Quoted for posterity.

I find it humourous that Republicans/Bush suppurters are so critical of those who say "If this happens/doesn't happen, then I'm leaving" given that this seems to be the oficial Bush policy towards International Law, Organizations, Trade Agreements, etc.

I would like to make sure and note that not all Republicans agree with Bush about the whole abortion issue, and not all Democrats disagree with him on it.

I think people are taking all of this way out of context. If you heard people threatening to leave the country if someone YOU supported got elected, I have a feeling you would also say that they were welcome to it.

I am NOT saying that people who disagree with Bush should GTFO... not by any means. YES, I voted for him and YES I am proud to say so. Does that mean that I agree with everything he says, everything he does, and every policy he has? HELL NO!!!

But, Democrat or Republican, man or woman, I support the administration in charge. I know that I will never agree with everything ANY administration does, but I am a free person living in a free country and I am thankful for that. And I trust that the administration knows much more than I do and that they will do what is in the best interest of the country and the world.

According to Wikipedia, Bush got 50.73% of the popular vote. George H.W. Bush got 53.4% in 1988. Reagan got 58.8% in 1984.

Clearly, he did not get the highest percentage of the popular vote in history.

Honestly, I don't really care what people do, beyond my friends, family and a few co-workers/associates. People can stay if they want, people can leave, that's entirely their right.

As for me, it's a pet peeve when people constantly say "If so and so happens, I'm leaving." Also, as I said previously, it doesn't matter whether it's a Republican, Democrat, Green party, whoever who says it. I would think the same thing if Kerry was elected and it had been Republicans talking like that.

I don't think anyone is going to dispute this. But when people are attacked with petty one-liners simply because someone doesn't agree with them, they feel they have to respond in some way. BTW Lil'Hannah- that was not directed at you.

MY bottom line: The election was almost a year ago. I don't think it will make an ounce of difference now so there is no point arguing about it.

I'm sure there are tons of statistics that would have to be pulled comparing the number of voting-aged people now compared to the past, as well as the number of registered voters compared to the past, as well as the number of those registered who actually voted compared to the past.... And population changes taken into consideration to REALLY figure out the highest popular vote ever.

Regardless of population, highest popular vote is highest. I'm certainly not going to bother trying to figure out the statistics.

Yeah, and Wikipedia is REAL reliable...isn't that the "encyclopedia where anybody and everybody can go in and make changes as they see fit?

Well changes have to be approved but for the most part it is reliable. It was the most organized site that I could quickly pull up statistics. If you want to question it's validity that's fine, but like I said it's pretty reliable.

2004: Bush 58,390,139
2000: Gore 50,996,582
1996: Clinton 45,590,703*
1992: Clinton 44,908,254*
1988: Bush 47,946,000
1984: Reagan 54,455,000
1980: Reagan 43,901,812

And if you want to see it in pictures:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm

-Rudey

Rudith, those are numbers, not percentages. No one is disputing that he had the highest NUMBER of popular votes, but it is important to keep in mind, as Valkryie pointed out, there are more people now too.

-Lil' Hannah
--I hope you didn't buy that shirt.

In 2004, Bush received 51% of the vote. From CNN

In 1988, his father received 53.4% of the vote. Election 1988

In 1984, Reagan received 58.8% of the vote. Election 1984

In 1972, Nixon received 60.3% of the vote. Election 1972

And so on and so on....

You can always rely on someone to start throwing out the "attack" word. Maybe soon "lynching" will follow.

I have yet to see anything that would qualify as an "attack" in this thread, although implying that people aren't "smart enough" to figure out something not stated in a post comes closer than anything else.

Well in all fairness, I just attacked Rudey's questionable fashion sense.

Ok replace the word attack with the word use.... Doesn't change anything.

And so we can put the whole damn issue behind us, here are the populations of the U.S. in recent history:

1980 :226,545,805
1990: 248,709,873
2000: 281,421,906

No data yet for 2004 on the site I used (cause there hasn't been another census yet).

EDIT: As I mentioned before, this is just basic population- it does not take into account the number of voting-aged people or the number of registered voters.

EDIT #2: Here is a look at some numbers from 2000

Voting age population: 205,815,000
Number of registered voters: 156,421,311
Number of turnout: 105,586,274

That's 67.5% of registered voters.

Haven't looked for other years yet.

There are more citizens that can vote now?

Plus the colored picture is still pretty important.

And no I didn't buy the shirt :*(

-Rudey

All the bickering about the 2004 election needs to go into another thread regarding that issue.

Mr. Dubya Bush is President now... No, I did not vote for him. I voted for Kerry. That was my choice and I lost.

Do I want Mr. Bush "taken down" (by any means neccessary) because he "won"? Maybe. I am not going to lie about that.

