Blame the young voters 18-25 that didn't vote, plus more

If everybody in this country voted, Kerry would have won through a landslide. But people that are old enough to vote didn't do it. Only 1 out of 10 of each voters were in the 18-25 range (or a figure very close to that). So, naturally, Bush gets the victory since most people who voted for Bush are "worried" about "being safe", and are typically in the late 30-50 demographic, and the Kerry supporters or democrats like me tried to get people to vote but typically it didn't work.

Because with Bush and his conservative groupies still around, the country doesn't have a good outlook. I predict this will be the last republican in office for some long time, and it's time to step out of the way.

Thank you Senator Kerry for your attempt to bringing democratic justice back to us. Your attempt will not be forgotten.

His form of "democratic justice" is to try and keep Nader off the ballot. Yeah, he's a real man of the people.

Hey, the 'We know who you *meant* to vote for' almost worked in 2000. Call K/E, tell them to claim the non-voters votes. After all, every vote must be counted. Even the ones who didn't vote.
The way I look at it, if you have to be 'gotten to vote', you probably don't care enough to bother with anyway, and then you're a puppet of the get-out-[our]-vote cabal.

You're right, what a shame people are "worried" about "being safe". Personally I think that's the ONE THING the federal government SHOULD be doing, instead of all this other crap they are doing. And hey, since 9/11, we've *been* safe. No other terrorist attacks in the US, though the terrorists are still active worldwide.
Step 1: protect the US.
Step 2: eliminate the terrorists as much as possible.

Not to mention, to claim you know how the non-voters would have voted is the HEIGHT of egotism.

[quote name='Nephets']If everybody in this country voted, Kerry would have won through a landslide. But people that are old enough to vote didn't do it. Only 1 out of 10 of each voters were in the 18-25 range (or a figure very close to that). So, naturally, Bush gets the victory since most people who voted for Bush are "worried" about "being safe", and are typically in the late 30-50 demographic, and the Kerry supporters or democrats like me tried to get people to vote but typically it didn't work.

Because with Bush and his conservative groupies still around, the country doesn't have a good outlook. I predict this will be the last republican in office for some long time, and it's time to step out of the way.

Thank you Senator Kerry for your attempt to bringing democratic justice back to us. Your attempt will not be forgotten.[/quote]

Yeah, they would have voted for Kerry. But they'd just be repeating what some musician told them to do. It's for the better that the grossly uniformed don't vote.

Statistically the pollsters made the point last night that many young people identify themsleves as republicans or conservative.

So it is not just an easy jump to younger voters would have JUST voted for Kerry.

Not even close.

CTL

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry christmas.

I find that image really funny for some reason.

[quote name='dtcarson']Hey, the 'We know who you *meant* to vote for' almost worked in 2000. Call K/E, tell them to claim the non-voters votes. After all, every vote must be counted. Even the ones who didn't vote.
The way I look at it, if you have to be 'gotten to vote', you probably don't care enough to bother with anyway, and then you're a puppet of the get-out-[our]-vote cabal.

You're right, what a shame people are "worried" about "being safe". Personally I think that's the ONE THING the federal government SHOULD be doing, instead of all this other crap they are doing. And hey, since 9/11, we've *been* safe. No other terrorist attacks in the US, though the terrorists are still active worldwide.
Step 1: protect the US.
Step 2: eliminate the terrorists as much as possible.[/quote]

Hate to break it to you, but there's no stopping terrorism. We can fight wars upon wars for resources or for money, but terrorism groups will always be there. It's a group effort, not a country effort.

Pentagon gets 400 billion per year to spend, and they use far too much on the military.

We need to put more money in NEW ADVANCES IN SCIENCE, not more military.

We're spending far more than we need to on military, while more important issues for the American people are left in the cold - poverty, healthcare, and world hunger.

We're too concentrated on war in the US, and people are dying. Over 100,000 Iraqi citizens dead, over 1,000 US soldiers dead. And for what? Trying to "go after terrorism"? Aren't there more individual terrorist activities in OTHER places that isn't Iraq?

So we got Saddam, but was that our original reason? We're bombing a nation to be our form of government, going into an illegal war without any real allies supporting it. Things could have been handled far better. And I don't know about you, but I don't feel threatened or scared. The only real threats we have to worry about is the economy. It's going to continue to plunge downhill with Bush's endless spending.

