W2

[chillzatl]

[Plainview1981]

What??

[chillzatl]

W²

[Admin]

Careful, you are going to break some hearts on here. Lets not rub it in the faces of all the disheartened Dems here.

W for 4 more!!!.....W for 4 more!!!.....W for 4 more!!!

[TheDude]

i'm alright with it as a independant...if the people vote to live in poverty so be it...i'll take care of me.

[chillzatl]

I thought I was being subtle!

[CBAreject]

Kerry is down by 150,000 votes in Ohio, and there are still about 120,000 provisional ballots outstanding. If Kerry gets 100% of the vote on those ballots (which the Dem party claims he almost certainly will), he will make it close enough to ask for a recount.

Apparently Ohio still uses the punch card system, so perhaps we could see some more hanging chad lunacy on the national news. Isn't it amazing that the entire heartland and south was red on the electoral map? New York and California accounted for a huge percentage of Kerry's votes. Bush also won the popular vote by a substantial majority, showing that Jesse Jackson's theory that the young voters would vote overwhelmingly for Kerry just wasn't true. I think a lot more young voters have moral conviction than they think. The two main issues in this election were 1) the justification for war, and 2) the importance of moral issues. While many don't support Bush's decisions in Iraq, that may have been balanced by Kerry's soft moral stance (even though he tried to convince voters otherwise at the end).

Seriously, I'm not a major Bush proponent, but I do think he's a man of conviction and a leader. I'm glad Kerry didn't win because I do not think he is those things. I hope W makes me proud. It certainly wasn't popular to vote for him here at Duke, which is 80-85% liberal.

Also, if Kerry had won and the result in Iraq had been positive, Kerry would've been credited; negative and Bush would've been blamed. Now, Bush will be able to finish what he started and shoulder either the credit or the blame, which is appropriate.

[chillzatl]

all of these old watermarks just fell through. Young voters mean democrat votes, etc. it just goes to show that the USA today, is not the USA of yesterday and many of those old formulas just don't apply.

I've seen many posts on various sites from democrats saying "How did we lose". Some blamed the war, some blamed the "fat cats". But personally, I think their message held them back. As I said, todays America is not yesterdays America. People are tired of hearing the same old lines when it comes to a candidate trying to get their vote. When your message hasn't changed in 50 years, you run the risk of becoming obsolete.

[TheDude]

I really feel it's getting a better candidate for the Dem party. the messages they presented sounded just fine. they aren't getting old because they are attractive to the common people. the difference is that they do not preach religious beleifs as being part of policy-making and that hurt Kerry in the rural states.

people still are tying religious tie-ins like abortion and gay marriages in making a decision on who to vote. dems seem to have their opinion on those issues similiar to repubs(like kerry saying he's against gay marriages) but don't feel that the constitutuion should be used to regulate those types of things...these are faith-based issues in a separation of church/state country yet people are more willing in a time of terrorism to put that to the side.

i just think that with Kerry being a posterboy for a washington politician hurt him. If the dems had put like gephardt or even Dean(if he didn't yell), i think they would have beat Bush easily.

Then again I still think McCain should have gotten it 4 years ago.

[chillzatl]

I disagree completely. When the heart of your message is negative at its core, people see through that. When all you can say to win votes are things like, they want to STEAL your social security, they want to supress minorities and they don't care about your health care, people see through that. People in this country are smart enough to know just how much of that message is true and just how much of it is BS designed to scare people into voting. There is NOTHING positive in those messages.

The democratic party is at a crossroads. The people have spoken and they said that we're not going to fall pray to hateful ideals of people like Micheal Moore. He and his kind were the face of the democratic party this election and the people stood up to show them that their ideals are not the ideals of America. It's now up to their leadership to decide which direction they are go. Will they continue in the direction that has seen them lose more and more power in this country, or will they return to the message of great democrats like kennedy and Roosevelt.

George Bush not only recieved a record popular vote. He will set records for a republican in both black and hispanic voters. That alone shows that those groups are tired of the status quo. They are tired of the same old message and as many suggested, though not likely in this way, are ready for a change.

