"Let's be honest. . . Why would we listen to losers?

[bryanthompson]

not, exactly, right . . . .

Who wrote Bush's Education bill? Ted Kennedy, who then turns and calls Bush a liar.

We finally get prescription drug coverage passed, and the left clamors that it's "not enough" when they couldn't even do that much when they had control.

Kerry says "i believe we should spend as much as necessary to win the war on terror." Then turns and for an entire campaign whines that we've spent "87 billion dollars in iraq."

We've given the left chances to be friends, and they turn around and stab us in the back. they are the idealogues. Representing the will of the people are us, the good guys.

ELEVEN states had bills to define marriage, ELEVEN of those states rejected gay marriage. We had Massachussets judges overriding the will of the people and issuing marriage licenses, same in San Francisco. In Cali, voters voted against gay marriage, yet they let gays get married anyway.

WHO is forcing their agenda onto the populace? They are the ideologues.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by island911

Anyway, one other point missing is, many of the Kerry voters threw a vote Kerrys way cuz he's more cool . . windsurfing, jet-set kinda guy. Those people aren't the ones posting here. They voted for the "cool-guy" and have gone back to their lives. They'll watch The Tonight Show or Letterman to get their jokes about the bumbling prez. . . .The chuckle & shrug crowd.

OTOH, the one's who voted for Bush, in large-part are very aware of what is at stake . . . just as the people here, who supported Kerry, were adamant.

So, what I'm trying to say is, if we measure the dedication to the individual Candidate, the Republicans won even bigger.

You dont' really believe this, do you? I will grant you the first part. As for the second...highly doubtful. There is a theory that most americans vote for the person that they would like to sit down and have a beer with. In this case, more of america (especially middle america) would rather tilt one with GWB than JFK. I think the percentage of voters who voted according to the issues were the same between parties.

[island911]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
. . .states rejected gay marriage. We had Massachussets judges overriding the will of the people and issuing marriage licenses, same in San Francisco. In Cali, voters voted against gay marriage, yet they let gays get married anyway.

WHO is forcing their agenda onto the populace? They are the ideologues.

Haven't ya heard? Carl Rove made 'em do it. . . .all part of his master plan to make the Dem's look bad. --LOL

[island911]

Originally posted by nostatic
You dont' really believe this, do you? . ..

From my experience talking to Kerry-supporting friends of mine (not the zealots here on the board) they have bought the Hollywood/ CBS-news projection of Bush as the bumbling dweeb.

So, what Im saying is, while Bush may superficially be much less than desirable, the people supporting (voting for him) in large part are much less glib than the average Kerry voter. (while completely acknowledging that there are those Kerry supporters who are far from glib. . .so involved, that they have established that Bush is Hitler .. . .and how GW actually had a cruz-missle hit the Pentagon for pretext to war)

[nostatic]

Originally posted by island911
From my experience talking to Kerry-supporting friends of mine

well now see we know this is bs because there's no way *you* have any friends

We'll have to agree to disagree. There are plenty of clueless dems who bought the party line hook, line and sinker. But I think the number of repubs is equivalent. "tax and spend", "soft on terror", etc...you talk to Joe Sixpack and he'll tell you that is all true. Exactly what the RNC wants them to believe.

But I still think it comes down to the "beer" factor. And when you say "Iraq", people think you're talking about what you do after the 8-ball is put into the side pocket.

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by bryanthompson


Kerry says "i believe we should spend as much as necessary to win the war on terror." Then turns and for an entire campaign whines that we've spent "87 billion dollars in iraq."

Winning the war on terror & spending big bucks in Iraq are not exactly superposable.

[bryanthompson]

Because Iraq isn't part of the War on Terror, right?

Saddam paid terrorists to blow themselves up in Israel. There are numerous connections to Al Qaeda and Saddam. I don't see this non-connection you people keep chanting.

[350HP930]

There are tighter connections between bush and al-qaeda than there was between saddam and al-qaeda. Our government has also sponsored terrorism against cuba, russia and many other governments.

So when does the military start bombing the white house?

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by island911
From my experience talking to Kerry-supporting friends of mine (not the zealots here on the board) they have bought the Hollywood/ CBS-news projection of Bush as the bumbling dweeb.