It's a bit awkward that the one that allowed 9/11 is being supported heavily by fear. Why? Because of Bush and Cheney's campaign of fear that they got people to vote for them. People consume by fear, and thus Bush won the election because they are afraid. Bush allowed 9/11 and if you think he's doing a good job over in Iraq then you're ignoring what is happening there. Children, civilians, all dying more so than any "enemy" of us there. It's another Vietnam I tell you, just like how "evil" communism is, except this is how "evil" Iraq is.

I know what Saddam did to his people, but an all-out war of half troops/half national guard/reserves isn't going to stop anything. Unless we plan on killing the entire population, which is incredibly moronic and heartless, because the whole world was watching our election coverage last night and became sad when George W. Bush became president again. Our lack of allies will come and bite us in the ass eventually.

Other methods should have been done before the sudden launching of this "war on terror".

If you want war, if you feel safe knowing that our people and innocents are dying, then believe it. If you want to believe it, then you can. Though if you look up actual occurances, you'll realize Bush saying "we're on the verge of success" is far, far from true.

But this isn't a flame board.

[quote name='Nephets']Hate to break it to you, but there's no stopping terrorism. We can fight wars upon wars for resources or for money, but terrorism groups will always be there. It's a group effort, not a country effort.[/quote]

They said the same about communism.

[quote name='Nephets']Pentagon gets 400 billion per year to spend, and they use far too much on the military.[/quote]

What peaceful planet are you on? Thats like 6% of our GNP, its nothing.

[quote name='Nephets']We need to put more money in NEW ADVANCES IN SCIENCE, not more military.[/quote]

Come visit me at 2 World Financial Center and look out at the WTC and tell em what we should be spending on.

[quote name='Nephets']We're spending far more than we need to on military, while more important issues for the American people are left in the cold - poverty, healthcare, and world hunger.[/quote]

Did you miss our record deficeiets - because of social spending?

[quote name='Nephets']We're too concentrated on war in the US, and people are dying. Over 100,000 Iraqi citizens dead, over 1,000 US soldiers dead. And for what? Trying to "go after terrorism"? Aren't there more individual terrorist activities in OTHER places that isn't Iraq?[/quote]

Tell that to Al-Zarqui.

[quote name='Nephets']So we got Saddam, but was that our original reason? We're bombing a nation to be our form of government, going into an illegal war without any real allies supporting it. Things could have been handled far better. And I don't know about you, but I don't feel threatened or scared. The only real threats we have to worry about is the economy. It's going to continue to plunge downhill with Bush's endless spending.

But this isn't a flame board.[/quote]

You have so many innacuracies I can't be bothered to respond to your last point.

CTL

[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']It's for the better that the grossly uniformed don't vote.[/quote]

If nothing else this election proves that.

[quote name='dtcarson']Hey, the 'We know who you *meant* to vote for' almost worked in 2000. Call K/E, tell them to claim the non-voters votes. After all, every vote must be counted. Even the ones who didn't vote.
The way I look at it, if you have to be 'gotten to vote', you probably don't care enough to bother with anyway, and then you're a puppet of the get-out-[our]-vote cabal.

You're right, what a shame people are "worried" about "being safe". Personally I think that's the ONE THING the federal government SHOULD be doing, instead of all this other crap they are doing. And hey, since 9/11, we've *been* safe. No other terrorist attacks in the US, though the terrorists are still active worldwide.
Step 1: protect the US.
Step 2: eliminate the terrorists as much as possible.

Not to mention, to claim you know how the non-voters would have voted is the HEIGHT of egotism.[/quote]

I do not think Mr. Brokaw would agree with you on the no terrorism thing after he was mailed anthrax.

and I agree with you on the egotism remark, even if the youth would have voted, the majortiy would have been split. Minorities were really the group the democrats should have targeted.

and while I won't whine, I will say I am disappionted with the state of North Carolina. The fact that Richard Burr is the senator elect instead of Erskine Bowles shows that people vote more by the letter next to your name than anything. The man is a sheep ( 96 percent of the time he votes for whatever the president agreed with). Burr and Dole will not do anything for this state, and hopefully people will realize this next time (and for the record, I would rather have Jesse Helms than either of them).

