Election 2004 County breakdown

[»Ducky]

Closed mind? I gave you time to reply to me with persuasions. It is just easier for me to shoot down your misconceptions about logic and human nature than to explain it in full.

[Yupa]

I would, however, like to try to understand how Hitler and Bush were alike.  Just because you don't like Bush Akai, doesn't make him a villan.

Oh I don't think he's a villian so much as a fool.

Hitler killed over 6million jews in concentration camps.

Truly, besides the extermination of Jews, I don't see Hitler and Bush as that different - both greedy idiot warmongers with a large, stupid middle class blindly following.

The closest to that in most recent history is that of Sadam Hussein to the Northern Iraqi people.  I'm quite sure that Bush's goal was to remove Hussein from power to stop the butchering of people.  Maybe I'm wrong.

Oh man let's not get into that. Operation Iraqi Freedom was originally called Operation Iraqi Liberation. Enough said.

[»Ducky]

I don't agree with the oil thing, but !@#$%^&* is that little quote funny.

[Yupa]

I'm sure it wasn't _just_ the oil.

[MasterDrake]

Yeah I'm going to agree with ducky here there is no such thing as right or wrong only what you learn what people tell you is right or wrong.

[MonteZuma]

That poll can be very subjective.  I'm going to nullify that intellect has any meaning to your political affiliation by looking at income since it was broken down so clearly.  Look at the vote by income:

 

The poorest people voted for Kerry, the richest voted for Bush.  As you get richer you vote more republican.

Rich people vote republican out of self interest.

Right wing politics favours capitalists/big business/the rich. I don't think this statistic nullifies anything.

 

I'll counter my statement above by referring back to the previous post above.  So what does this prove?  Simply that intellect has nothing to do with your political affiliation as it can be countered both ways.

I doubt it proves this at all. Intellect obviously affects your political affiliation.

 

You have demonstrated that high income earners often vote Republican, and low income earners often vote Democrat. Most of us knew that. Wealthy kids that go to expensive universities and become CEOs of big companies will continue to vote for tax cuts and a better deal for big businesses.

 

The original intent here was to show that this was an election about population sprawl.  Nothing more.

I think it was about much more than that.

[MonteZuma]

Hitler killed over 6million jews in concentration camps.  The closest to that in most recent history is that of Sadam Hussein to the Northern Iraqi people.  I'm quite sure that Bush's goal was to remove Hussein from power to stop the butchering of people.  Maybe I'm wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush didn't order the invasion of Iraq to protect Iraqis.

 

There have been many rulers in recent history that have been worse that Hussein.

[MonteZuma]

Read the book of Revelation. Specificly the parts relating to the mark of the beast. The common interpretation is that it is some form of national ID.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Haha. BS.

[Dr Brain]

Read the book of Revelation. Specificly the parts relating to the mark of the beast. The common interpretation is that it is some form of national ID.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Haha. BS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rev 13:11 Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. 12 He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13 And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. 14 Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honour of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16 He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

 

13:18 This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

[Dr Brain]

Hitler killed over 6million jews in concentration camps.  The closest to that in most recent history is that of Sadam Hussein to the Northern Iraqi people.  I'm quite sure that Bush's goal was to remove Hussein from power to stop the butchering of people.  Maybe I'm wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush didn't order the invasion of Iraq to protect Iraqis.

 

There have been many rulers in recent history that have been worse that Hussein.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For once, you're right.

 

Bush didn't order the invasion of Iraq. Only the United States Congress can declare war.

 

Also, he didn't "do" it to protect Iraqis. He did it to protect the American people. That he also protected you euro-socialists has gone unnoticed among you.

 

Rulers worse than Hussein? Such as? No naming any dictators we've gone to war with.

[MonteZuma]

Bush didn't order the invasion of Iraq. Only the United States Congress can declare war.

A technicality.

 

Also, he didn't "do" it to protect Iraqis. He did it to protect the American people. That he also protected you euro-socialists has gone unnoticed among you.

He may have ordered the invasion to protect the American people, but it didn't work. He hasn't protected anyone from anything.

 

Rulers worse than Hussein? Such as? No naming any dictators we've gone to war with.

Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)

Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)

Menghitsu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)

Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)

 

Here are some. All of these rulers killed more people than Hussein. There are quite a few more I would consider worse than Saddam.

[Vile Requiem]

Let's not forget our propping up of Augusto Pinochet in Chile.

 

And Saddam when the ayatollah's were "Worse" at that moment. Including giving him WMD to begin with.

 

And the odds of a PRO american govt in Iraq being elected? Probably nill. That'll make the ENTIRE middle east anti-american. Except for that little place called Isreal.

 

This has been your back to reality moment.

[Dr Brain]

Whoa there. No naming dictators no longer in power either. Bush can't go back in time.