So, what Im saying is, while Bush may superficially be much less than desirable, the people supporting (voting for him) in large part are much less glib than the average Kerry voter.

But in the eyes of most Americans Bush is more superficially desireable. Thats his thing. People respond positively to his demeanour.

How many conservative websites have been touting the "look how orange kerry's face is!" "look how kerry looks so dorky trying to catch a football!" "look how kerry throws like a girl!" "look how kerry holds his gun!" "look how kerry looks like frankenstein!" "look how kerry's face looks like a botox container" lines?

Maybe I'm just hanging around weird people, but I'm glad to say that none of my friends based their votes on either candidate's appearance.

I don't see how anyone can claim that Bush voters are more informed than Kerry voters, or vice versa, or that the majority of one candidate's support is based on shallow & trivial decisions where the other's is considered & knowledgeable. Show me statistical evidence though.

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
Because Iraq isn't part of the War on Terror, right?

Saddam paid terrorists to blow themselves up in Israel. There are numerous connections to Al Qaeda and Saddam. I don't see this non-connection you people keep chanting.

Err... thats not what I posted.

-Iraq is part of the war on terror.

-Iraq is the war on terror.

Can you distinguish any difference in the above statements? Do you believe they are both true?

A response to say, spend less in Iraq & spend more on the war on terror (though given he didn't even say "more" unless it is necessary) is not contradictory in any sense. It would mean that less is spent in Iraq & more on other aspects of the war on terror. What other aspects? I don't know, maybe getting OBL, the guy who murdered thousands of Americans, is looking disturbingly healthy. I realise this is "not a priority" for some though.

[island911]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
But in the eyes of most Americans Bush is more superficially desireable. Thats his thing. People respond positively to his demeanour.

How many conservative websites have been touting the "look how orange kerry's face is!" .. .

LOL -- "more superficially desireable" by WHO!?

What next; are ya going to tell me that Bush gets behind the podium and preaches, like a poem or a song . . .with the zeal of Hitler .. ?

I mean come-on! That is pure crazy-talk.



IMO the city folks are much more image-conscience . ..where the rural folks are more focused on out-come. (results rather than posing)

Sure Kerry got the oompa-loompa tan, but it was gone just as quickly as it came. replaced by what? . . the story of him flying a barber . .er .. Hair-Stylist from one coast to the other, on one of his private jets, for his weekly $1000 'do. (?)

Anyway, Kerry has always been about controlling an image. All his ego-sports, SUV-- no SUV . ...control the image . . change per audience.

Al of the hits on his oompa-loompa tan were simply the right trying to turn one of his strengths (highly groomed) into a liability.

[ubiquity0]

Maybe "superficial" is not quite the right term. Although its still hard to see how you can argue that city folk voting purely on physical appearance would prefer the oompa-loompa tanned frankenstein over GWB, who is relatively normal looking in comparison.

Anyway I don't think you were referring purely to physical appearance earlier
"...they have bought the Hollywood/ CBS-news projection of Bush as the bumbling dweeb.
So, what I'm saying is, while Bush may superficially be much less than desirable..."
but rather to demeanour as well, and general likeability. Like Nostatic mentioned, I can't see why Kerry would come out ahead in this department. City folk like to drink beer as well, but with an orange drinking buddy??

"Whether or not you approve of his policies, do you think of George W. Bush / John Kerry as someone you would like personally?"
57% say yes to Bush while only 48% say yes to Kerry. [CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 23-27, 2004. N=856 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3]"

[island911]

Kerry has the Herman Munster look . .. GW has the chimp-look.

Beyond that . .. do you have a poll asking "who's life-style do you most admire?" (?)

I believe that question would give the decisive superficial city-vote to Kerry. (see jibjab.com "This Land" )

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by island911

Beyond that . .. do you have a poll asking "who's life-style do you most admire?" (?)

hmm... I think most people would answer 'Bush' now

Aren’t all Kerry voters supposed to be city-dwelling Dole-Bludgers that despise rich people & the spoils of success?

Yet they supposedly vote based purely on a superficial response to his exotic & expensive mansions, haircuts, sports & tans?

[island911]

N'no . . I thought I was clear in saying many (a significant percentage) Kerry voters were glib, and saw this election as Mr Jet-set Mansion-man vs Mr Word-tripping Cowboy.

and, yeah, I would prefer Kerrys life-style. POTUS- those guys age 20 years in 4. I would also take Paul Allens life-style over Bill Gates. More-Money/Power is not always the best end.