[CBAreject]

"people still are tying religious tie-ins like abortion and gay marriages in making a decision on who to vote. dems seem to have their opinion on those issues similiar to repubs(like kerry saying he's against gay marriages) but don't feel that the constitutuion should be used to regulate those types of things...these are faith-based issues in a separation of church/state country"

Separation of church and state? While the government should not establish a state church, per the first amendment to the constitution, this country was founded upon the tenets Christianity. Almost every law we have is based in this moral system, especially those you take for granted.

During the debate at Washington University, Kerry was asked if he would use tax dollars to pay for abortions. Kerry is a shrewd fellow, and knew that to answer this fundamentally religious question he had to pay at least some attention to religion. Some pretend that it's not a religious question, but it truly is. The questions, which may skirt around, are 1) whether a fetus represents a human being, and 2) whether it is justifiable to take the life of a human being under the circumstances. The first is a more philosophical question than the second, but I would argue that both should be answered through theological understanding.

From the beginning, the founders of our nation believed in 2 fundamental human rights: liberty and equality. Belief in equality, though, derives not from naturalism, but belief in the supernatural. After all, men are *created* equal. Those who do not believe in God at all, as well as those who are agnostic, must not believe in equality of men. If they do, they are either being dishonest or using faulty logic. You see, the only alternative to creation of men by God is the gradual evolution of men from mere atoms and molecules. If the latter is the case, then men are nothing more than a product of their genes, and we all know that we are not genetically equal. We are not equal in the flesh; rather, we are equal in spirit because we were all formed by our creator in His image.

From the Declaration of Independence, it is clear that we once believed that God not only created us equal, but also endowed us with "inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It was not the government that gave us rights. No, the government only served to recognize and protect those rights.

In all of this, we see that belief in God was essential in formation of our laws. Those who became residents of our country did not have to share this belief (as a result of their intrinsic liberty), but they were required to respect it through obeying the laws derived from it. No one would've argued, at this point, that we perhaps shouldn't refer to God in the pledge of allegiance for fear of offending the atheists. No, this was God's nation, and one could choose to believe otherwise without penalty, as long as he respected and adhered to the laws.

Now, let's get back to Kerry's response on using tax dollars for abortions. Kerry began by announcing, albeit uncomfortably, that he had Catholic roots and faith in God. He went on to explain that he thought that abortion was immoral, but couldn't impose that religious view upon others. A poverty stricken woman who wanted to rid herself of an untimely pregnancy, then, had a *right* to have an abortion, and should have it subsidized by the government; so his answer went.

The philosophy a few decades ago was in most ways similar to that at our nations inception: human rights were borne out of natural law. The view of the day, however, is that religious thought should be completely separate from the governmental process (a bastardization of a Thomas Jefferson quote on the 'wall of separation between church and state').

No one should argue that morality should be legislated. No, an individual has an inherent right to choose against God's laws. He is only prosecuted, in this country, when his immoral choices infringe upon the rights of another human being. Since we're in agreement that intentionally killing another human being violates his right to life, there's no debate about whether murder should be legal. So, the second question is answered on the abortion issue through attention to God's ordination of life. The first still lingers, however. Does the fetus represent a human being? Again, since God ordains life, we cannot reasonably argue that a fetus does not represent a human being. We have a strong scriputural basis for this conclusion, as well. As such, abortion is equivalent with murder.

Since we used our belief in natural law to answer the first question, why not the second? The truth is, most no longer believe in natural law. Most believe in those same basic human rights that our founding fathers did, but only because 'it's what works for everybody', not because of any inherent value in human life. As such, most believe that God is irrelevant. While many people believe he exists, including John Kerry, they don't believe that His laws should play a role in the formulation of our laws. We are now a nation of humanistic relativists who don't believe that truth can be known. We are a collection of agnostics who attend church on occasion, but don't believe that our religion captures any more truth than that of our Buddhist co-worker. Since we can't know who God is, then, we can't really know His truth, and little by little, our national grounding in absolute truth has gradually given way to relativism.

I used to wonder why so many wanted so adamantly to protect the Constitution. I now realize that it is one of the few connections we have to that belief in our Creator as the author of natural law that made our nation great.

This is why I voted for Bush. It wasn't the abortion issue. No that was only a symptom of our national pathology--moral relativism. Bush believes that truth can be known. His opponent does not.

