR ambassador to Canada, in a farm field in Saskachewan, where the two men openly spoke with each other about the need for _glasnost_, long before Gorbachev became the leader, was an important turning point in the history of the Cold War. Another Wikipedia article, *please* read it.

You know Macnutt, it's just a hunch, but I don't think anyone on this forum is just buying your game of labelling anything you disagree with as "spin".

If you really want to convince anyone here that your arguments have any merit, you're going to have to do better than just sitting down at night and firing off a bunch of half-baked opinion.

Bruce Bartlett, former Reagan advisor is a conservative who's worried about Bush and the neo-con disconnect with reality. In a long, but interesting New York Times article by Ron Susskind, entitled "Without a Doubt", he said about Bush:


> ''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''


Susskind goes on to quote a current Bush aide who sums up the problem they have with those who disagree with their faith:


> The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''


Yeah, scary stuff these are the guys who want to continue ruling the world. Me, I think I'll stay a member of the "reality-based community".


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

On the US election front, I came across this button on a Dem site  :









And this report from someone in the field, I couldn't find the source for this, the posting entry was entitled "Early turnout reports from the networks" and was posted at 3:48 Eastern time:


> Ohio - African American precincts are performing at 106% what we expected, based on historical numbers. Hispanic precincts are at 144% what we expected. Precincts that went for Gore are turning out 8% higher then those that went Bush in 2000. Democratic base precincts are performing 15% higher than GOP base precincts.
> 
> Florida - Dem base precincts are performing 14% better than Bush base precincts. In precincts that went for Gore, they are doing 6% better than those that went for Bush. African American precincts at 109%, Hispanic precincts at 106%.
> 
> ...


The long line-ups reported everywhere are encouraging for Kerry supporters. I've seen this quote all over the net in various forms: "You don't get in line for hours just to give the President a pat on the back."

One thing I believe, from the reports of long lines in Florida's African-American precincts is, that these guys are absolutely determined to not let Bush steal their votes again and that unless there is some pretty sophisticated and virtually undetectable fraud in Florida by the GOP this time, it will go blue. I hope they get their revenge for 2000.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I've said it many times in this thread before... and I'll say it once again...

Pollsters will be shocked.  There will be a strong Kerry win tonight. 

We'll see shortly.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Apparently one reason for the large numbers of absentee votes, many Dems are pouring into swing states from other states to help get the vote out.

People driving from Florida where they voted early to Ohio and even New Hampshire  

Wow.

I know this was the first year I was ever personally involved in getting the vote out for a Canadian election. Seems the importance is really sinking in.

Maybe the stupidity of the 2000 results is an embarrassment to the American voter.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I could have gotten an absentee ballot from the State of New York, which seems to be solidly for Kerry, or Georgia, which is solidly for Bush. I chose to vote by absentee ballot in Georgia to send a message to Bush, namely "Don't mess with a doxie loving Yankee from Georgia, who has a two inch thick FBI file." I think he got the message. We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

More good news for Kerry:

Kerry takes lead in online futures

I didn't know there was such a thing as "online futures". People are making money off this and I'm just sitting here chewing my nails.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Well, here we go. Polls start to close in a couple of minutes. May the best man win. Go John Kerry!!!!!! Paix, my friends.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The polls have closed for 4 minutes, and CNN has already declared Bush the victor in Kentucky, Indiana, and GEORGIA!!!!!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Sorry, Dr. G.

CNN already called Georgia for Bush


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Kerry just took Vermont after only 5 minutes. This whole thing may be over before the doxies go to sleep.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

Vermont.... 3 votes. Nice forests though


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

OH NO......KERRY'S LOSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

 

Did everyone see post # 3 in this thread? Pretty bold prediction eh?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CNN gave Georgia to Bush with, wait for it, 0 votes counted!!!!!!! I wonder if Haliburton will be moving its head office to Atlanta???


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

As I said, this may be over before the doxies go to sleep. Luckily, Jack, named after JFK, is going to hang on to the bitter end and bring home a Kerry victory.

http://shw.fotopages.com/2534873.html


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Abby bites the dust as Nader picks up 1% of the popular vote.

http://shw.fotopages.com/2544690.html


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

Reuters say that Virginia is too close to call. That would be a major upset in favour of Kerry


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Moscool, just sent Kerry an email -- "Help is on the way. Sending our toughest doxie to Ohio to help take this one from the jaws of defeat. Carpe diem."

http://shw.fotopages.com/2544768.html


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Need.... more.... data.....









Virginia is looking Bush  would of been an nice upset there.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ehMax, when Kerry pulled his people out of Virginia in early Sept. they realized that they were not going to take this state. However, many of the workers were sent to Ohio and Florida.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

'Tis early days..... Kerry is creeping up in the popular vote. Here's hoping. More swing states at 8pm..... (although they'll all be close, like Ohio).

Today, Nader endorsed Kerry in a weird sort of way, predicting he'd win.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

CNN is predicting Dem wins in W. Virginia and North Carolina....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

In 1948, Harry Truman went to bed with Dewey leading, and woke up as president, elected in his own right. Watch New Hampshire. We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Kerry NOW UP in projected electoral votes, 77 to 66. The power of the doxies IS working!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

New Jersey to Kerry - that's good news. It should have been safe for the Dems - glad it turned out okay.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Watch New Hampshire!!!!! For some reason, when a Democrat runs for the first time, and loses this state, he goes on to win the election.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

So far no surprises..... but the swings states are too close/early to get a good indication.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Only 11,000 counts in NH.... too soon...... but just maybe.....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, just wait until the Kerry forces bring out the "big guns" in these swing states. Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are the crucial states. Still, watch New Hampshire.

http://shw.fotopages.com/2650337.html


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! 

can't... take... much.... more.... of... this... uh....
brain... filled... with... angst....
must.... have..... strong..... drink....
glug... glug... gloob... glig... urp
.
.
.
.
ahhhh


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

I thought I'd share two pictures sent to me today by my friends in Upstate New York. Here is the voting machine of the Town of Clinton. As my friend said,

_The Town of Clinton voting machine. One of the oldest around. The red handle on the left, inside the curtain, closes the curtain. Once the levers have been clicked, the handle (now on the right) is pulled which simultaneously opens the curtain and resets the levers. Nifty, huh?
_










This picture speaks for itself.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I'm calling NH for Kerry! And the Ohio exit polls look good for Kerry too. Florida.......


----------



## jeac5 (Feb 28, 2003)

I caaann't staaaannnd it! I have one french channel at my disposal and while my comprehension is quickly improving, it's not the same. Anyway, I think Radio Canada is just airing the usual shows. I have no way to follow along. I'll just sit here and pray...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

JIM, NH MUST GO TO BUSH FOR KERRY TO WIN!!!! Now, I shall have to sacrifice a doxie to appeal to the Gods of Politics. Great going, my learned friend.

http://shw.fotopages.com/2544770.html


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Doug, I remember these voting machines. When I was a poll watcher back in 1968 and 1972, we had to warn people not to pull the lever back until AFTER they had voted.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Kerry is catching up in the popular vote count, as a result of the independents voting for him by a margin of +4%.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Nah.... superstitution. NH and Ohio WILL go to Kerry. Florida will keep us up all night along wth WVa (but who cares about WVa?).

If Kerry is elected, he'll have a Republican Senate and Congress


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, are you insane. Now that means ANOTHER doxie has to die for the cause. Thanks a lot!!! You are officially off of my Hanukkah card list. Here doxie, doxie, doxie.....

http://shw.fotopages.com/2538199.html


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Projecting Bush for Virginia....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, few Democratic presidents have had the full support of both the House and Senate. Luckily, one does not have to vote with a "party line" as we have here in Canada. Many liberal Republicans will vote for Kerry's policy (on certain issues), but many conservative Democrats will vote against his policies (on certain issues) as well.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I'm sorry doxies..... W. Mangles Doxies


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ehMax, there is a wall building up in the south which will roll on to the west........up to the California border. It's now in the hands of the voters in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.....................AND New Hampshire, if Jim did not TOTALLY ruin this statistical aberation. We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, I accept your sorrow, but what's done is done.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I'm calling Ohio, New Hampshire, Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan for Kerry and lil 'ole West Virginia for Bush. I think that might just give Kerry the keys to the big house.

Sorry doxies....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, the "big house" is the name they give to Sing Sing Prison in Ossining, NY. I think you mean the keys to the "White House". Let us hope you are correct in your speculations.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Listening to some commentary from NBC news... I'm not holding my breath on getting a definite outcome tonight. In Florida, there is something like 100,000 absentee ballots and that they won't be counted until tomorrow. So unless Kerry wins by over 100,000 there, we'll have to wait to tomorrow for that state. 

We'll have to see. Lots of states closing in 10 minutes.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ehMax, the same holds true for Bush in Florida. So, unless Jeb Bush requests that the National Guard be sent in to "escort" these ballots to a secure location in the White House, where they will be "counted", Bush too must wait.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

There are a lot of overseas votes too - largely from the military and we know their tendencies to vote.... I agree that it will take some time. It's close. Very close.

Signing off..... hopefully we'll be celebrating for Kerry tomorrow as predicted by the Mayor.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Good night, Jim, my friend. May we all wake up tomorrow to a Kerry presidency. Paix.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Ralph Nader does not seem to be a factor in any of the races.................so far. We shall see.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

All I am saying is don't count 'em before . . . well, you know.








Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, yes, you are correct about the tabulation of chicken eggs...............but we shall awake to the crowing of the cock as the sun rises upon a newly elected DEMOCRATIC president.


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Nice dream Dr.G but it looka like they could be counting for days maybe even more. Ohio is a mess and Florida is still open.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I just got back from an off island business trip...but I've been watching on my hand-held TV set during the ferry trip. Interesting stuff.

Bush has been leading in electoral votes all night long and is still ahead of Kerry at this point. Which is just how the polls have been recording the mood of the nation for many months now (Macdoc's inexplicable "sudden reversal of fortunes" notwithstanding).

Florida looks to be a lock for George W. as well. In fact, the US network that I'm watching as I'm writing this is already starting to do a post-mortem on what Kerry _SHOULD_ have done "had he wanted to win".