The fact is Mrs. Sheehan is not one of those folks, yet... She's some housewife that had a son and lost him in a war that she no longer agrees with...

Besides, Vacaville, California is in the desert near 29 Palms. That is sheer military country. If you graduate from high school out there and are "considered a legal citizen", joining the military is about all you can afford to do... There's Fresno State, but they only accept football players... And CSU San Bernadino as well as UC Riverside are too far to attend... So the options for most young people in this young man's age group are limited... Corey Sheehan probably did not think he had different options other than joining the military and being about somebody...

Interestingly, he is more somebody in death than he was in life... It may be notorious... But folks know who he was...

Vacaville is Northern California, near Travis AFB. Twnety Nine Palms is in Southern California, closer to Palm Springs.

Fine.

I'm wrong about where Vacaville is.

But it still does not change the fact that it is military country and that is the life folks hope for upon high school graduation--which is fine for those who want it.

But really, do you think EVERYONE who signs up really FATHOMS the kind of life they wanted when they volunteered for service... Some do, some don't.

It does not change the fact that Mrs. Sheehan was some housewife that lost a son in Iraq and she's upset about it and wants someone to pay--even if it is Mr. Bush...

I dunno if her feeling is right or wrong.

But, I really don't care at this point because I've got my own worries to think about.

OK, just to be clear, you didn't say "to all the people who bitch and moan and don't do anything, GTFO" you CLEARLY stated the above. And seeing as I don't like the way the country is being run right now, I guess you are telling me to GTFO. Again, you have negated the very thing you and so many others have served to defend - freedom to feel and think and say what I want without being ridiculed.

In other news:
Mrs. Sheehan's mom had a stroke so she left the camp. Haven't seen how it's going without her there...

It's comments like this that really piss me off.

So because I'm pro-military (my dad, brother, grandfathers, uncle, cousins and great uncle have all served and the latter (great uncle) died), but anti-war and I despise our president with every ounce of my being I should GTFO of America?

I hate how the country is being run right now, but I'm an American and I have every right to voice my disdain on how the country is being run.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I distinctly recall this wonderful thing called The Bill of Rights with Amendment #1 which gives "Freedom of speech and press". Because of this I have every right as a US CITIZEN to say how much I don't like how this country is being run.

How can you be "pro-military" and "anti-war"? Do you understand the primary mission of the military? To fight and win wars? That's like being "pro-cars" and "anti-driving". Or are you just "anti-war on terror"?

Re: Re: Re: I dunno you guys & gals...
 

That's not substantiated, and not the same thing as having ICBMs. North Korea does not have ICBMs, and probably never will.

Re: Re: I still dunno folks...
 

While the current Administration has certainly been active in limiting disturbing images in the media, they are not acting alone. The American Press actively censors themselves when it comes to disturbing images, and they have done so for a very long time.

I believe that both parties are wrong. If we are going to war, then part of the price that our society must face is to confront the consequences of our actions.

I believe that this war was fully and morally justified, but when we restrict public discourse in the name of fighting for freedom, we become our own worst enemy.

The percentage that everyone is looking for is for voter turnout. 2004 had the highest percentage of voter turnout since 1960.

I think the people who say that support the troops, but don't necessarily support the war or reasons behind going to war.

Yes, there was a high voter turnout. However, Bush did not win by a landslide. The voter turnout was for him, Kerry, Badnarik...

Yes.


Come ON Now....you ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer.


Been trying to ignore this thread cause people are just being idiots and NOT getting the REAL picture....but I just couldnt resist giving a smart@$$ answer to this one.

Enjoy.

Somebody help me understand this, because I REALLY dont get it. I've asked, and asked, and asked again, and NOBODY can give me a straight up answer. If you are SO upset with the way a country is being run, WHY DO YOU SATY? It's just like a job. If you didnt liek your job, you wouldnt stay would you? Sure, you might can tolerate it for a while, but I'm talking EXTREME circumstances. If you dont like it, cant handle it, dont agree with the ethics and morals...and DESPISE it with every ounce of your being, then WHY do you stay HERE and put up with the crap you despise, rather than going somehwere else, where you obviously think you would be more comfortable. I just dont get it.

Sure, It's America. It's you "home". So instead of bitching and complaining and moaning and groaning, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. But be prepared that NOT EVERYBODY agrees with you, and not EVERYBODY is gonna jump on your revolution bandwagon.

Why am I surprised that "certain people" are so upset about the GTFO comment? I shouldnt be surprised in the least. If y'all are waiting for an apology, y'all are gonna be waiting a long damn time, because I ain't sorry I said it. I dont have any respect for people who bitch and moan and dont do squat to change things, they only threaten to leave and then when given the opportunity to leave they get offended that someone offered the suggestion. Typical.