[Plainview1981]

It's america...what else can you say? To be fair, the

other guy doesn't seem much better. A fake duck hunt?

C'mon now! But america doesn't look so good right now.

Since it doesn't seem like Kerry was a worthy challenger

I don't pay attention to "record levels" or such..

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

The democratic party is at a crossroads. The people have spoken and they said that we're not going to fall pray to hateful ideals of people like Micheal Moore. He and his kind were the face of the democratic party this election and the people stood up to show them that their ideals are not the ideals of America.

---

Actually...

The democratic party has never been in better shape.... This was a loss but it was a big win at the same time.... The republicans have created this US vs. Them ideal about America. They have created this Good vs. Evil. They have created this we are the religious and the Democrats are the Satanist. They have created this great divide in the country and a speech from Kerry can't put it back together.

The Karl Rove Echo Chamber (Talk Radio and Fox News) has created this monster. I mean, to think that a 51% to 48% victory is an "overwhelming" victory or a "mandate" is foolishness. It's 2%. It really means that 1 out of every 2 people are against you.

But this is what we know the day after. Heads are still being chopped off in Iraq. Bin Laden is still alive (although the timing of his last message (and his health) was enough to wake up every conspiracy advocator)... But he's still alive. The economy is still in the tank. Jobs are still being shipped overseas. This country is going down on every level... AND NOW, there's NO democrat to demonize!?!!! Can't Demonize Bill Clinton for 4 more years. I know that the republicans will try to put Hillary's name in the echo chamber and demonize her for 4 yrs but it won't stick. The dividing forces will be seen for what they are...

The democrats are looking really good. Who will they put up? I don't think it will be Hillary... But if it were Hillary.... She would do something interesting like grab a moderate republican like McCain to run with her.

I can't say that Howard Dean is out of the picture. He was able to spark the base. But the second Bush term may be the end of republican "conservatism" as we know it. There is no where else to pin blame. Bush before 9/11 is the same guy who is president now. That guy can run a flea market. His overspending and tax cuts during a war time will come to hunt him by 2006.

By then, people will get tired of seeing good Jobs travel to India and the only place to find work being Walmart...

[Diesel]

I agree... McCain should have won.

I don't know how Bush can even call himself a Christian the way that his campaign wronged John McCain!

[Diesel]

I am a Christian and I will tell you this... Life does not start at conception.

Science proves that.... If you were to take a fetus out of the womb up to 3 weeks, what happens... It dies. No lungs...Life means to be independent right? If you're hooked up to a machine that carries out all of your bodily functions and you have no consciousness are you alive?

I'm not pro abortion whatsoever...

However, I think that this idea of life starting at conception is erronous and has led to many women going through depression. Women who have had miscarriages and still births...

However, let's assume life does start at conception... and let's say that abortion is murder... By the same token, isn't the woman responsible for the death of her child whenever she has a miscarriage? Shouldn't there be invistigations to every miscarriage and still birth? Maybe the woman was lifting too many heavy boxes and caused a miscarriage. According to the letter of the law, that woman goes to jail right?? I mean if abortion is murder that means that anything the woman does to prevent a normal child birth is murder?

Do you see my point yet?

I think that some of these "morality" issues have been politicized in order to polarize people... It's wrong.

[pathway23]

Good points Diesel, I agree with you.

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

The Karl Rove Echo Chamber (Talk Radio and Fox News) has created this monster. I mean, to think that a 51% to 48% victory is an "overwhelming" victory or a "mandate" is foolishness. It's 2%. It really means that 1 out of every 2 people are against you.

---

Don't forget that everybody doesn't vote. I read that only

like 1 out of every 10 voters are under the age of 25. Some

probably think that is the youth not speaking out... But

perhaps it's because some can't vote for either because

they can't see why either are worthy of being a president.

[Diesel]

The Electoral System is so bad and unneccessary.

Seriously...

If you are a Republican in NY or California, why Vote?

IF you are a Democrat in GA or Alabama, why Vote?

It's already pretty much set in Stone that these States will go along party lines and that your vote means Nothing.

I suggest maybe counting each congressional district and using that as the electors. Even if Kerry loses still, that's a fairer way to do it. The way that is in existence now is unfair and it disinfranchises many voters.