The House of Representatives looks like a certain Republican majority at this point...in fact, the Dems have actually lost ground there.

At this point, the race is still too close to call. Should be an interesting night.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

NBC is declaring Bush for Ohio....  Wierd..... they were the last to declare Florida. 

Hmmm... Fat lady may be about to sing.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

269 against Kerry's 207! Ohio goes to Bush. That's a lock! Especially with several more Republican dominated states yet to report.

Looks like the Senate and the House are also moving toward a definitive Republican victory.

I'd say it was a clear win for George. W.

Welcome to your own worst nightmare, Bush-bashers!!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Still reports of students lined up to vote in Ohio... 3 news agencies have not called Ohio yet. Two that have called it are Fox News and NBC news... the two agencies that called Florida early last year. 

Hey, you never know.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

yeah, it looks like it's over
more war, more death
more war profiteering
pres. cheney for 4 more years
call your broker and buy u.s military-industrial (aka military hardware makers) stocks BIG TIME

evil has won
america the beautiful is no more
Amerika is now entrenched into the future

TRUST ME ON THIS


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

The Bush cavalcade is leaving the White House now and country music is a playing at party head-quarters. Ye-ha. I'm still waiting for the final word.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sleep well tonight, macspectrum. There is a strong hand at the tiller, and the terrorists won't be blowing anything up tomorrow to test the new guy.

They already KNOW what happens when they take on George W.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I give a hefty ***** of change to be a fly on the wall at the Kerry enclave right now. Or to be a guest in Michael Moore's living room...watching him fume and grind his teeth.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

yeah, just askt the 100,000 dead Iraqis


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Reports of Bush stopping the calvalcade as Ohio will be too close and Ohio having to count over 100,000 provisional votes. 

One network saying other two networks foolish for calling it already. (Fox and NBC) 

It's not over until its over.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macspectrum, 100,000 Iraqis have been slaughtered by terrorists. 

Mostly from outside of Iraq. The Iraqis are getting pretty fed up with this,as well.
One guy can put and end to this and turn the whole area into a free democracy. And put an end to all of the killing. On both sides.

Watch and see.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Could be their just getting a few more advertising dollars out of it too... I just checked the counties that haven't reported yet and doesn't look that good really though. 

Still.......


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Face it, ehmax. It's over.

Deal with it.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macnutt... strong words to call the US terrorists... but some would agree.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Why hasn't the new president come out yet? Don't think you'll see him tonight. Over 250,000 provisional and absentee ballots have to be counted yet which won't be counted until tomorrow.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macnutt... if its over, you should call ABC news, CBS News, and CNN because they haven't called it yet... only Fox and NBC which called Bush early last election. 

Reports are saying that we won't get result for another 10 days yet as in Ohio they can't count the many, provisional and absentee ballots for ten days and can't count them until the 11th day. 

Got to love the US electoral system.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The Presidential motorcade is on it's way. A victory speech can't be very far away.

It won't matter about the absentee ballots. It's a pretty clear win all across the board.

The Dems just lost by a bigger margin than the last time. Some major rethinking of ideology may be in order for America's erstwhile "left" party.

Let's hope they get it right next time. Pun intended.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

What... Bush rushing to conclusions before the diplomatic, democratic process in complete?!? How strange.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

CBS news is emphatically saying this is not over yet. With absentee and provisional vote in Ohio left to count, Ohio is still up in the air. If Kerry takes Ohio, he's in. 

There's still reports of students still in line at one polling station. 

Hey, Bush will probably win but one thing for sure... its not over yet and probably won't officially be for another 10 days.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

There are over 200,000 provisional votes alone in Ohio to be counted. News reports saying Bush cavalcade is posturing. 

NBC is going to have omlette on its face again perhaps.









Kerry just took New Hampshire.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Clutching at straws, are we?

Hope springs eternal, I guess.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Oh dear..... the lawyers are descending on Ohio. Start counting the dangling chads...... look over every provisional vote.... wait 10 days... Difference of votes of less than 100,000 with way over 200,000 provisional votes to count. 

Let the protests begin........

The fat lady is going to bed.  

There is even horror stories of a 269 to 269 tie.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Kerry takes Michagan!!!!

Counting straws... yes.... well over 200,000 of provisional votes. These could be a majority of votes for Kerry of people who didn't register in time. And reports of students still in line voting. 

Hey, lots of people thought the Boston Redsocks were counting straws the bottom of the 10th inning when they were down 3 games to none.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A 269 to 269 tie would automatically go to Bush because of the Republican dominance of the senate and house.

Game over.


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

A fair and just world....???  

Some of these Kerry supporters need to adjust their meds.









I think Edwads has cranked his up a little.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm a little surprised that the Dems didn't use Edwards a bit more than they did. He has a charisma and a down home feel that Kerry couldn't ever manage to convey. 

Just one of the many mistakes that led to the defeat. There are going to be a lot of hard questions for the dems tomorrow.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Its not like they're challenging a loss... All the votes have not been counted yet. Simple as that. 

There is about 200,000 provisional votes to count in Ohio. A lot of these votes are going to be Kerry votes. Some are saying around 75% of the votes. Also, the majority of votes that were rejected were by republicans. Those rejected votes were mostly from black voters. Those contested votes will be resolved yet. 

Bottom of the 10th.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The very BEST that Kerry can possibly hope for is a tie. And it doesn't look as though he's going to get it unless he suddenly sells his soul to the devil.

Even if he does get a tie, Bush still wins. That's all there is to it.

Game over.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Kerry takes Hawaii. 

Here's the score ....

Bush 249 - Kerry 242. 

Ohio has 8% of the vote to count and around 200,000 provisional votes to count. Its 51%-49% in Ohio. 

Having said that, even if Kerry takes Ohio, Bush still can win it with 4 states in play that are tight. 

Lots of gaming going on still... Republicans saying they've got Ohio even with provisional votes... Dems saying no way. 

Iowa we won't know tonight due to machine problems. 

White house just phoned CBS news very pissed off. Say they have it. Hmmmmm

Dan Rather is good... His response.... "who can say?" I didn't know the white house could just phone a news station and say they won without all the votes being counted.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

My screen says 269 for Bush...with several more pending. He is leading, just as he has all night. And all during the campaign.

And we ALL know how Dan Rather feels about George W.  

They just showed the podium where Kerry hoped to make his triumphant acceptance speech. The faithful crowd are slowly dissipating.

It aint over yet, to be sure. But some people seem to see the writing on the wall.

The Bushies are pretty happy right now, on the other hand.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

You bushies have to get some medical help for those pre-mature h*rd-ons. You and your republican friend Bob Dole maybe have been popping too many Viagra's. 

And its not just Dan Rather and CBS news, its also CNN, and ABC news... The only ones who called Ohio are Fox news and NBC news.... same guys who goofed up last time. 

The White House is calling all three of these news stations saying they won, but they're all not buying it. ALL THE VOTES HAVE TO BE COUNTED. 

If they count all the votes and Bush wins, congratulations to him. If they even try to declare victory before they have been counted...... the world would be in uproar.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

We probably won't know Iowa for about 7 days as well.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Folks... this ones not being called tonight. Its going to be probably 10 days until we know. Ohio and Iowa won't be called tonight. 

Bottom of the 10th. The curse of the Bush may be broken yet. 

Whatever the result... very exciting. Macnutt may have to eat regurgitated crow.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

One final word.... one dreaded word we might here again in the upcoming days...

Chad.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

> to eat regurgitated crow.


I'm sure that Macnutt knows the drill perfectly well by now.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

At no point in tonight's vote has George W. NOT been in the clear lead in the electoral College. Or in the overall percentage of national votes. Or in several other ways.

Of the votes counted so far...Bush is in a clear lead. No question about it.

ALL of the stations that still say Kerry has a ghost of a chance are conceding that he will have to win 100% of the uncounted votes in order to pull out a squeaker tie.

And Bush will win in a dead heat tie. Simple as that.

The Congress and the Senate and the House have all seen gains for the Republicans...and losses for the Democrats.

A Kerry win, at this point, is about as likely as Yasser Arafat suddenly converting to judaism. A faint hope, perhaps...but hardly likely.

All of the internet Blogs are telling Kerry "not to give in _JUST YET_ ". Somehow, I just don't get the sense of impending victory from any of these diehard Kerry supporters. Just desperation and disbelief.

But my hat's off to all of you who are still clinging to faint hopes. Good on ya!   

NEVER give up! NEVER say die! Even when it looks completely hopeless.

You've earned my respect. (It's a Scottish thing).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"NEVER give up! NEVER say die!" Amen, brother. Until the votes in Ohio are fully counted, there is still hope. Trust me on this.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The only hope is for a tie of 269 to 269, Dr.G

Bush would win a tie by the weight of the Republicans in Congress. And Kerry would have to win every single contested and uncounted vote just to GET that tie, as well. Which he would then lose.

Faint hope indeed.

The networks are now talking about "the future of the Democratic Party" in grave tones.  

I'd say some heads are gonna roll in the next few weeks. I just checked Michael Moore's website and he seems to have taken a sudden vacation.

Might be a long one.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Gerry, Ohio is the key. Whomever wins that state is the next president. We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I could have used to be wrong this time - in either direction  

Given the electoral map perhaps we could adopt the Northeast and Northwest US..........oh and Hawaii.

Hey the the border would look a little funny but it's all contiguous.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The Republican majority in the Senate and the House will actually have greater impact upon the next four years than a Bush presidency. The fact that Bush might be able to name one or two justices on the Supreme Court would have an impact for decades.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

MacDoc may be on to something. This would mean we take Seattle. We could instal some Tim Hortons Execs in Starbucks HQ and start a real revolution...


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Well it seems clear that the US is every bit as divided as it appears. Whoever wins will represent about half the voters who went to the polls.

It sure is looking good for Bush, but it's hardly a ringing endorsement. At a time when the world faces quite a lot of uncertainty it's a pity Americans are less united than they have been for a while.