Sweetie, half the country didn't elect the president, so because I didn't put his ass in office and I don't like the way he is running our country I should leave?

Oh and btw, I did "do something" about it. But my state went to Bush, so therefore it really didn't count. Unfortunately I live in a Rebulican state, so therefore, it tends to go Rebulican.


Come on, in your own words "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer"



KSigKid: Thanks for understanding what I was talking about.



I'm pretty sure that the "primary mission" of the military is to protect the US not to go to war. If war happens then they go to it. There are only a select few wars that I "understand" why the US got involved (or had them), but this is not one of them. It is all about us sticking our noses in where they don't belong in the attempt to play "big brother" to all the other countries and President Bush's personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. He used the excuse that there were WMD (weapons of mass destruction), yet let's not forget the we NEVER FOUND THEM!!!!! If they had had them we would have found some trace that they were there but we FOUND NOTHING!!!!!

Do y'all understand that if god forbid another 9-11 happened tomorrow that is worse (and lets face it, it will happen again, we just don't know when and it will be worse), we would be screwed because half our military is 10,000 miles away!!!!

My brother is in the frickin' National Guard. National Guard, where he is only supposed to work 1 weekend and month and 2 weeks int he summer, yet he's over there. God forbid something happens in AZ because more than half our National Guard troops are overseas.

So how is my brother protecting us? He is protecting the other soldiers yes but he is protecting Iraqis and Kuwaitis. He's not protecting Arizonians.

BTW, people don't tend to join the military to go to war. That hasn't happened since WW2. And don't list 9-11 as an excuse for enlistment, it went up afterwords but it dropped when we invaded Iraq and it is still at an all-time low (especially with the National Guard).

Politics are messy and their ugly and they are full of opinions. You are never going to change mine just as I am never going to change yours.




I just have serious issues with people telling me that if I don't like it that I need to GTFO and that I am not allowed to be "anti-war" but "pro-military".

I feel for your brother, but it's difficult for most people to comiserate with the 'weekend warrior' who is pissed about being overseas - simply put, this is how the military was designed, to provide for situations similar to what happened.

Those who joined for student loan forgiveness, or a sense of adventure, will simply not garner sympathy from most, nor should they deserve it - it might be the worst-case scenario to be in Iraq, but it was always a viable scenario.

But in all technicality it wasn't a viable scenario until 9-11 happened.

War is always a "scenario" but it isn't "viable" until someone makes it viable. 9-11 made going to Afghanistan (spelling issues today) viable. Then President Bush (in his oh so infinate wisdom) decided to make war with Iraq "viable".

My brother and all the other members of the military didn't ask for the latter, but it happened just the same.

I can say with about 95% certaintanty that had 9-11 been "foresable" my brother wouldn't have joined the military. He wants to be a pilot and that's the reason he joined. Obviously I don't know the intimate details of why he joined except for what has been told to me by him or my parents. Yes, he is using his benefits. He doesn't want your sympathy nor would my brother accept it.

As much as he despised going overseas and as much as he hates being there now, he understands that he has a job to do, he just doesn't like it.

But unlike the rest of us who disagree with this war and the way the country is being run he can't just GTFO because that would be AWOL for him.

My brother would rather be home with his family and with his friends than having to worry about his life. Yes, his worry is far less because he is in Kuwait. But until he is safe and sound on US soil, he is still in danger as far as I'm concerned.

That mother has every right to question President Bush. He gave bullshit reasons for pulling us into this war. He gives bullshit responses to the other 1000 men and women who have died.

No one is going to change my mind about this. No one is going to make me agree with this war because I never will.

President Bush needs to stop worrying about people in countries 10,000 miles away and start worrying about his OWN PEOPLE.

He should be worrying about us. Where gas is steadily approaching 3 dollars a gallon for unleaded. Where our education system sucks but yet he made NCLB a law with NO FUNDING behind it (and as a teacher I despise NCLB. It will be leaving more children behind than it is "designed" to do). Where illegal immigration is on the rise (and coming from a state with HIGH illegal immigration, it is a big concern of mine). Where the medicare system is in shambles (come on people, we all have grandparents. My grandparents are on a fixed income they cannot afford to pay more than a 10-20 buck copay for doctors visits or prescriptions). This are things I personally feel he needs to start worryin about instead of taking vacations every other month in his Texas ranch or about a war in Iraq.

Bring our men and women home and start worrying about your own people.

end of my mini rant.

and if you can give me "proof" that Bush is "worrying" about the things I listed, give it to me. I will read it and I will make my own opinion and determination on it. But from where I'm sitting it seems like he hasn't done a damn thing to make Americans lives any easier.