So, terrorism is the same as communism now? Isn't communism a FORM of government? Communism in theory works, but when actually done in the real world it doesn't work by any theories. Terrorism and communism in respects can't even be compared because no matter how hard we "invade" there's always going to be the people that are going to "attempt terrorism", and it'll always be that way. Communism holds no threat to us, never has, and never will. The point is, terrorism is not the only thing that you should worry about. There's far more to worry about.

Tell me about our robust economy then that "cares" and "spends for the good of the people".

Why aren't our schools getting enough money for education? The children of today have the impact of our future tomorrow, and we don't seem to care about that at all.

Our country has a huge budget and we need to manage it better, we're too unbalanced.

I don't mean this as a flame, I'm just curious how you view things.

[quote name='Nephets'] Isn't communism a FORM of government? [/quote]

Communism is an economic system, not a form of government. The problem that arises from communism is that it leads into an oligarchy which is more opressive than the bourgeoise rule that the system was established to destroy.

This isn't partisan, it's just an accurate representation.
Brought to you by "Mr. T's Qwik Factz™"

Here's some stats on spending:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/tables.html

To summarize in 2004:
Discretionary:
433 Billion on defense

Nondiscretionary:
492 Billion on Social Security
266 Medicare

I'm all for MORE INVESTMENTS IN SCIENCE. Let the people keep more of their own money, and they can invest in science with private companies, who are more productive and have more breakthroughs, because there's profit in it. Flu shots? No way, highly government regulated. Viagra/Cialis/etc? Everywhere, because the government, apart from some basic 'this won't kill you' testing, lets them be sold at profit.

Bush "allowed 9/11"? Um, yeah.

[quote name='dtcarson']Here's some stats on spending:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/tables.html

To summarize in 2004:
Discretionary:
433 Billion on defense

Nondiscretionary:
492 Billion on Social Security
266 Medicare

I'm all for MORE INVESTMENTS IN SCIENCE. Let the people keep more of their own money, and they can invest in science with private companies, who are more productive and have more breakthroughs, because there's profit in it. Flu shots? No way, highly government regulated. Viagra/Cialis/etc? Everywhere, because the government, apart from some basic 'this won't kill you' testing, lets them be sold at profit.

Bush "allowed 9/11"? Um, yeah.[/quote]

Allowed meaning he was in charge during the attacks, just as you'd blame whoever was in a room alone when a lamp breaks. So to speak. It's not like we were never THREATENED about the attacks in the first place. Something like 9/11 takes years and years to plan, not a week.

And did he really have to read for the kids for that long after it was announced?

I'm just upset that our president is not looking out for any middle classes or anyone below that. High gas prices, really high oil prices, a scared nation, a vicious and ruthless war for civilians and soldiers, it's just a shame what has been done during his presidency.

Oh, and thanks Mr. T. 8)

Just, I want to keep this civilized, no bashing here, please.

Communism isn't necessarily the problem [except for the fact that many freethinkers believe people should be able to work for their own assets and better their family rather than having to work for the state [which is basically slavery].
The dictators who used communism as a tool to control their people, they were the problem.

Schools aren't getting enough money for education?1? There's currently something like 17 billion federal dollars sitting there unclaimed by the states.
Not to mention, *money isn't necessarily the solution*. Throwing a billion at each state won't help, if the kids don't want to learn, the teachers don't want to teach, and the parents don't care. DC has got one of the highest per capita spending for schools, and their students tradtionally do near the bottom. Which is why many inside the Beltway send their kids to private schools.

the economy doesn't "care for the people". That's silly. But people who invest in that economy, and profit from it, they care for others. Get government out of the social service area except where absolutely necessary, let private organizations and *gasp* churches do it, you'll get more dollars given, more productive charities, and better results.

"Minorities were really the group the democrats should have targeted. "
This is true, and a shame. It's sad that 'minorities' are seen as a 'target' for the Democrats, only good for pulling that lever. 40 years of social help engineered by Democrats, and minorities are worse off financially and family wise than ever. Are there even any minorities on Kerry's planned cabinet? GWB sees beyond the color of a person's skin; Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Miguel Estrada, all got their jobs [or were offered them] not because of some 'bonus points' or 'guilt' for their race, but because they are good at what they do. But they're called Uncle Toms and sellouts. The Democrats only "care" about minorities around election time or for photo ops, and it's a shame that people like Julian Bond and Rev Jackson are buying into the scam.