For Bush, should he win, the challenge will be a decent legacy. Hard to gain with a heavily and bitterly split electorate.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Amen Dr.G - the Congress results are saddening for budget control, fair taxes, education, equality, foreign relations and, well, humanity.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Pelao, remember that there will be no obstacle to a Supreme Court nomination or two, along with Federal judges. The "anti gay marriage" issue was on the ballot in 11 states and it passed in 10 of those states. Personal rights/liberties and privacy will be the #1 domestic issue that will be under attack in the US in the next four years. People like Macnutt may chuckle all they want because they are not the ones losing their civil liberties. We shall see.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

In every major wartime situation, personal liberties have been an issue.

So far, no one is making much of it this time, either.

Once the terrorist threat has been defused (by inflicting democracy and prosperity on the offending area...just like the Americans have always done in the past) then the American people will demand all of their perrsonal freedoms be returned to pre-war levels.

I've lived there. Extensively. I have never met ANY group who value their personal freedoms like the citizens of the USA do.

Concentrating on this moment, while not stepping back to see the bigger picture is a bit like looking at a few frames of a long movie and trying to figure out what it's all about.

The Americans will NEVER sit back and let a corrupt government steal their freedom. Or their money.

We Canadians, however.....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"...the American people will demand all of their perrsonal freedoms be returned to pre-war levels." They can demand the return of these freedoms, but whether or not they shall be returned is another issue. We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sadly, nobody (are you listening, Jim?) heeded my warning about New Hampshire. Now, it's down to Ohio. We shall see.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm flipping around the election coverage on the US nets and guess what?

I'm hearing about the "clear gains for the right" and lots of speculation about when Kerry will actually make his concession speech.

Losing Tom Daschle was a serious blow for the democrats. It was just one more blow in a terribly dissappointing night for the dems.

CNN is, right now, speculating on "how out of touch the Democrats currently are with the common man". There is more of this on practically every network.

It's all over but the crying.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

No one is crying, just yet, Macnutt. The "common person" may yet be heard. We shall see.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The "common man" has been heard, Marc.

And he/she voted for the Republicans.

The only way Kerry could win now would be if ALL of the uncounted and provisional ballots went his way, with none for Bush. A statistical impossibility...especially when you watch the trends.

I'm hittin the hay. It's been a long, and ultimately satisfying, evening.

Good night everyone. Goodbye John Kerry. It's been a slice.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Goodnight, Gerry. Hopefully, when you wake up, you shall be surprised by a Kerry victory. Still, that might be 11 days away when Ohio tallies up ALL of her votes. We shall see.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

The Democrats earned almost 50 per cent of the popular vote, the Republicans slightly more.

So I don't think it's indicative of Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) having lost touch with the common man.

It may more be an indication of the common man (or shall we say common American?) having a schizophrenic personality.

Actually, even that is too glib and simplistic. There are serious divisions in American society. I don't believe Bush is the healing type so I think the U.S. is in for a rocky four years.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Brainstrained, both your points ("Actually, even that is too glib and simplistic. There are serious divisions in American society. I don't believe Bush is the healing type so I think the U.S. is in for a rocky four years.") are, in my opinion, accurate. Sadly, what it seems like is that the youth vote did not materialize for either candidate.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

> ...the U.S. is in for a rocky four years.


As is the rest of the world, sadly.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, something struck me when I read your comment "Now...back to John Kerry's terrible mistakes. You know, the ones that led to his humiliating defeat?" I wonder, have you ever actively worked on the campaign for someone running for office, or actually ran for some sort of position on a campus, municipal, provincial or national level? Have you ever volunteered your time to a non-profit organization that helped people in some manner? I am curious about this, since you have opinions on all sorts of social/economic/political issues. However, have you ever done anything to actually put some of these thoughts into action???


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I have been watching 3 different networks this morning and 3 different voting experts insist that it is mathematically impossible for Kerry to win Ohio.

It looks like Bush is in for another term.

See what I meant about counting chickens folks?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

We shall see, Sinc. We shall see.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macnutt said: "Once the terrorist threat has been defused (by inflicting democracy and prosperity on the offending area...just like the Americans have always done in the past) then the American people will demand all of their perrsonal freedoms be returned to pre-war levels."

You cannot be serious!!! Macnutt, someone is spiking your water with LSD......


----------



## Codger (Aug 1, 2004)

Just an observation. Bush won last time with a minority of the popular vote. This time the voter turnout is in the 70% range and Bush has a majority. If Bush wins this one then at the very least his legitimacy can't be argued with. 
Republican President, Republican Senate and a Republican Congress will have an unimpeded opportunity to show the world what the US's fundamental values are.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

If the final tally puts Bush back in the White House, and there are no credible claims of voting machine tampering, then I have no choice but to conclude that the American public (half of them, anyway) are stark-raving bonkers.  

With the Republicans retaining control of the Senate and the Presidency, plus with the ability to plug the two (minimum) upcoming Supreme Court vacancies, the possibilities for any progressive advancement in social rights in the U.S. starts moving into negative numbers  

The *only* good thing that might arise from this - and it's not much of a good thing, all told - is that Kerry doesn't have to take the heat that will come from trying to clean up Bush's mess, and the American people will now have four years to see the true extent of the wickedness of which this regime is capable.  

A Bush re-election is dire news for progressives everywhere. And given the rumours of recent months, Cuba has every right to be extremely worried of the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emption.

M.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Codger, it is your point that "Republican President, Republican Senate and a Republican Congress will have an unimpeded opportunity to show the world what the US's fundamental values are." which scares many progressive thinkers. The notion of "checks and balances" exists now, but with a Bush appointment or two to the Supreme Court, and a majority in both houses, there is no check on this agenda for another two years, when all of the House of Representative members are up for reelection. We shall see.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

And between now and the Congressional elections you can safely bet that we'll see the most rampant jerrymongering ever seen.

CubaMark, Bush appealed to the basest human instincts which do not require engagement of the sympathetic nervous system for response. Fear and greed. Add to that gross distortions, a whack of money and promise of a return to the "good old times".

Kerry didn't get dirty. I don't think he was capable of it. Perhaps he felt that to resort to the shady ethics of the Republicans would be worse than losing?

The US appears to have voted to give the rest of the world a one fingered salute. A sad day.


----------



## sinjin (Jul 12, 2003)

This should just about do it.  



> Kerry concedes to Bush
> Last Updated Wed, 03 Nov 2004 11:16:27 EST
> 
> WASHINGTON - Democratic Senator John Kerry has called President George W. Bush to concede the U.S. election.


http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/11/03/election_wednesday041102.html


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

CBC reports that Kerry has conceded.

 
M

EDIT: Looks like SinJin beat me to it...


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Get Ready for planet America... Those Bastids are gonna "Fight Terrorism" everywhere and bring their pityful form of democracy everywhere, well, at least the will try.. hahaha Damn Americans!!







It's gonna be an interesting 4 years to say the least!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sadly, Bush is now officially in for another term. 

EhMax will eat crow with his bold prediction, but I admire his courage in making it.

But one thing that should not go unoticed either, is the fact MacNutt predicted this very result months and months ago.

In spite of the many so called "learned" posters who heaped abuse on him for his views, in the end The Sage Of Salt Spring was indeed right.

Perhaps now the intellectuals will not be so hasty to ridicule MacNutt's opinions? 

Cheers


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

(hey Vinnie - where are ya today?)

Re: the election. The House of Representatives next elections occur in two years - that will be the next test for the Republicans...

M


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC, MacNutt went into this election as hedged on the issue as any I've seen - even suggesting that a Kerry presidency wouldn't be a bad thing.

As for his predisposition to Bush, reflected in the slight majority of American voters, apparently, I do think it's useful to use MacNutt as a bellweather... as MacNutt goes, so go many misguided Americans.

I guess this just proves the sad and pervasive influence of Fox News.... 

M


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, re your comment "And between now and the Congressional elections you can safely bet that we'll see the most rampant jerrymongering ever seen.", this is a REAL reality. Either districts of distinct groups (e.g., African-Americans, Hispanics, etc) will be enclaved, or they will be spread among many districts. This way, they shall only have a few members Congress in the first case, and no real representation in the latter case. We shall see.

Sinc, flip a coin. Bush wins or Kerry wins. It does not take great prognostication abilities to call this sort of an election one way or the other. This is not going out on a limb. I made the same prediction, and I certainly don't feel vindicated or in the mood to gloat. I personally think that the election of Bush was a great mistake, and I shall be the first to admit that I am incorrect when I see the middle class treated fairly tax-wise, the disenfranchised treated with respect and compassion, a world which again sees the US as a world leader that has earned the praise and respect of other countries, and a neighbor to Canada that treats us like a NAFTA partner, and not a irritant. We shall see if this comes to pass. Four years from now, we shall see if I am going to have to eat crow. I stand upon my words, without spin or subtrafusion.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I'll eat my crow while its still warm.









(Unlike the frozen crow thats still in Macnutt's freezer) 

Not looking good for Kerry. 

The 18-29 year old vote that I thought would come out is reported not to have come out. Same levels as last election. 

The black vote got out more but even more evangelicals got out the vote. 

Nights still not over and fat lady has not sung yet.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Nobody has to eat crow here. This is a very close race by all accounts...and it aint over yet!  

But it certainly doesn't look like any sort of "Kerry sweep" at this point. To say the least.

And I suspect that if George W. wins, and it looks as though he will, then the whole radical faction of the Democratic party (the Michael Moore's, etc.) are going to lose a massive amount of credibility from their own side. They won't be major players next time out if their guy loses. Which looks to be the case.

At that point...the Dems will be dragged kicking and screaming towards a more conservative way of thinking. Which is exactly the direction that the whole world has been heading for about three decades or more

More of macdoc's "centering to the right", eh?  









Should be an interesting night. Tomorrow will be even more revealing.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Oh dear.... Ohio is still key but it ain't looking good. I guess fear trumped common sense. Glad to see New York resolutely reject Bush but the Republicans have a huge lock on the South.

EhMax, I'll share the crow. 

On the positive side, it looks like California might well be spending $3 billion on stem cell research and the other positive news is that Dubya's daughters are unlikely to enter politics.....


----------



## Codger (Aug 1, 2004)

Dr G
Yes. I didn't say that I am happy about this situation. Merely that there can be no further confusion about the intentions and values of our neighbours to the south. When Bush took over with a minority of the popular vote in an election with 50% turnout, one could question whether or not his policies were indeed representative. With a 70%+ turnout and a majority of the popular vote his validity as a representative of the US population is no longer in question.


http://www.imgag.com/product/full/ap/3067907/graphic1.swf


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

> Get Ready for planet America...


