The Scrutinator

Unfortunately you DIDN'T send a message to Osama
nydailynews:Bush was not asked about, nor did he mention, the hunt for terror lord Osama Bin Laden.
 

In fact, we are still after him ("Afghan Army Chases Terrorists..." 9/29/2004, and lots of stuff still going on there), and Osama himself may even be getting the message, not that he's out of the picture. And the Bush-will-produce-bin-Laden-just-in-time-for-the-election conspiracy is just one more that's quietly fallen by the wayside.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

I disagree with almost everything in this entry. Vainity is not an attractive trait and frankly the republicans are being a little too cocky on this so called victory by the Bush administration - I'd call it more of a neck and neck race, and the winner "the less of two evils," But not even in the sense that Bush is a better man...in the sense that people were too scared shitless to vote any other way. Terrorism at it's best can be found right in the good ol' U.S. of A.
 

one more thing - if you truly believe all of the points that you made.... red, white and brainwashed - that's what you are.
 

I apologize for coming off as vain or cocky. By calling Bush "the less [sic] of two evils," does that mean YOU endorsed him over Kerry?

"Red, white and brainwashed?" How does one go about disputing that? After all, you said so. ;-)
 

No, I didn't endorse Bush. I was merely stating how many Americans viewed things this election - not as a vote for a good guy, but as a fear of picking a guy who maybe wouldn't be able to dig America out of the gigantic hole Bush has created...problem is, no one can get out of the mess Bush has made - not even Bush himself and there in lies the dilema...actually, I take back my lesser of the two evils. I believe that neither candidates were very good choices and America could have done better.
 

And yet your analysis could be wrong.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

OR your analysis is wrong. But I've realized there's absolutely no point in arguing with you or any other republican. You're so far up the churches ass, or Bush administration's ass that you can't see anything even if it smacks you in the face on a cold winter day.
 

One could say the same about you being up Michael Moore's spacious arse. So now that we've both made our accusations, where are we? ;-)

Your argument, by the way, has been heavy on accusations but light on facts. Vague references to evil, brainwashing, and gigantic holes (pun intended) don't constitute a rational argument. Which, by the way, is the essence of your camp's failure to persuade.

The one thing you most need to contemplate is the one thing you can't bring yourself to: that thoughtful, intelligent people actually voted FOR Bush.
 

"The one thing you most need to contemplate is the one thing you can't bring yourself to: that thoughtful, intelligent people actually voted FOR Bush."

Really? Because state IQ testing would suggest a different theory about intelligence...the top states being supporters of Kerry and the bottom 20 being strong Bush backers. Most who voted for Bush graduated from high school if even that. That's educated in your mind? A lot of women voted for who their husband told them to vote for. That's an educated vote? A lot of kids vote for who their parents tell them to vote for. That's educated? Most people who voted for Bush were white, religious, and older than 30. Far more men than women voted for Bush and yet far more women attend post-secondary education than men these days. That's the educated vote you refer to? Most of Bush's supporters in the exit polls put "Moral Obligation" as their #1 reason for Bush and yet failed to rank "cares about people" (that just happened to be one of the lowest reasons that Bush was their man). Now, please explain to me how moral obligation isn't connected with an importance of caring for others?

Those are all pure facts, not accusations so the next time that you claim that intelligent people voted for Bush - earn a better score on your intelligence tests to back that up. And the next time you claim that thoughtful people voted for Bush, think about all the Jewish people who believe that abortion is "just" when a mother's life is in danger...so just in fact, that they are told to pull that baby apart limb by limb if they must in order to save the woman's life. That's their belief system, and under Bush - they don't have much of a right to exercise that belief anymore, do they? Think about the fact that Jews don't consider a fetus a living being, but only a potential life. Under Bush, are they being thought of?

Think about all the women who were raped, or all the non-religious people who feel that abortion is a women's choice and not an issue for the government to dictate. Think about how those people don't have a say because Christianity apparently runs the law system in America now. Mind you, the bible doesn't mention abortion anyway - that's just man's misinterpretations and now it's going to be law because it's what Bush believes...you're right, that's so thoughtful of Bush supporters.