Casey: You're right, there were those few antheax mailings soon after 9/11. No one died, though, did they? And yet Spain had a train explode, and tens of Russian children were brutalized and murdered because both those nations attempted to appease the terrorists.

I agree we need to manage our budget better. Bush now has the opportunity to do this.
* Cut taxes/make tax cuts permanent.
* Flat tax.
* Privatize social security.
* Cut pork spending [here's close to a billion dollars that should never have been spent: http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/Oinkers_2004.pdf?docID=501

[quote name='"dtcarson"']Communism isn't necessarily the problem [except for the fact that many freethinkers believe people should be able to work for their own assets and better their family rather than having to work for the state [which is basically slavery].
The dictators who used communism as a tool to control their people, they were the problem.

Schools aren't getting enough money for education?1? There's currently something like 17 billion federal dollars sitting there unclaimed by the states.
Not to mention, *money isn't necessarily the solution*. Throwing a billion at each state won't help, if the kids don't want to learn, the teachers don't want to teach, and the parents don't care. DC has got one of the highest per capita spending for schools, and their students tradtionally do near the bottom. Which is why many inside the Beltway send their kids to private schools.

the economy doesn't "care for the people". That's silly. But people who invest in that economy, and profit from it, they care for others. Get government out of the social service area except where absolutely necessary, let private organizations and *gasp* churches do it, you'll get more dollars given, more productive charities, and better results.

"Minorities were really the group the democrats should have targeted. "
This is true, and a shame. It's sad that 'minorities' are seen as a 'target' for the Democrats, only good for pulling that lever. 40 years of social help engineered by Democrats, and minorities are worse off financially and family wise than ever. Are there even any minorities on Kerry's planned cabinet? GWB sees beyond the color of a person's skin; Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Miguel Estrada, all got their jobs [or were offered them] not because of some 'bonus points' or 'guilt' for their race, but because they are good at what they do. But they're called Uncle Toms and sellouts. The Democrats only "care" about minorities around election time or for photo ops, and it's a shame that people like Julian Bond and Rev Jackson are buying into the scam.

Casey: You're right, there were those few antheax mailings soon after 9/11. No one died, though, did they? And yet Spain had a train explode, and tens of Russian children were brutalized and murdered because both those nations attempted to appease the terrorists.

I agree we need to manage our budget better. Bush now has the opportunity to do this.
* Cut taxes/make tax cuts permanent.
* Flat tax.
* Privatize social security.
* Cut pork spending [here's close to a billion dollars that should never have been spent: http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/Oinkers_2004.pdf?docID=501[/quote

I respect your beliefs, but, GWB didn't manage the budget these last four years, and I doubt it'll be at the top of his to-do list anytime soon. We are a nation of fear, a lot of the votes for GWB/Cheney were based upon fear. Wars against a country will not stop terrorism, only increase the odds because the more we invade, the more angry people shall become. I believe in the rights of people, unlike Bush who is guiding himself with laws or federalistic issues even being a concern because of religious beliefs (stem cells, abortion, gays, etc). The rights of people are more important than any big business, Halliburton, I'm looking at you.

Neo conservatives are truly a downfall for "Religious, Corporate America".

[quote name='Nephets']So, terrorism is the same as communism now? Isn't communism a FORM of government? Communism in theory works, but when actually done in the real world it doesn't work by any theories. Terrorism and communism in respects can't even be compared because no matter how hard we "invade" there's always going to be the people that are going to "attempt terrorism", and it'll always be that way. Communism holds no threat to us, never has, and never will. The point is, terrorism is not the only thing that you should worry about. There's far more to worry about.

Tell me about our robust economy then that "cares" and "spends for the good of the people".

Why aren't our schools getting enough money for education? The children of today have the impact of our future tomorrow, and we don't seem to care about that at all.

Our country has a huge budget and we need to manage it better, we're too unbalanced.