Alright, I think I'll finally buy _America_ by Rammstein (German rock group). Great song IMHO, and the video is neato.

_We're all living in America, Coca-Cola, WonderBra..._


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Codger, I see your point. Merci. Re your comment that "With a 70%+ turnout and a majority of the popular vote his validity as a representative of the US population is no longer in question.", one should pause to reflect upon the notion that while this vote may affirm his "validity", it still does not make him, or the persons who voted for him, correct. Luckily, for now, we have the chance to speak out for differing viewpoints and to vote against his view of the world. I shall abide by the majority vote, but still express concern for differing viewpoints.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I've just flipped across the channels and they all seem to be making tentative post-mortems on the Kerry campaign. Several have also noted that no photographers have been allowed into Kerry's apartment to take any photos as of yet. Pretty glum in there right now, I'll bet.

Lot's of fresh video of a smiling George W. sitting with his family in the Whitehouse, though.

Latest news from the Senate race shows the Republicans gaining new ground over the Dems, as well.

Not a happy night for Michael Moore. Wonder if his prediction of carnage in the streets "if our Presidency is stolen again" will come true?

Or is anyone really listening to him any more?

Not many, it would seem.


----------



## lindmar (Nov 13, 2003)

lots of time left for ohio to swing....

lots of urban areas, many jobless, low wage families votes still comin in...

im still hopin anyways..


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

84% of vote reported for Ohio and Bush leads by 140,500. Stark county still has to report with large population. Reports are in one area of Ohio, people are still lined up to vote. 

Hmmm...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

5 minutes later and 86% of vote and difference is 97592.









Even if Kerry wins Ohio, a couple of other REALLY close states.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Kerry would have to sweep every single race where he still has a chance, in order to squeeze a win out of this.

There's no question that Bush has clear momentum, and has had, all night. Has had the same momentum ALL during the campaign, really.

Unless you've been hanging out in macdoc's deep dark cave.
















Still....it aint over yet!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

87% and 101459 difference. (Wrong direction)


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Mindboggling, I am still in a state of shock.

BTW. I have a slightly used crystal ball for sale.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The majority of ehMac posters predicted/feared that Bush would win. The majority of Canadians hoped he wouldn't, myself included. Unlike Dr. G., I don't think Macnutt is a bellweather for Americans, more a bellweather for registered Republicans. I think his perspective provides an interesting insight into the thinking of this group and the Democrats would do well to listen in.....

If you are open-minded, you will respect the opinions of whomever makes a compelling case for their point of view. I think Kerry had a good chance although it was always an uphill struggle. Bush effectively diverted the debate to terrorism (ignoring the economic storm clouds and the severe errors of judgment of his administration).

All I can say in a positive light, is that, barring a Constitutional amendment and assuming the world is still here in 2008, that at least Bush and Cheney will not be on the Republican ticket and there's a good chance Hillary Clinton will be running for the Dems. Her campaign began today.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

I'll Buy it, I Like Seeing a Bright Future!!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

lotus, you may keep your crystal ball, but I do need a hug just now.  My wife gave me one this morning, but she is not an American, and did not live through the 1968 election in the US. I still cannot believe that so many American voters saw security and moral values as their priority issues over the economy, education and the environment. I guess I have been living in Canada too long to have a real sense about the US voter. Still, my absentee ballot was cast for Kerry in the State of Georgia, although he lost the state (as expected). Many asked me why I bothered to vote for Kerry in a state that was so solidy for Bush. I replied, "Because I am still allowed to voice my opinion by a secret ballot."


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Bush won? 

Great!  

That means 4 more years of Bush bashing on ehmac! Just when I was thinking it was all coming to an end.

Oh crap.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Doug, if you want to enjoy a taste of real spectacle, try Rammstein's live in Berlin DVD... Wagnerian excess witha slick Goth-metal sheen. Pretty crazy stuff, propelled along by hordes of dedicated fans.

 

Shame about that Bush fellow getting back in. Oh well. Thankfully I don't live down there. I can only hope we survive him with a minimum of fuss.


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Vinnie, it's all yours and if Dr.G would be kind enough to let me use the Doxie Express it will arrive within 24 hours, no charge.

I feel obligated to inform you that this crystal ball seems to have a defect, it appears to have been jinxed and images are somewhat foggy. 

Cheers


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Current poll at the Globe and Mail:

Were you pleased with the result of the U.S. presidential election?

Yes 3436 votes (21 %)
No 12860 votes  (79 %)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just for the record, I DID think that John Kerry would have made rather a fine President. I still do, as a matter of fact.

I just didn't think he'd win. And he didn't.

JWoodget expressed some insight when he said that all of the people on the other side of the fence from the political right should stop and take a good hard look at what it is that we conservtives are thinking about. Have a closer look at our ideals. Identify our goals and try to analyse them.

All of you should. 

This movement toward conservative thinking is not going away. It's just getting stronger. Pretty much everywhere.

Something to think about,eh?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Oh yeah...and one more thought here...

Four years from now Hillary Clinton may, indeed, run for President. Or as vice President.

This will ensure yet another Republican victory in 2008. Count on it.

She may be running against one of these possible Republican candidates:

-Rudolph Giuliani
-Jeb Bush
-or possibly even Arnold Schwarzenegger (I'm not kidding)

And there's another George Bush waiting in the wings as well. George P Bush.  

The liberal/left Bush bashers out there amongst you had better wake up and see the reality. It's not going to get any better, either.

Time to re-examine your core ideology...and perhaps make some adjustments to reflect this new reality.

Or get left behind by the majority.

Just as hard core socialism has been left behind by the majority now the "lite" version of socialism is being abandoned by more and more people all over the world. 

You can stick with the old ways, and be left behind, or move on to something that makes more sense in the long run. Something that actually works.

Your choice.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> That means 4 more years of Bush bashing on ehmac! Just when I was thinking it was all coming to an end.
> 
> Oh crap.


I'm with you MacGuiver. Hopefully those who filled the bandwidth with obsessive anti-Bush opinions will recognize 70% of Americans have made their choice, legally and above board.

But will they finally accept the fact that Bush is their rightful leader? Four more years of their Bush bashing is not an attractive option.

Cheers


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Well, Kerry conceded. It’s done.

I guess my friends absentee ballot, sitting somewhere in an office in Ohio, won’t count for anything now.

What we witnessed, last night and this morning, was just another classic rat-f**k, by Karl Rove. No, I have no evidence of this. I just personally have a strong gut feeling that the numbers were not real, because the result defies a number of indicators, the main one being the exit polling. A lot of things don’t add up.

The reading that I have done tells me that, the exit polling showed results almost exactly opposite from what the current numbers are now. According to the late exit polling the US was headed for a Kerry landslide. I just read that the exit polling in Florida was 56% Kerry, 42% Bush. Since early yesterday, Republicans were busy decrying the validity of exit polling, which somehow, for the first time is completely off. Exit polling is one method that independent election observors use to see whether an election was stolen. How were these exit polls suddenly so completely wrong this time?

In previous elections, polling showed that undecided voters, moved by a 2 to 1 margin over to the challenger, but this time, for the very first time, it seemed to have gone the other way. Polling methods, which even most of pollsters said clearly gave Republicans the edge, showed this. Strange.

The media is now saying that the Republicans were just more successful in getting out the vote. While it’s true that they fired up their hard core base, that base did not add up to 51% of the electorate. In contrast it was a fact that the Democrats had pulled in huge amounts of new registrations, from first time voters, with even the Republicans admitting that the amounts dwarfed their numbers by a 10 to 1 margin. Massive line ups of people voting in the urban centres. of the people George Bush left behind, and the young folk that George Bush saw as cannon fodder, all turned out and stood in line for hours to say, “All right Dubya, way to go, man!” Tell me another one!

But unfortunately, being a member of the “reality-based community” leaves me no choice but to accept the vote totals at face value. I have a strong suspicion that Americans were Diebolded in several states, but I have no evidence to support this. There may never be any, or if anything is dug up, it will be kept off of the main agenda. Somehow, in such an open society, US history is full of unanswered whodunits, for almost every major crime that has occurred there. This may be another one in that long list.

*While my suspicions may be unprovable, they are also not disprovable, either.* Americans, in their wisdom, chose to entrust a significant proportion of their vote to electronic voting machines. Where those votes went, we have only the word of the companies that produced those machines to rely on. *Those results can never be audited.* If anyone is comfortable with that situation they are either fascists or fools.

There are many organizations in the States right now working to get their hands on any kind of computer log they can for the electronic machines. Good luck to them. It would be interesting to see figures showing where the exit polling was way off and whether that precinct used e-voting.

I saw a discussion on a US liberal political blog about whether it was better to move to Halifax, Toronto or Vancouver. I really hope that that is all just talk, because they’ll only abandon the US to the Neo-cons. But I also saw a lot of discussion about getting back up and fighting. That’s what I hope happens. As much as Mr. MacNutt would like, this won’t make progressive half of the US shut up, or the progressive majority here in Canada or around the world whither and die. I predict what we are going to see coming from the White House in the next 4 years will strengthen us like never before.

So the US Democrats and the vast majority of people around the world who thougtht George W. Bush was a disaster are naturally despondent with yesterday’s result. It’s only normal. But simply because 1% or 2% more of the US electorate chose this criminal, does not make us wrong. 

Even if my intuition is wrong and Bush and company really won it “fair and square”, it does not make their agenda any more than the obvious failure that it is. It does not mean that the Iraq war was right, that giving away tax money to their corporate, rich friends is right, that homophobia is right, that the Patriot Act is right, that throwing their poor, disadvantaged and vulnerable to the wolves is right. No matter what someone like Mr. MacNutt says, I ain’t drinking that poison kool-aid. And I never will.

Yeah MacNutt, *my choice*. Damn right.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

* ... 70% of Americans have made their choice, legally and above board.*

That's an article of faith ... not of fact.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Perhaps some bitterly dissappointed people around here should take a moment to reflect on this obvious and continuing shift away from what they consider to be "core values".