[speeder]

I watched the last debate, on Oct. 13th, at a swanky cocktail party filled w/ people who will really benefit from Bush's tax cuts. (But also don't need the dough). I sat down next to a nice Republican lady and asked her who she liked in the election, she replied, "well, it's not Kerry."

I respectfully asked her why, and she said, "I just can't imagine his wife in the White House." I was like, "OK. I feel you there. Anything else?"

[island911]

She just wanted to talk sex & relations with ya speeder. . . you blew it.

[Superman]

Wish I had more time. The leadoff post here asks why an elected official would listen to the folks that did not vote for him.

Now, I accept the notion that Arnold made this quote, but he would not have been suggesting what I think Island may be suggesting. And I suspect that Island actually, honestly wonders why an elected official would listen to those who voted against him. I hope someone spelled this out so that greater understanding could potentially occur.

But of course, I also notice that Dubya is in his last term. So, he has no personal motivation to be the slightest bit "uniting." Of course, some folks will be left behind when Dubya fades away in 4 years, so there will be some rational, non-entropy forces to counter Dubya's personal agenda.

Hey, I've got a question. When was the last time a president was re-elected with a LOWER margin of victory? And I'd prefer to get the answer to this question from someone who is pretending that Dubya's victory was a landslide.

[island911]

Originally posted by Superman
Wish I had more time.
. . .
And I suspect that Island actually, honestly wonders why an elected official would listen to those who voted against him.
. . .

Well, if you would be so kind to sacrifice some time TO READ THE POST before responding to something else . . ..you would read that I was applying those words to the extreme left here, on this BBS, who give us very little reason to listen to them.

Your repeated glib 'I don't have time to read/understand this post . . . but now you listen to me' strengthens my point.

[Superman]

Okay, rather than shrug my shoulders and move on, I'll try to clear up some of the enigma here. First, Island, it sounds like maybe you're wondering "Why should the republican legislators listen to the EXTREME left?" Is this the question? Or is it "Why should republican legislators listen to the extreme left posters on the Pelicanparts BBS Ot Forum?" Or is it "Why should the republican legislators listen to the LEFT?" Or is it "Why should I, Island, listen to the EXTREME left?" Or is it "Why should I, Island, listen to the extreme left on the Pelicanparts BBS OT Forum?"

Here is your leadoff post:

"Govenator Schwarzenegger recently volleyed this statement/question.

I think he may have a point; Just what are the losers bringing to the table?

Is it the brilliance of "The unteachable ignorance of the red states" ?

.. .Or perhaps it's the ficticious "State-by-State IQ map" ?

Here on this board, we even have the losers angerly comparing our President to Hitler, as a means to paint him as a facist. (in an apparent effort to ease their need to hate the guy)

So really, Just what are the losers bringing to the table?"

And here is your response to my post:

"Well, if you would be so kind to sacrifice some time TO READ THE POST before responding to something else . . ..you would read that I was applying those words to the extreme left here, on this BBS, who give us very little reason to listen to them.

Your repeated glib 'I don't have time to read/understand this post . . . but now you listen to me' strengthens my point."

In your last reply, I see that you meant to narrow "left" to mean only Pelicanhead extreme lefties. Your reference to Pelicanheads in your leadoff post appears to be an illustrative example, not the question itself. Just getting a grip on what you're trying to say, which has not been easy for me.

And as far as the value of the input offered by Pelicanhead extreme lefties (I'm going to assume, and hope, that you would include me in this group), I would offer this:

There are people here who get no value from it whatsoever, and I think you're one of them. So, It's probably a very relevant question for you. There are folks who continue, no matter how many times they are corrected, to pretend that we're saying something we're not saying. For example it would be easy for me to elicit another "Kerry wants to ask France's permission to defend America" from you or any number of other conservatives here.

So for some people, it kinda makes no difference whether we post here or not. Again, that would include you in my humble opinion. So, it's a legitimate question for you. But there are others here who can have moments of "Ah hah!" when they finally notice what someone else is saying and they notice that there may be a grain of truth to it, even though it is not what they already believe.

Now, that would answer your question if you were one of those people.