I don't mean this as a flame, I'm just curious how you view things.[/quote]

Communism turns people into useless drones and destroys a countries economy. The UN in theory works as well. But then we all know how theories don't always work out.

[quote name='Nephets']

Allowed meaning he was in charge during the attacks, just as you'd blame whoever was in a room alone when a lamp breaks. So to speak. .[/quote]

So Clinton 'allowed' the Cole bombings, and Murrah bombings. Which were planned.

[quote name='Nephets']
It's not like we were never THREATENED about the attacks in the first place. Something like 9/11 takes years and years to plan, not a week..[/quote]
I agree with this, obviously. That was a big project. Had we had specific information, I'm sure we would have acted. Of course, had we captured the hijackers *before* the hijacking, the ACLU et al would be all over them for arresting someone before they committed a crime.

[quote name='Nephets']
And did he really have to read for the kids for that long after it was announced?
.[/quote]

I hit this thinking in another thread, and will save the time here.

[quote name='Nephets']
I'm just upset that our president is not looking out for any middle classes or anyone below that.
.[/quote]

EVERYONE who pays federal taxes, got a tax cut. Certainly the 'rich' got more, they were already paying more.

[quote name='Nephets']
High gas prices, really high oil prices, .[/quote]

These could be the best things in the world for us.

Why are oil/gas prices high? Because demand is higher than supply. The oil companies aren't rolling in much more dough than they were, their costs have gone up as well. We need to access our oil fields in ANWR. If not, then if people eventually get sick of 2.00 gas, they are more likely to demand alternate fuels/hybrids/etc. If they show there's a market, the manufacturers will work on finding that alternative to sell to that market. Right now, people are more interested in bitching about high gas prices than making changes. I bitch about high gas prices [well, I don't really], but I'm not going to trade in my Rendezvous for a Focus.
And gas prices aren't even all that high yet--they were as high, or higher, in 1950, 1980, 1985.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/gas-price1.htm
.[/quote]

[quote name='Nephets']

a scared nation, a vicious and ruthless war for civilians and soldiers, it's just a shame what has been done during his presidency.[/quote]

I'll admit, I was scared. I was scared Kerry would win. I know where Bush stands. I have no idea where Kerry stands, and his apparent desire to kowtow to the UN frightens me. I'm not scared of terrorism, any more than I'm scared of being struck by lightning.
All war is vicious and ruthless, that's what makes it war. We lost 295,000 men in combat in WWII. While I mourn the loss of any of our sons and daughters, 1000+ in over a year is not that bad.

Oh, and thanks Mr. T. 8)
[quote name='Nephets']
Just, I want to keep this civilized, no bashing here, please.[/quote]

Have I bashed in this thread? I try not to bash at all. I argue the idea/facts/logic, I don't bash the person [unless and until that person starts with the 'Bush=Hitler' or 'you voted for Bush so you're a racist sexist pig' crap, then they obviously have nothing of value to add to any discussion and are worthy ofbashing.

[quote name='Nephets']So, terrorism is the same as communism now? Isn't communism a FORM of government? Communism in theory works, but when actually done in the real world it doesn't work by any theories. Terrorism and communism in respects can't even be compared because no matter how hard we "invade" there's always going to be the people that are going to "attempt terrorism", and it'll always be that way. Communism holds no threat to us, never has, and never will. The point is, terrorism is not the only thing that you should worry about. There's far more to worry about.[/quote]

You miss my point. Both are ideologies. And people never thought communism could be defeated.

Guess what? They were wrong. And people who say terrorism can't be defeated will be proven wrong.

That you claim communism was never a threat to us completely undermines your credibility.

CTL

Im age 18-25 and I voted. Go me!

dude quit bitchin, kerry lost, get over it.

its not even like it was very close... he lost by over 4 million votes.

and you cant say tha if all the 18-25 year olds would've voted that kerry would've won, because you dont know how each person would've voted.

I know that in your perfect world, all the people between the ages of 18 and 25 would've gotten together and held hands and skipped down the sidewalk to the the voting center, Kerry/Edwards stickers, and singing happy songs, and then they would've all casted their votes for Kerry and he would be president, but that didnt happen, Bush is still president.

[quote name='Cracka'] kerry lost, get over it.
.[/quote]

That's my line!!!!!!!