The world is changing. Best to take a new look at it, before just roundly claiming that the majority "are idiots and have no clue".

Facts are facts. Fantasy is just that.

Move on.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

A fact is something provable MacNutt. Something that you don't seem to understand.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

And MacNutt, quit twisting my words.

I did not say anywhere that the majority have no clue. But you appear to be insisting that the majority around the world, who saw Bush for the disaster that he is, have no clue.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sounds of bitterness and defeat. Not very becoming, GA.

The shift away from the old socialist ways of thinkng has been going on all over the world for several decades now. The movement from near-left towards the center-right has been going on for decades here in North America.

Anyone can see this, if they care to look.

Who knows, you might even want to embrace this new reality?

Or...you could just remain bitter...and rail against the "injustice of it all".

Your choice.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Actually, the majority are idiots and have no clue. How else do you explain the popularity of Windows?


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

*The shift away from the old socialist ways of thinkng has been going on all over the world for several decades now. The movement from near-left towards the center-right has been going on for decades here in North America.

Anyone can see this, if they care to look.

Who knows, you might even want to embrace this new reality?

Or...you could just remain bitter...and rail against the "injustice of it all".

Your choice.
*

The sage has spoken. The words are just and good. 

And seeing the light, I swear to no longer adhere to outdated principles of social responsibility. 

And I vow to stop wasting productive time volunteering at the foodbank. For anyone without the means to pay for their own survival should be shunned. And in their gut they will learn and understand the guiding principles that will turn this earth into a perfect world. Or they shall die. Their choice. And so it shall be. 

And the forces of justice and commerce shall go forth in the name of Peace and Glory and resolutely lay waste to all that is evil, useless, unimportant or otherwise in the way of progress. And they shall prevail. And there will be seen a democratic aftermath.

And when all the dictators are deposed, terrorists terminated, murderers & rapists hanged and petty thieves punished, then there will be no more impediment to peace on earth. And all the officers of law and soldiers of peace may return to their families in retirement or gainfully employed in garment factories, their equipment scuttled or resold for recreation - which shall be in abundence. And the disbandment of these forces will bring much fiscal relief to the Administration. 

Thus will be born, unto the children of the new world, the mother of all tax rebates. The mightiest surplus since the dawn of time. And there shall be much rejoicing and consumption of goods. And so shall it be for all time.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, re your comment that "Unlike Dr. G., I don't think Macnutt is a bellweather for Americans, more a bellweather for registered Republicans.", I don't see Macnutt as a "bellweather" for either Americans or registered Republicans. He is conservative, yet he has too much experience from living in Cuba to be considered the typical conservative Republican. As well, I am not sure what his religious views are at the moment. No, his views are his own. I disagree with them (e.g., I think that H.Clinton would make a fine president and has a chance to WIN in 08), but I agree with his contention that we need to look at our "core values". We need to look at ourselves and understand that it IS important to work for the common good; that the protection of civil liberties IS of vital importance; that it IS important that we consider that people are more important than money; that we respect the environment and value education of ALL children and adults. These are my core values and I cherish them more now when I see the likes of Bush, et al, would take them away without a second thought.

No, I am disappointed and fearful, but I shall work hard to make sure that these core values are preserved.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

And as I said, MacNutt, you can keep your poisoned kool-aid. I've made my choice. If you think it's somehow cool to side with intolerant fundamentalists and homophobes, be my guest.

And speaking of facts, which you manage to always avoid, did you not see these posts, from myself and PosterBoy in this thread?

Or were you just hoping they got buried and you wouldn't need to address them?

Still awaiting some rational argument from you, rather than stale spin. We all know you can do it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Sounds of bitterness and defeat. Not very becoming, GA.*

I'm not defeated, nor are those that you disparage. Far from it. We're just getting bloody started.

Trust me on this.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

<blockquote>Dr. G said: * one should pause to reflect upon the notion that while this vote may affirm [Bush's] "validity", it still does not make him, or the persons who voted for him, correct.*</blockquote>

This, to me, implies that there was a wrong way to vote. This is just not true. The only people who were "incorrect" (for lack of a more appropriate term) in the US yesterday are the 30% who _didn't_ go and vote.

Saying that the people who vote for a given candidate are incorrect in their support for him/her, and by extension in their world-view, will only lead to the furtherance of the political divide that America currently <del>enjoys</del> deals with.

Personally, and despite my prediction of a narrow Kerry victory (which is what Zogby, CNN and Electoral-Vote were all saying before hand), if when all the dust settles Bush has a majority of the votes and the majority of the electoral votes, then I accept that the majority of the people of the USA want him as their president.

Counting the popular vote, though, it's hardly a stunning victory. I think America needs to sort itself out, first. Because the country is so sharply divided (arguably more so than at any point in the past), people aren't willing (or maybe sometimes able) to make more informed, rational choices. Par example, a friend of a friend who wanted to vote Kerry was threatened by her family into voting Bush, because her family is quite religious and Kerry supports Stem Cell research, is pro choice, etc. It doesn't matter to them whether the entire rest of Kerry's platform was better or more appealing to them, the fact that Bush is god-fearin' made the difference.

This is not to single out the religious as the problem group in the USA; far from it. There are lots of groups that have similar issues to deal with. I am sure there are veterans who voted Bush based on Kerry's anti-Vietnam stance in the 70s.

The bottom line is that before things get better in the US (and here in Canada, too), the terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" need to stop being derogatory. Being one does not preclude liking ideas from the other. Being one or the other should not incite the mudslinging that it does today. 

<blockquote>Macnutt said: *JWoodget expressed some insight when he said that all of the people on the other side of the fence from the political right should stop and take a good hard look at what it is that we conservtives are thinking about. Have a closer look at our ideals. Identify our goals and try to analyse them. All of you should. This movement toward conservative thinking is not going away. It's just getting stronger.*</blockquote>

I think you missed the point of jwoodget's post, but hey, wouldn't be the first time. Are you ever going to answer the challenge, by the way? There is a link in my signature.

<blockquote>Macnutt mused: *Rudolph Giuliani, Jeb Bush, or possibly even Arnold Schwarzenegger [might run for president in 2008]*</blockquote>

Before that can happen there will have to be an amendment to the constitution, and considering how nationalistic the American people are, I somehow doubt that they are going to let a foreigner be their president. 

Jeb Bush is somewhat of a nobody in the party, especially when comapared to Guliani, who admittedly would have a fair shot, but if the Republicans want a sure victory they'll convince McCain to run. He's popular with just about everyone, and there are a lot of good reasons why (none of which I am going to go into now).

<blockquote>Macnutt said: *The world is changing. Best to take a new look at it, before just roundly claiming that the majority "are idiots and have no clue".*</blockquote>

You know, I could almost agree with this statement 100 percent, except that the world is _always_ changing, people should _constantly_ be re-examining and there is only _barely_ enough of a difference to be called a majority right now. 

And also, while you've never said it outright, you imply that left-wing folk are dumb all the time, so what makes the right any better than the left in that regard? See my previous rant re: the left/right divide.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I wasn't claiming that anyone voted "wrong" or "incorrect". If it seemed that way, then my apologies.

What I was trying to point out here, is that there is a noticeable shift in thinking amongst the electorate. It's been going on for some time now. On both sides of the border here in North America, and all over the world.

Perhaps it deserves a second look.

Instead of an instant hate-on, complete with spewing rhetoric, that has no relationship to the reality. (Vacuvox.)

And, PB...I have long since dealt with your challenge. Both here and in private messages to you. Give it a rest.

Time to move on.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

So Macnutt's crystal ball sees the shadow of Jeb Bush in 2008 and George P. Bush beyond him. . . 

Isn't this how republics get turned into empires?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

If so...then this will be an "Empire" that enjoys the popular support of the vast majority of the voters. 

Or it won't happen.

Because THAT is the way they do things down there.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

*spewing rhetoric, that has no relationship to the reality.*

Thank you - oh great one. Don't I learn well?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

<blockquote>Macnutt offered: *And, PB...I have long since dealt with your challenge. Both here and in private messages to you. Give it a rest.*</blockquote>

No, not really. The challenge was to answer all the questions. So far all you've done is to say "you missed my point!"

Why are you so unwilling to answer a few questions, especially considering that I (and others) have answerd yours on so many occasions?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr. G.


> I still cannot believe that so many American voters saw security and moral values as their priority issues over the economy, education and the environment.


Mark Twain


> " How you can win the population for war: At first, the statesman will invent cheap lying, that impute the guilt of the attacked nation, and each person will be happy over this deceit, that calm the conscience. It will study it detailed and refuse to test arguments of the other opinion. So he will convince step for step even therefrom that the war is just and thank God, that he, after this process of grotesque even deceit, can sleep better.


Voices from the past are often relevant to the present.

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I notice that Michael Moore's site has gone dead and been replaced by a composite photo of Iraqi war dead made up to look like George. W.

Michael has nothing to say today. Odd about that, eh?

One of two scenarios here:

Either Poor Michael is busy whacking his head against the wall and saying "WHY didn't they get my message?!"

Or, he's been checked into rehab for an overdose of anti-depressants. (perhaps both)

Either way...he still just _doesn't get it!_ 

Same for some people here, apparently! :eek  

The facts are quite clear:

The population of the USA heard the impassioned speeches against Bush and his policies. They watched late night comedians make fun of him. Many of them watched Michael Moore's movie that completely trashed Bush. Plenty more of them heard all of the famous celebrities, that they hold in such high regard, demanding a major change in the Whitehouse. And they heard, over and over and over, how truly awful George W. was...and how almost anyone would be a better choice.

And all of this went on while a fairly unpopular war was being waged. One that has killed more than a thousand American soldiers.

Voters turned out in record numbers to respond to all of this. And guess what?

They rejected the message. BIG TIME. They turned their backs on the people who were trying to deliver this message. Wrote them off, really. 

And delivered a bigger and more secure mandate than ever to George Bush. Not only that, they handed him even more power in Congress. And a clear majority of them also soundly rejected all of the side issues that the Dems had claimed as their own. 

It was a night of pure carnage for the American liberal/left. Total devastation. Their very existence as a political force is now in question.