I'm sorry that your brother is over in Iraq. That must be very hard on you and your family. I have (counting off the top of my head here, so forgive if I'm plus or minus a couple) 52 friends of varying closeness who are there or in Afghanistan or in the dreaded "undisclosed location" as I write this. And a good dozen of them are Reservists who never expected to have to pick up and leave like that. "It's like having the government buy an insurance policy from you," explained one to me. "They pay a premium every month and you hope they'll never cash it in, but you have to be prepared if they do."

My husband, who had been out of active Navy duty since '92, spent almost a year in the Middle East in 2002. It sucked for him as well as for me and our daughters. I am thankful that the civilian company he worked for at the time made up the difference between his Navy pay and what he made at his civilian job 'cause, let me tell ya, I'd have had to haul my ass back to work if we would have had to attempt to live on an O-4's paycheck. (even with his "imminent danger" pay. Imminent danger pay! Isn't that a pisser?!?!? I almost fainted when I heard he qualified for that.) Our military is disgracefully underpaid, but that's my pet rant and is really off topic.

You're right, people don't join the military to go to war. No one I know did. But it is understood that it is a possibility and everyone who does join is aware of that. Not that that makes it any easier for the families, right? I hear ya.

Anyhoo, although I don't agree with your opinions on this war, I respect them and above all I pray that your brother (and everyone's brothers and sisters) returns safe and sound. :)

Army Planning for 4 More Years in Iraq
 

:( :mad: :( :mad: :(

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ef_interview_7

You know what is so stupid about it. Come 2008 when a new president takes office, that person can just say "too bad, so sad, our troops are coming home".

Or more and more and more soldiers will start dying and the public outcry will be outrageous. Problem is that Bush doesn't have anything to worry about. This is his last term. He will never be in office again. It's not like he really has to give a shit if his approval rating goes down the toliet.

But if Cheney plans to run for President, he's gotta start now get his approval rating up or else he is screwed.

And whoever the Democrat is they are going to pushing for the men and women to come home.

Cheney has said repeatedly that he will not run for President. I also think that his heart problems would make him a poor candidate.

This is a tautology - "war wasn't a viable scenario until we decided to go to war."

I'm not trying to be insensitive, but for one to assume that no situation could (or, perhaps, should) exist in which the National Guard, or any other military unit, would be pushed into actual wartime service is, at best, shortsighted. You also reverse the cause/effect relationship for 9/11's attacks, but as that's an emotional firestorm I can understand your feelings.

I wish your brother the best, as I do for all - but in a larger sense, I can't help but feel it absolutely not correct to attribute service in the military to anyone other than the person who enlisted.

As far as other Bush issues, that is neither here nor there, although I'd love to hear your opinions on the real-world impact of No Child Left Behind - the reality is that these ancillary feelings aren't explicitly applicable to this discussion.

He sure did not win by a landslide, and Republicans and Democrats are both using this to spin in their direction. Republicans like to cite how Bush got more votes than any president in American history. Democrats like to cite how more Americans voted against him than any in history. Both positions are hollow, but I would say that the Democrats position is even more vapid than the Republicans because of the way that they have spun such stats over the last decades. For example, when Reagan won the 1984 elections in a massive landslide, the low voter turnout was cited to diminish his mandate. In 1992, it was claimed that Clinton had a mandate - with 43% of the vote.

I would only reserve a GTFO comment for people like Alec Baldwin who said that he would move if Bush was elected. Other than that, a GTFO comment is profoundly un-American. Its the type of thing that you hear from people who know almost nothing about this nation's Founding Fathers. If people who were upset with some aspect of this country either kept quiet or moved, we would be up Shit's Creek (actually a rather scenic place if you ever get the chance to visit.)

The type of speech that is intended for protection by the First Amendment, more than any other, is political speech found to be offensive. When offensive political speech comes under assault, not for the dialogue that it aspires to, but merely for being offensive, then the foundation of the United States comes under assault.

He really doesn't, and his heart condition won't matter either. He has access to the "Bush Rolodex" and he has gravitas. The ability to raise massive amounts of money should never be underestimated. That's probably enough to get him through the primaries with ease. How else do ypu explain Bush beating McCain in the 2000 primaries?

Whoever wins the Republican nomination in 2008 will almost definitely win the general election because of the state of the economy

If he wants to run, he will probably get elected.

Not to get off topic, sorry didn't know that Cheney really doesn't want to run.

mini hijack: I personally want McCain to run again :) end mini hijack.

KSig RC: I'd also love to discuss NCLB, but I will also have a different opinion b/c I'm a teacher so I'm very much directly effected by it. Is there a thread started about NCLB? It seems like there might be.