 

Odds of a pro american government are basicly zero? I disagree with that statement in every possible way.

[Yupa]

Bush didn't order the invasion of Iraq. Only the United States Congress can declare war.

A technicality.

yes, semantics - there is no difference between bombing a place and calling it "war" and bombing a place and calling it a "police action"

 

Rulers worse than Hussein? Such as? No naming any dictators we've gone to war with.

Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)

Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)

Menghitsu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)

Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)

 

Here are some. All of these rulers killed more people than Hussein. There are quite a few more I would consider worse than Saddam.

probably more than 60% of all British rulers

[Dr Brain]

probably more than 60% of all British rulers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's too good to p!@#$%^&* up. Notice that we went to war with Brittan? Whoa, imagine that. The American revolution, I think it was called. Ever hear of it?

 

Lets not forget the war of 1812 or the French & Indian war, either.

[Guest Recombo]

There is evidence here that some liberals have conveniently forgotten about bombings that Clinton did in Africa, Lybia, and elsewhere. Nice. Akai you always keep things at the 3rd grade history level for us. Thank you.

 

Worse than Hussein sure, the Crusades eclipse him completely. It doesn't make it OK....it's wrong and in modern times when it can be stopped it should be. If you were a Northern Iraqi I'm sure you would 100% agree to have anyone from anywhere step in and help. You can tout oil this and oil that all you want - it's easy outweighed by the humanitarian effort.

 

Oh....btw, still stuck on oil - read what Al Gore did in 1994 to secure his company's stake in the national reserve oil and you'll say no more.....unless you just feel like !@#$%^&*ing for no good reason.

 

Finally, if Iraq is 100% non-American this can only be true of what the Iraqi people want. Isn't that what you foreigners and liberals wanted in the first place. YES. Now you think you have a double edged sword by saying we 'won't be able to secure our government in Iraq'. Typical liberal barking up a tree to be heard. Have a nice day.

[Dr Brain]

There is evidence here that some liberals have conveniently forgotten about bombings that Clinton did in Africa, Lybia, and elsewhere.  Nice.  Akai you always keep things at the 3rd grade history level for us.  Thank you.

 

Worse than Hussein sure, the Crusades eclipse him completely.  It doesn't make it OK....it's wrong and in modern times when it can be stopped it should be.  If you were a Northern Iraqi I'm sure you would 100% agree to have anyone from anywhere step in and help.  You can tout oil this and oil that all you want - it's easy outweighed by the humanitarian effort.

 

Oh....btw, still stuck on oil - read what Al Gore did in 1994 to secure his company's stake in the national reserve oil and you'll say no more.....unless you just feel like !@#$%^&*ing for no good reason.

 

Finally, if Iraq is 100% non-American this can only be true of what the Iraqi people want.  Isn't that what you foreigners and liberals wanted in the first place.  YES.  Now you think you have a double edged sword by saying we 'won't be able to secure our government in Iraq'.  Typical liberal barking up a tree to be heard.  Have a nice day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with you for the most part. Only a few small disagreements that aren't worth mentioning.

 

Something else I would like to point out that the "Educated people vote Deomocrat" opinion voiced earlier doesn't take into account the fact that GWB has a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School, something that easily classifies him as "Educated".

[MonteZuma]

Finally' date=' if Iraq is 100% non-American this can only be true of what the Iraqi people want.  Isn't that what you foreigners and liberals wanted in the first place.[/quote']I'd much rather have an Iraqi government that was friendly to the West. I think if an unfriendly government is installed (or a friendly puppet government) then the invasion achieved nothing for global peace and security. The only desirable outcome would be a friendly government elected and trusted by the Iraqi people. The chance of that happening is slim. GWB has done nothing for the cause of western/middle-eastern relations.

 

"Educated people vote Deomocrat" opinion voiced earlier doesn't take into account the fact that GWB has a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School' date=' something that easily classifies him as "Educated".[/quote']Actually, it doesn't. But nevermind that. I'll concede that GWB probably isn't as dumb as he looks and sounds. He may even have above average intelligence!

 

Many highly educated people voted for GWB. Many poorly educated people voted for Kerry. The exit polls and common sense tell us this.

 

But picking out individuals does nothing to highlight trends.

[Vile Requiem]

Bush can't go back in time.

Nope. But a certain member of his administration can...

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

 

This certain secretary also got s!@#$%^&*ed by the truth the other day:

http://movies.ziaspace.com/Troops.wmv

 

Yes' date=' Mr. Secretary. Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years. A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic gl!@#$%^&* that's already been shot up' date=' dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north.[/quote'']

 

I'm told that they are being – the Army is – I think it's something like 400 a month are being done' date='" replied Rumsfeld. "And it's essentially a matter of physics. It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it.