Some of them...like some of their diehard sympathisers up here...are loudly swearing to "keep up the fight".

They, also, just _don't get it._.









The second group.....the rest of them...are currently in a wild orgy of self-flagellation while asking themselve's "where did we go wrong?" And "how can we change this?".

They are now prepared to ask themselves, with some seriousness, why they missed the mood of the nation so totally.

For them, there is some hope. For the first group...there are only greater defeats and further irrellevance in future times. And even more nasty wakeup calls.  

I suspect that poor Michael Moore is in the first group. The future of the American liberal/left lies with the second.

Since this same sort of major shift in thinking is also happening up here in Canada (pretty much EVERYWHERE, really)....then I just gotta ask...

Which group do YOU want to be in?

Think about it.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Michael Moore preaches to the choir. If he was going to have any influence at all, it would have shown up in the polls when the film was making record dollars for a "documentary."

And still no answers....


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macnutt, 1000 pictures are worth a million words. But YOU just don't get it do you?

Your rhetoric is also getting to be more than a little repetitive. Bush spent $300 million in his campaign and Kerry something similar. There were lots of significant issues to debate but the only ones that made it into the limelight were same-sex marriage and terrorism. What a horrible waste.

I can see why evangelical Christians were drawn to George W. as they were laser focussed on "family values and morality" which beat out lies, belligerence and Kerry the Catholic. But unless you wish to be born again, there is little future for you in the Republican base.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi MacNutt

I was blown away at how the voters rejected the message of the democrats when all the Stars seemed to be aligned so to speak. From watching the endless stream of musicians, actors and media throwing their support behind Kerry, I figured George was in big trouble and Kerry had the keys to the White House in his grasp. I figured Iraq, the state of the U.S. economy and his iffy performance in the debates would be the anchor around his neck. Maybe I've just been visiting ehmac's everything else forum too often. LOL

If I've learned anything from this election its that what seems to be popular in the media may be another thing in real life.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Strongblade...

George W's majority in the popular vote was far greater than any President in almost twenty years. Much larger than anything Clinton ever recieved.

And that is considered to be HUGE, in American political terms.

Also...the American voters soundly rejected a whole bunch of dems in Congress and gave George a bunch of new Republicans to work with instead.

The voters actually turfed out the Democratic senate minority leader (Tom Daschle)! This has never happened in more than two hundred years of US history. Until yesterday.

The voters also soundly rejected a whole slew of pet bills that the Dems had tied their fortunes to. Everything went down in flames for the Dems last night. In a very big way.

They are on very shaky ground now, as a political party. They have been reduced to a minority in the Congress for the umpteenth time, and locked out of the Whitehouse for what may be a decade or more...given the mood of the nation.

And pretty much ALL of the loudest and most famous cheerleaders for the Dems have been left with egg on their faces. They look pretty silly after being completely rejected by the electorate.

Wonder if any of them will be around, next election? Wonder if anyone will be listening to their message?

Especially since no one seemed to be listening to them THIS time around.
















It's a giant victory for the Republicans, Strongblade. On several different levels.

This fact will become even more apparent in the coming months.

Trust me on this.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh my fantastical. One small problem. The US economy is an embarrassment to the First world and any sane conservative.

The horribly managed Canadian economy is the poster child of the G8 with ALL the ratios sterling and improving.

The Repubs have had their chances before - they fumbled badly. They were also "out in the cold" for many years as the Dems are at the moment. That's the slings and arrows of democracies.

'Course how easily our SSI ******* forgets the slam dunk Muloonie majority turned into.......2 seats.  Oh my what an embarrassing skeleton rattling around the Canadian NeoCon closet.

But give Macnutt his moment of glory...... "HIS GUYS WON" after all. Fitting bedfellows.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Let's also not forget that the "Hated Mulroney's" two most "hated and depsied" major programs...Free Trade and the GST...are still in place and working just fine. Even after ten years of Liberal rule.

And that, DESPITE the fact that the Libs were swept to power on a stack of solemn promises to end BOTH of these "hated and despised" programs as soon as they attained office. 









I guess that Jean Chretien and Co. suddenly decided that most of Muroney's hard work was worth keeping after all. Let HIM take the heat...while THEY reaped the long-term economic benefits, eh?

Or...did you somehow think that it was LIBERAL policies that have put us in such good economic shape? Why would you think that?

They only managed to "balance the budget" by offloading health care costs to the provinces. And driving THEM into deep deficits!

There is only one Canadian taxpayer. WE pay all of the bills, Federal and Provincial. Debt is still debt, no matter what the source.

And...need I list all of the home-grown Liberal programs that have turned into multi-billion dollar boondoggles? Ones that have absolutely NO real effect on anything except our tax burden?

It would take a new thread to list them all. A very BIG one.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

I was just perusing this CNN poll. The sample size isn't that big, but there are some very interesting (and sometimes confusing) stats in there.

Apparently, Bush voters had the following opinions/attributes:
- predominantly white
- generally richer
- much more religious
- more likely to have served in the armed forces
- more likely to be married with children
- more likely to own a gun
- felt Moral Values and Terrorism were the top issues of the election
- admired Bush for his religion, trustworthiness and leadership
- overwhelmingly approve of the Iraq war and feel it is going well
- thought the economy was in good or excellent shape
- were indifferent or supportive of the tax cuts
- were far less likely to have lost a job

I imagine many of the locals will disagree with some of these statements.









One thing that really struck me was that it was harder to paint a picture of the typical Kerry supporter. The only constant was that they hated Bush and what he has done. Otherwise, they are all over the place...


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

<blockquote>Macnutt put forth: *George W's majority in the popular vote was far greater than any President in almost twenty years. Much larger than anything Clinton ever recieved.*</blockquote>

Oh? You think so? Why don't we look into it.

Clinton won by 5,806,000 votes in 1992[1], and by 8,204,000 votes in 1996[2].

Bush won this election, acording to the most current count[3], 3,560,000 votes. Sure, NM and IW are still processing results, but chances are slim Bush is going to gain 2 million votes at this point.

It's a small thing, but I think most of us would prefer you get your facts straight before running your <del>mouth</del> keyboard.

<blockquote>and: *They have been reduced to a minority in the Congress for the umpteenth time*</blockquote>

Well, technically, they haven;t been reduced to a minority, they already were one.










[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_1992
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_1996
[3]: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

To add to mbaldwin's list of the typical voter, nation-wide surveys undertaken by CNN also showed that for the first time, the majority of Republican voters had only a high school degree, with the majority of Democratic voters having a university degree. Statistically speaking, this was the one factor that would have the highest correlation as an indicator of future voting patterns. I am not saying this to put down someone with only a high school degree, or elevate someone with a college degree. It just seems as if this is the first time the majority of one group voted for a certain party.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I know I will be brushed off for posting a column by a "Sun" writer, but this one by The Calgary Sun's Licia Corbells gives cause to think about Canada as well as the U.S. in terms of our own election numbers:

A nation divided. That was the tag line the CBC used in its run-up to Tuesday's U.S. presidential election. Even now that the election was won with a real majority by U.S. President George W. Bush after John Kerry conceded defeat following a tight race, commentator after commentator and interviewee after interviewee keeps saying Bush's majority is so slim he doesn't really have a strong mandate.

Compared to Canada, though, Bush does indeed have a majority -- a real one -- something Canadians have not seen since 1984, when Brian Mulroney won the first one in Canada since 1958.

Not only did Bush garner 3.5 million more votes than Kerry with 51% of the popular vote over Kerry's 48%, he also won the complicated electoral college votes and the Republican Party increased the numbers of seats it holds in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

So what about Canada?

According to Larry Gordon, executive director of Fair Vote Canada, since the First World War, only four of our governments have been legitimate majority governments -- or governments that have won more than 50% of the popular vote: 1940, 1949, 1958 and 1984.

Nevertheless, because of our winner-take-all, first-past-the-post electoral system, over that same period we have endured 15 phoney majority federal governments -- that is governments that won the majority of the seats in the House of Commons even though they did not win a majority of the popular vote.

Never did Canadian voters' wishes become so distorted as during Jean Chretien's three elections.

In 1993, Chretien won just 41% of the popular vote, but he won 60% of the 301 seats in the House of Commons.

In 1997, garnering just 38.5% of the popular vote, Chretien won 51.5% of the seats in the House, making it "the phoniest majority government in Canadian history," says Gordon.

In 2000, pulling in 40.9% of the popular vote, Chretien's Liberals took 57.5% of the seats in the House.

Meanwhile, even though six out of every 10 Canadians didn't vote for Chretien, he pulled more and more power into the Prime Minister's Office, making all of the key decisions about who ran government corporations, naming, without review, members to the Supreme Court of Canada and refusing to allow free votes in the House to backbench Liberals.

"For 10 years of majority rule, Chretien never quite reached 42 percent support," points out Gordon, who adds that back in 1984, while seeking the leadership of the Liberal party, Chretien promised while in Brandon, he would bring in proportional representation should he become prime minister.

Just another one of his lies and just further proof Canada doesn't have majority rule, it has a minority tyranny.

After Paul Martin formed a minority government with 38% of the vote in June's general election, he vowed to govern as best he could with his "strong mandate."

Sheesh.

I didn't hear anyone on the CBC or elsewhere talk about a nation divided then or question the PM's sanity.

Only one-in-four Canadians have voted Liberal for the past 11 years and the rest of us get stuck with them because we're using an electoral system devised in the 12th century.

It is truly absurd.

And then we wonder why there's voter apathy.

In Canada, only 52% of voters were able to elect MPs.

In New Zealand, which has brought in a form of proportional representation, 95% of voters were able to elect MPs.

To it's credit, B.C.'s provincial Liberal government has held a citizens' assembly and is moving ahead with electoral reforms that will actually give some weight to each vote cast.

Some 75 countries -- including most of Europe -- have established some form of proportional representation.

"The way we organize the political system in general and the electoral system in particular is a choice," points out Gordon. "It is not something carved in stone, it is not something given to us by divine forces, it's a human creation. It's an important institution to our democracy and it's an institution we can change."

What are we waiting for?

A nation truly divided? -30-


People who live in glass houses . . comes to mind for those who are critical of the U.S. Isn't our system flawed as well?