Moreover, you're one to talk when your arguments are ONLY accusations with no facts what so ever to back them up. You claim all these messages were sent to all these different groups of people and yet these groups are still going to fight and hold the president accountable...I don't know what messages you think were loud and clear. The world got a loud and clear message that 59 million Americans are really as stupid as we thought, but that's about the only message that really made a good point. So bravo, you got your message across.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Lets just agree to disagree
 

"These are all pure facts, not accusations..." No they aren't. You made them up. Here are the claims for which you provide no evidence...
* State IQ's.
* Spouses, kids voting the way their husbands/parents tell them to.
* "Cares about people" as an exit poll question.

To refute your "intelligent people voted for Kerry" claim, here one set of facts that clearly debunk it, with associated links. (You know what a link is, don't you? Because you haven't provided a single one, even to bogus data.)
* The District of Columbia has one of the highest high school drop-out rates in the nation.
* The District of Columbia voted 90% for Kerry.
 

"You made them up. Here are the claims for which you provide no evidence.
* State IQ's.
* "Cares about people" as an exit poll question."

Disregarding your District of Columbia links (because D.C. first of all isn't a STATE!!!! I was talking about STATE IQ's! Nice try though....D.C. would be ranked along with a state, wouldn't they...

Here's your IQ results in the 2000 election between Bush & Gore:
http://americanassembler.com/features/iq_state_averages.htm

And for a more recent 2004-2005 results thanks to Morgan Quitno Press - state and city ranking publications - here are your Countries Top 10 "smart" states:

Ranking based on IQ:
1 Massachusetts
2 Connecticut
3 Vermont
4 New Jersey
5 Wisconsin
6 New York
7 Minnesota
8 Iowa
9 Pennsylvania - NOTE FIRST THE TOP 9 STATES VOTED KERRY

10 Montana - Thank God for this state cause it was beginning to look a little grim for the red states.

11 Maine - added 11 in cause we're back to blue states ye again.

And here's your exit poll results found at CNN.COM:

MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE
BUSH KERRY
Taxes 57% 43%
Education 26% 73%
Iraq 26% 73%
Terrorism 86% 14%
Economy/Jobs 18% 80%
Moral Values 80% 18%


One would think that with Moral values being such a huge issue that the following results would be a tad different considering moral obligation and care for people should go hand in hand...

MOST IMPORTANT QUALITY
BUSH KERRY
Cares About People 24% 75%
Religious Faith 91% 8%
Intelligent 9% 91%
Will bring change 5% 95%

It appears that the person with the best morals didn't win, doesn't it? After all the Golden rule is Do unto Other - not do unto rich christians republicans.

There's the facts for you as requested.
 

Honsey3 -- I commend the research you did! (I couldn't verify your CNN poll results, but I'll take your word for it.) You still haven't achieved your claim of "...all pure facts, not accusations..." but I take back my accusation that you made it up. Sorry.

But, alas, not everyone agrees with your IQ theory.CNN further debunks election folklore you've bought into.

And since Christians consider caring about people as a necessary part of religious faith, that renders the "most important quality" and your associated judgement moot. (And the "Intelligent" 9/91 split must be perceived intelligence.)

I commend your strong sense of morality. But you would do well to sort out your morality from your Marxist-influenced bigotry (against "rich christians republicans").
 

Not a marxist, sorry to disappoint.
 

By the way... I doubt http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQstates.htm really a legit website. I came across that in my research and it looked pretty much like an unprofessional, thrown together by an average person site. Not to mention that you're asked to email Van whatever at yahoo for comments...somehow I doubt the accuracy in that site.

On the other hand my source is an actual company whose purpose is to publish accurate IQ results based on cities and states.
 

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

and there's nothing in your CNN link that discusses IQ so I'm not sure what your point is there...
 

P.S. Marxist and bigot don't go together.
 

>Honsey3: "Not a marxist, sorry to disappoint."
>Honsey3: "Marxist and bigot don't go together."

How about "leftist-influenced bigotry"? False attacking caricatures against any demographic is bigotry (particularly when unsubstantiated). When the demographic is "rich christians republicans," that's leftist-inspired.

>Honsey3: "I doubt http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQstates.htm really a legit website...an unprofessional, thrown together by an average person site..."

That's one way to avoid its content. (That's also called ad hominem.)