 

As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time ... And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up.[/quote']

 

 

Yes kids, our troops lack armor. DESPITE the supplier being easily able to increase output and DESPITE us spending untold sums of money (billion dollars +) every day to support the war effort.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/na...lnews-headlines

 

Not to mention our citizens have to send supplies over to Iraq. The story doesn't mention it, but they lack such essentials as TP as well.

http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/...1210HUMVEE0.htm

 

Oh, and you want an evil administration? The Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay tortures were/are under Bush's watch. We're supposed to be the good guys here, and we wind up doing as much torturing as Saddam did.

 

Also' date=' he didn't "do" it to protect Iraqis. He did it to protect the American people. That he also protected you euro-socialists has gone unnoticed among you.[/quote']

That implies we found something that we needed to be protected from. Which we obviously did not. We DID find that a huge stockpile of weapons that we KNEW where it was "vanished" in the middle of our march to Baghdad.

 

Sen. McCain wants Rumsfeld gone:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ccain_interview

 

And in the most ironic bit, even the PENTAGON doesn't agree with you neocons. At all.

http://www.sundayherald.com/46389

 

 

Enough about Iraq for god crying out loud, the debate is officially over, unless you think you can refute the US Military and our own soldiers.

 

Back to that cool thing the topic began on, Red v Blue states $

[Dr Brain]

Please don't use exit polls to support your argument without knowing how they were conducted. Exit polls were mostly done in urban centers. This is why they showed Kerry ahead on election day. This fact totally skews the percentage numbers and leads people to possibly incorrect conclusions.

[Dr Brain]

Yes' date=' Mr. Secretary. Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years. A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic gl!@#$%^&* that's already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north.[/quote']

 

I'm told that they are being – the Army is – I think it's something like 400 a month are being done' date='" replied Rumsfeld. "And it's essentially a matter of physics. It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it.

 

As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time ... And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up.[/quote']

 

 

Yes kids, our troops lack armor. DESPITE the supplier being easily able to increase output and DESPITE us spending untold sums of money (billion dollars +) every day to support the war effort.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/na...lnews-headlines

 

Not to mention our citizens have to send supplies over to Iraq. The story doesn't mention it, but they lack such essentials as TP as well.

http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/...1210HUMVEE0.htm

 

Now, which senator was it that voted against the 87 billion dollar bill to supply our troops? Oh yes, I remember now. It was that guy who you voted for.

 

Lets get some perspecitve here. If we had not gone to war against Hitler, the world would be a worse place to be. This is an undenyable fact. Yet, you'll notice that the soldiers in WWII had to do the same thing for their tanks.

 

Oh, and you want an evil administration? The Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay tortures were/are under Bush's watch. We're supposed to be the good guys here, and we wind up doing as much torturing as Saddam did.

 

As much? You're joking, I hope. Saddam's sons personally oversaw executions of people. My favorite was one where they dressed someone up in a Superman costume and threw him out of a sixth story window. Another one that I remember is where they lowered a guy into some industrial shredder while his family was forced to watch. Those things happen, yet have the audacity to compare what a few soldiers did outside of the law to the m!@#$%^&* graves? Get some perspective.

 

Also' date=' he didn't "do" it to protect Iraqis. He did it to protect the American people. That he also protected you euro-socialists has gone unnoticed among you.[/quote']

That implies we found something that we needed to be protected from. Which we obviously did not. We DID find that a huge stockpile of weapons that we KNEW where it was "vanished" in the middle of our march to Baghdad.

 

It was under U.N. gaurd, and disappeared before we even started. It wasn't under OUR gaurd. It was under the almighty-sent-by-G*d-to-save-us-from-the-red-necks U.N. troop's gaurd. It disappeared before we ever reached it. Get your facts straight.

 

Sen. McCain wants Rumsfeld gone:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ccain_interview

 

Didn't bother reading.

 

And in the most ironic bit, even the PENTAGON doesn't agree with you neocons. At all.

http://www.sundayherald.com/46389

 

Didn't bother reading.

 

Enough about Iraq for god crying out loud, the debate is officially over, unless you think you can refute the US Military and our own soldiers.

 

Fine by me.

[MonteZuma]

Please don't use exit polls to support your argument without knowing how they were conducted. Exit polls were mostly done in urban centers. This is why they showed Kerry ahead on election day. This fact totally skews the percentage numbers and leads people to possibly incorrect conclusions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All polling is flawed. But the polls clearly show differences in voting patterns between different groups of people.

[Dr Brain]

Different groups of people *in urban centers*, you mean.

 

I agree, 43.5% of statistics are useless.

[Yupa]

That's too good to p!@#$%^&* up. Notice that we went to war with Brittan? Whoa, imagine that. The American revolution, I think it was called. Ever hear of it?

...what does it matter if we went to war with Britain?

[MasterDrake]

No idea some people are still living in the past