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, I would not mind seeing the parliamentary system in Canada changed to a US-form of representative democracy. This would entail an end to our constitutional monarchy, but I certainly have no trouble with thie point. The Gov.General's office would be gone, and so would the Senate unless it became effective and elected. We shall see.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macnutt on the Democratic supporters: " Some of them act as if the majority of the people are suddenly going to somehow switch sides in four years and start seeing it THEIR way, or something."

Yet THAT is PRECISELY what you seem to expect of Democratic/centrist/liberals on this board. Please try at least to be self-consistent in your arguments. "Flip-flopper" comes to mind or, more precisely, selective reasoning (an attribute George Bush excels at).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, it is written in "The Way of Politics According to Macnutt" that "Self-consistency in one's arguements is best left to the liberal-minded. Selective reasoning is the way of the new political elite, where 'flip-flops' will merely be viewed as changing views for the benefit of the party. Never admit to being illogical in your reasoning, or incorrect with your presentation of the facts. For, in the final analysis, logic in reasoning should be left for debaters, not voters, and the presentation of any fact may be skewed in such a way so as to show a possible reinterpretation. The victors are given the opportunity to reinvent and rewrite history for the benefit of the political elite. The goal is create communities of like-minded people who never have to be presented with alternative viewpoints, and need never see the reality of the plight of those outside of the community. This way, no insight leads to no true understanding of the way of the world, and this will result in no regrets or remorse. Trust me on this."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ugh I would hate it.

a) New Zealand has the population of 3/4 of Toronto - hardly a valid comparison.

b) for all the wailing an gnashing of teeth we have an economy and cultural diversity in a vast land that is the envy of the world.

It could be better, but one of the reason the neoCon agenda got tossed was "if ain't broke".............
Keep what's working and do it better.
I DO NOT see the US as any sort of a paradyme for Canada. If anything it's the other way around as the Globe pointed out about the election structure in the US.

Canada is BUILT on diversity and minority view and rights NOT on majority gets to change everything.

Pluralities are the norm in many nations - Germany has NEVER had a majority gov since WWII.

It forces compromise, talk and "bargaining", finding common ground.

There are times when a significant and perhaps temporarily unpopular agenda can be forced through by a majority and I think perhaps it's not bad to hold that out as a carrot for a party that really taps a popular platform.

For all the whining of the west as in this piece the undeniable record is a superb economy, enviable debt ratios, surpluses and a generally peacable nation.

I do not think proportional has any play in Canada. - With the size of the nation it's critical to have someone with a specific voice for your riding. I LIKE what Parrish has to say and I was part of electing her - gives me a stake that proporational does not.

That said, I think changes can and should be made to improve the system.
The party whip and caucus system is too rigid and the PMO office has too much power. The role of confidence votes needs to be examined ( as they are now ) so that government bills CAN be defeated without bringing down the government so easily.

The roles of GG as head of state I think is important - other nations have dual roles where a more titular ( and fall back in the case of deadlock ) role as Ambassador at Large for the nation falls on the non-political role.
But it needs to be a Canadian - not a British institution as it is now.  
But the role is still very valid.

For riding elections FPTP is awful in a mulitparty system and a first choice second choice or ranking system I think would preserve the direct representative but prevent "up the middle" pluralities as happened with NPDp/Lib ridings and previously with Alliance/PC ridings.
Second choice or ranking with get a Centre or Left representative in ridings of that nature and Centre or Right in ridings of a more conservative bent.
As it is now any split of moderate versus more extreme ends with the other side of spectrum having an undue advantage.

The Liberals had their power run mainly because of this feature.

I hold no truck with a somehow "magical blessing" of a "majority".
Canada is admired because protecting minority voices is a major feature.

A system which encourages common ground and compromise I much prefer over the enormously divisive system to the south.

The Globe had it right saying the older democracy had things to learn from the younger in conducting elections.

We have a better system, the results show, we can make it better yet by refining the way a representative is chosen and get an empowered provincial council as a second body for certain categories ( ie the health care bargaining process was a good model).

Get a Canadian head of state solution out side the political arena ( refine what we have to be Canadian )

More independent oversight bodies ala the Auditor General, civilian/professional oversight for "entrenched" interests. ( I do admire the US committee system )

A regional restructure so major cities/regions have a voice.

I like the concept of assymetrical Federalism where common sense overcomes ideology.

It's not broke, it can always be better.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Democracy ought not to be the tyranny of the majority.

Though we seldom have majority governments elected by a majority of voters in Canada, I'd much rather have our system in which third parties not only survive but can flourish, than the "either/or" situation in the U.S.

I also rather like having a minority government that must be flexible and work with other parties to survive. I think they often result in the best, most responsive governments.

I won't argue that our system couldn't use some tinkering to make it more responsive, but I point out that any kind of proportional representation will likely help the NDP and the Greens (the left and moderates) as much, if not more, than it helps the neocons.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Democracy ought not to be the tyranny of the majority." Amen, Brother. I think that it was Bush senior that spoke of a "kinder, gentler" America, illuminated by "a thousand points of light". Now, it seems, as Churchill once said, that "an iron curtain" has descended over parts of the US, either to keep people outside of the mainstream of politics, or to protect those in power.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

I rather like Australia's preferential voting system. It does not discourage votes for third parties - in fact, it rather encourages it. And, since it was devised as a means to deal with conservative vote splitting, it seems rather relevant to Canada's current concerns.

A description of it is available here - scroll down to "How Preferences Work" at the bottom.

I have to admit that their senate election system is rather convoluted. Regardless, I would swap for their complete system any day.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Absolutely correct.

And what may seem to be true and highly popular here at ehmac, often withers and dies when subjected to the cruel daylight out there in the real world.  

Oddly enough...some people around here still can't seem to see that. So they hurl insults and blame easily identifiable groups and call almost sixty million people "dummies". 

They claim that it will only be another four years until this "terrible wrong" can be made right again. They claim it was all a giant mistake. (second or third one in a row,if you include the last elections and all of the Congressional elections).

Some of them act as if the majority of the people are suddenly going to somehow switch sides in four years and start seeing it THEIR way, or something.
















Too funny. 

A newscaster said today:

"John Kerry and the Democrats wanted to change America. Instead...it looks as though America is going to change _THEM_ ".

And any that still refuse to see this reality...and who also refuse to look at this giant defeat as a personal lesson in the current socio/cultural direction that everyone seems to be heading towards...will, quite simply, be left behind. Reduced to irrelevance.

Just like John Kerry. Or Michael Moore. 

Among others.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mbaldwin, this is an interesting system. Of course, Canada would have to abolish the Constitutional Monarch that currently binds us to a parliamentary system we current have in Ottawa. I am not against this form of representative government.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

George Bush is still a moron.

And Bush won by a rather narrow margin. There was no "BIG TIME" rejection as MacNutt put it.

And there is a reason comedians make fun of George W Bush. He's easy fodder considering the stupid comments he's prone to making.

Did I mention Bush is a moron?

Unfortunately, Kerry wasn't much better.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_the current socio/cultural direction that everyone seems to be heading towards._
















So despite some 80% of the planet and 47% of the US detesting Bush and the "direction" you claim it's "everyone".









Y'know tequila kills a LOT of brain cells. .........apparently.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

Not necessarily, Dr. G. Australia is a constitutional monarchy, is it not?


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

MacNutt imagined


> And what may seem to be true and highly popular here at ehmac, often withers and dies when subjected to the cruel daylight out there in the real world.


and dreamed


> The shift away from the old socialist ways of thinkng has been going on all over the world for several decades now. The movement from near-left towards the center-right has been going on for decades here in North America.


and envisioned


> What I was trying to point out here, is that there is a noticeable shift in thinking amongst the electorate. It's been going on for some time now. On both sides of the border here in North America, and all over the world.


When at the same time - in the Other America ... they had the nerve to contradict ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mbaldwin, I thought that Australia was in the process of becoming a republic, and to pave the way they took away the authority of the Queen to oversee their government. I might be wrong, however.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr. G., I did a quick search and came up with this:

"On November 6, 1999, Australians voted on whether to sever their ties with the British Crown. Despite overwhelming support in the opinion polls for some form of republic, the referendum was convincingly defeated."

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The quote that seems most relevant to me, looking at the outcome of the American Election, is P.T. Barnum's famous adage "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

Despite the rise of the fear-mongering/war-mongering/christian-fundamentalist power-base of the Republicans, there are still literally millions of Americans who are appalled at their government, and have done everything in their power to change it. I hope this setback will galvanize them into redoubling their efforts, rather than just fleeing to Canada (as some of them no doubt will...Canadian universities are already receiving a deluge of applications to faculty jobs from south of the boarder).

There are a small number of people who will benefit from this error of the American electorate, but most will rue this outcome for many years to come. "Trust me on this."

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

bryanc, only time will tell, but I fear that you may be correct on this call.

"On November 6, 1999, Australians voted on whether to sever their ties with the British Crown. Despite overwhelming support in the opinion polls for some form of republic, the referendum was convincingly defeated." Damn those hanging chads!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Australian model is quite interesting for Canada - the advantage they have is more equitable regions and I'm not sure I like mandatory voting.

We have a good system here that needs tuning up to better serve the country. Division of powers need clarification, oversight needs much stronger institutions everywhere, duplication needs to be reduced and losing the FPTP system of voting in representatives in so that strategic voting is reduced and people can give first choice second choice and see one or the other get in.

I'm really firm in my belief on riding representation for Parliament. Other bodies could be regional.

Anyone know France's system - never did understand the President and is it premiere as the second head.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, this is somewhat what they have in the US -- "riding representation" are the 435 Congressional district and the "regional" representation is actually 2 Senators from each state, regardless of size or population.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Sinc - I agree with your support of Proportional Representation. The only federal parties that haven’t called for it are the Liberals and the BQ. This is because they have benefitted the most from vote-splitting and regional power bases to gain their seats. They both have the least percentage of popular vote to seats won. 

