Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by dtb

Take your cracker vote and secede. That way everyone is happy.

Well, the northeast tried it 230 years ago. And it worked.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by dtb
Semantics. The cracker Dems are now the cracker Reps.

You might want to compare the map on the left of this obscure page to a map of who-was-who in the Civil War.

http://www.cnn.com

Parts of the North are also (apparently) now parts of the South. And the South is now a majority.


In fact, Rs will Control the Representative delegations of 36 or more states for the next 2 years. 55 Senate seats. 51% of the vote (and it would have been 60 easy if you take out the 1st debate debacle and Rummy's madness).

Its going to be funny hearing the minority party try and portray themselves as the superior party, the smarter party, the saner party, for the next 4 years. My only hope is that y'all stay Dems, and keep up the superiority attitude. It goes over really, really well, particularly for people from Massachusetts.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by dtb
[sour grapes]

Too bad the French couldn't have voted in this election. You would have won.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by dtb

ETA: How ironic that all of a sudden the popular vote is determinative. Quite a different tune than the one you were singing four years ago. But again, what is a little intellectual honesty to the crackers?

I don't think that's the point. The dems have neither to point to this year.

Too bad so much power has been centralized in the federal government. Thanks FDR.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Me
You're wrong but that will be your mantra for the next 4 years. You are just putting more nails in the coffin of the Dem party.

Funny that TM won't visit the breadbasket of the world, but he sure will eat their food.

Even Tucker Carlson recognizes the deep hatred many, many people in this country have for GWB.

Breadbasket -- right. Well, I guess he can eat the food that they don't throw out, because they have to in order to receive their fucking welfare - oops, I mean farm subsidies.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by dtb
Right. Because all the revenue-producing states are in the cracker belt. Good point.

I don't think its a question that a majority of the "producers" in this country vote Republican. Look at the markets today, they are quite happy.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
. Look at the markets today, they are quite happy.

That could be certainty, not one candidate or the other.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Do you really believe that? Honestly? Do you think that the people who don't vote because they think it doesn't matter (and I think we can all concede that they're morons) feel that way? I think this country is bitterly divided. Much more so than in 2000.

TM

There are morons on both sides that didn't vote. I can't fathom why they would be weighted significiantly to one side or the other. The intesity of the divide may be greater, but in sheer numbers, we are less divided.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Not Me
the breadbasket of the world

I don't know what this means. Are you saying the US farming states feed the rest of the world? I don't think that they feed Europe or Asia or the rest of North America (i.e those countries don't import more than they produce themselves). I'm not sure about Africa, but where my sister lives in Kenya they don't eat American-produced food. I don't recall eating much American-produced food when I lived in Canada (except maybe some Florida oranges). I could be wrong though. And if you have statistics, I would be interested.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Me
[unintelligible and non-sensical rejoinder - what a surprise]

And if the Pakistanis and Al Quaeda could have voted, Bush would have won in a landslide, and you could pointed to a true mandate!

This is retarded -- why are you such an asshole? You and your cracker friends won -- why pretend it wasn't the crackers and Jesus freaks who got you there? If you're happy with that -- godspeed.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
2. Why do people who live in butt-fuck nowhere use domestic terrorist attacks as a rationale for how they cast their vote? The people who are most at risk overwhelmingly reject Bush.

TM

Yep, Bilmore is safe in butt-fuck suburban Minneapolis even if Carrot Top is elected president. It's scary that those in the greatest amount of danger want nothing to do with Bush. If Bush's reaction to 9/11 was so wonderful, how come the people nearest the terrorism wanted him out?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That could be certainty, not one candidate or the other.

Dissent. They were down yesterday right after the polling rumors came out of a big Kerry victory.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by dtb
The difference being, if they tried again, the North would say "Good Riddance."

Have you been to places like North Carolina? They are becoming increasingly populated by people who speak with Brooklyn accents.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That could be certainty, not one candidate or the other.

2.

I suspect this is at least part of the reason behind Kerry's concession.

(Another example -- when Big Tobacco was slammed with their fines, tobacco stocks skyrocketed. Markets respond to certainty, even if it's "bad" news.)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
If Bush's reaction to 9/11 was so wonderful, how come the people nearest the terrorism wanted him out?

Because they don't view the risk of the threat the same way, which causes them to focus less on foreign policy and more on domestic policy.