While the Conservatives have also benefitted from the regional power base in Alberta and to a lesser extent BC, getting 60% of the votes but almost all of the seats, they have lost out in rest of Canada, where even though they got some popular vote totals in the 20 to 30 percent range they only elected a handful of MPs. This doesn’t give them the national strength they desire and need to ever form a government. First Past The Post exacerbates regionalism and western alienation whereas a PR system would smooth out those differences, electing members of the different parties from across the country, in proportion to their real local support.

The fake majorities that FPP parliamentary systems produce also create effective dictatorships until the next election. Once the government gets a majority of votes in the parliament, there is very little that they have to respond to from the opposition. We’ve seen that with the federal Liberals fake majority and many other governments in this country.

As to which party PR would benefit more, I think that’s highly speculative. It would change politics and change ways parties appeal to the voters. People would do less strategic voting, so on the face of it, that would harm the Liberals, but it would also create coalitions, minority alliances and consensus building, which still may result in Liberal led governments, but ones that didn’t have carte blanche until the next election. It may also result in more moderated Conservative governments with national support holding power.

Who it would really benefit would be the citizens of Canada, who would see their real wishes represented in government, even if they didn’t vote for the party leading that government. It would really benefit those who believe in principles of fairness and democracy and would take power away from win-at-all-cost party hacks.

Sinc - you said: “To it's credit, B.C.'s provincial Liberal government has held a citizens' assembly and is moving ahead with electoral reforms that will actually give some weight to each vote cast.” That isn’t quite true. The CA will reccommend a system of PR, which will be put before the voters in a referendum during the next provincial election, set for May 2005. The BC voters must pass the referendum by a majority in excess of 60%, or we stay with FPP. I think it will be an uphill battle to make that happen, but I will be volunteering for the Yes side, to try and bring it about.

There is more discussion of this on this thread: Single Transferable Vote in BC?

I’ll post a link here to Fair Vote Canada for more info on PR: Fair Vote Canada - Home


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Our government should be able to rise to the level to where it can fill the gaps left by chance or a wisdom we don't fully understand. We would rather have laws written by the patron of this great city, the man called the "world's most sincere Democrat" - St. Francis of Assisi - than laws written by Darwin." 

"We will have a new president of the United States, a Democrat born not to the blood of kings but to the blood of pioneers and immigrants. And we will have America's first woman vice president, the child of immigrants, and she, she, she will open with one magnificent stroke, a whole new frontier for the United States. Now, it will happen.

It will happen - if we make it happen; if you and I can make it happen."

Mario Cuomo, former Governor of the State of New York.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

But GA you position it as if PR or FPTP are the only alternatives and that's far from the truth.

Ranked or second choice does not require a PR component but eliminates vote splitting and strategic voting.
In a country this big I don't think PR makes sense for a lower house but could for say a regional council.
For instance in each province the percentage of popular vote might determine the mix of council members from that province in maybe Federal watchdog/committee role.
So it becomes a mixed representation of both national party political planks AND regional interests.
An upper house based on this might well work but I'd prefer to see it less as a legislative and more as an oversight and advisory national council reporting to both Parliament and Province.

So say a NDP national council member from Ontario looks out for both party and Ontario interests without being connected to a single riding but representing the say 25% of voters for the party in Ontario.
Appointments to this would be by the National party but from within the Province represented.
Then each party has a truly "popular vote" representation in the council. The council makeup would accurately reflect popular vote patterns right across the nation and would look different than the parliamentary makeup.
It would make it worthwhile for parties in "no win" ridings to make an effort to increase their popular vote to get the representation on the national council.
Healthier democratic structure with some built in productive tensioning and I like the idea of the best and brightest getting appointed by the parties themselves.
Some non charismatic types who are terrific voices may then get to participate.
Think of some of the brilliant NDPers who have never had a voice and some currently moderate conservatives who might be appointed by their party.

If anyone feels like it, I'd appreciate it if they laid out a council like this based on the last election results and one council member per .5 million voters. ( PEI might be a problem so perhaps the 5 or so natural "regions" might make a better source than specific provinces.

Take Ontario - under that scenario it would have 16 members 
6 Libs 5 NDP and 5 PC appointed from the province. Best and brightest of each party with a national voice for the region by way of the council.
I think it would promote cooperation and common ground.
It MIGHT even be a basis for a proportional and regionally aware Senate tho I prefer a national council role for it.

Thoughts???


••••••••••••••••••••

Days of reading here.
http://fc.antioch.edu/[email protected]/voting_methods/survey.htm


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macdoc, this thread has gone way off topic and the original subject is old news. Maybe if there's interest, someone could start another thread on PR. I don't know if there is great interest, the one I started is back on page 3 now. I think the details are a bit too wonkish for most.  

*But GA you position it as if PR or FPTP are the only alternatives and that's far from the truth.*

I'm not sure if you're referring to my mention of the upcoming BC referendum or my other discussion. As far as the BC referendum, the choice will be between a Proportional Representative version of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system or First Past the Post (FPP). The Citizens Assembly have chosen STV as their reccommendation, all they need to do now is meet a bit more to finalize the details. It will be on our ballots next May.

As far as my other discussion, I'm only really familiar with Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) and STV systems. From the reading I've done those are the two most considered options by the BC Citizens Assembly and by others who want to bring about PR. 

What is this other method you're proposing? Could you explain it more clearly, I couldn't really follow your ideas?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, re your comment that "Howard Dean, the failed Democratic candidate in the Presidential race...wants to become national Democratic chairman and pull the whole party well to the left of where it is right now. He reasons that "being centerist didn't work, so let's be ourselves and go far left".", I recall the same thing happened in 1972. While George McGovern, for whom I worked for and was honored to say that this was the person for whom I was able cast my first vote in a US federal election, was crippled when the Democratic party swung so quickly to the left. In my opinion, the Democratic party needs to maintain its core values of placing people before corportations, in the manner as my previous post from a speech by Mario Cuomo. How I wished he was running for president. I would return to the US for a period of time to work on his campaign. We shall see.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

DR. G...

In the light of what we know today, do you actually think, or even imagine in your wildest dreams, that a much more leftist Democratic Party would be anything more than a bizarre curiosity in any Presidential race?

A far-left turn by the Dems would absolutely guarantee a Republican victory, in any race. No question about it.

The US Democrats would then be where the Federal Canadian NDP is today. 

They would be unelectable. A tiny rump of what they used to be. What they MIGHT have been.

Out of power. Out of new ideas. And completely rejected by the vast majority of the voters.

Any comments? Thoughts? Feelings?

Please enlighten us.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt (up late are we???), I agree that a far-left Democratic party would not be able to regain power in the US anytime soon. Unless there is another Republican-created Depression, and then a Roosevelt-like Democrat comes on the scene, an extreme left Democrat will not become president. This is why I like the type of Democrat that Mario Cuomo is, and how I wished he had not dropped out of active politics. I also liked Clinton and Jimmy Carter, but I won't get you going on these two presidents. We shall agree to disagree on these two men.

I don't know what the answer is for the Democrats. I would not suggest a pseudo-Democrat, one who is more conservative than the Republican candidate. We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"...The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. 

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Bush would be well advised to heed the words of the greatest of all Republican presidents, Abraham Lincoln:

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations."

"Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. 
Now we are engaged in a great civil war. . .testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated. . . can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. 

We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. 

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate. . .we cannot consecrate. . . we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. 

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us. . .that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . . and that government of the people. . .by the people. . .for the people. . . shall not perish from the earth."


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Bush is promising to "spend the capital" he has recently earned. This is ironic since he actually has negative capital with respect to the deficit and the economic woes of the US, not to mention his relationship with most of the world. He and others seem keen to reach out to the 49% of Americans that voted against him on the condition that they embrace his limited and selective values. The American people are either with him or against him on abortion rights, gay marriage, tax-cuts. No middle ground. If States choose to go against his principles, he will unlease the Supreme Court to correct their ignorance of the Truth. 

The arrogance is in part justified because the guy has just been elected with a record that would have decimated many other leaders. He must think he can do anything and he probably can given the control of the two Houses. 

However, he is also replacing fact with faith. There was an English king who did the same. Will George W. Bush be able to turn back the tide of progress or will he be known as King Canute II?

God bless America, indeed.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

To get back to something that vaguely resembles the original subject of this thread....

Todays US news channnels are full of heated discussions about "where do the Democrats go from here?" There is much beating of chests and gnashing of teeth going on down there on the left/lib side of the political fence right now.

Howard Dean, the failed Democratic candidate in the Presidential race...wants to become national Democratic chairman and pull the whole party well to the left of where it is right now. He reasons that "being centerist didn't work, so let's be ourselves and go far left".

Luckily, this is a minority view amongst the Democratic party cheifs. It certainly wouldn't "play in Peoria" as they say. And could spell the end of the party as we now know it. (Much like the NDP up here in Canada has lost all hope of ever being elected to a majority.)

The more sober (and larger) portion of the US Democratic Party are suggesting a major modification of their party's stance on a whole range of issues. From abortion to gun control to gay marriage...it's all up for grabs. And the direction is toward a more conservative stance on prractically everything.

If adopted, this new move would take the Dems well to the right of where they are at this time. Well to the right of our own Canadian Conservative Party, actually.

Should be interesting to watch this particular battle unfold, whichever direction it goes. It's not often that we get to see a major ideological shift taking place in such an important political group in the short span of a few years.

They have to get it right before the next elections. Or they're done.

Like I said...should be interesting.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The final tabulations are in for the State of Florida, and Bush did NOT win!!!  However, this was for the 2000 election, so Gore should have been president. Now, all he will get is an asterisk.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, elections officials said.

Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. 

Bush actually received 365 votes in the precinct, Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, told The Columbus Dispatch.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

This is where I voted in the State of Georgia.

Clarke County, Georgia
Kerry 
21,707 58% 100% of precincts reporting 
Bush 
15,042 41% 
Badnarik 
465 1% 

This is where I was born and raised, and could have voted.

Queens County, New York City, New York State
Kerry 
393,482 71% 100% of precincts reporting 
Bush
155,363 28% 
Nader 
5,135 1% 


The Dr.G. factor was at play in both places I think. Maybe I shall have to leave the friendly confines of ehMacLand, and venture from the warm and loving arms of Mother Mac, into the "beast to the south" in 2008. "Many are called, but few are chosen." We shall see.


----------

