What will the excuses be?

corplinx · 28th October 2004, 05:43 PM

When Bush/Kerry lose, I think we can predict the templates their supporters will use.

1. Blame the media.

Bush-ites will blame CBS and the NYT for their partisanship.

Kerry voters will blame the rise of Faux news and the lack of a balance for Rush Limbaugh. The more lunatic fringe will claim that the "corporate conservative media backed bush".

2. Blame the electorate.

"We couldn't get our message out" = "You were too dumb to realize you should vote for us"

3. Blame third parties.

4. Voter fraud.

5. Planet X (of course)

What excuses can you guys see coming from a mile away?

Snide · 28th October 2004, 07:24 PM

6. Distortions/lies from the opposition:

Kerry: "Global test," "I voted for before against $87 billion," Swifties

Bush: Michael Moore, missing bombs (being exploited by Kerry), "Wrong war" criticism (without offering specifics)

caseclosed · 28th October 2004, 10:28 PM

7. Bush/Kerry will admit that they were not capable to hold the office of president and bow down in good honor?

8. Cobb/Badnarik/Nader will shrug is off, being the only ones who know that nothing will change either way.

Dorian Gray · 28th October 2004, 10:45 PM

I doubt Kerry would blame the media. Attack ads, maybe, but not the media. Bush would definitely blame them.

shuize · 28th October 2004, 10:48 PM

You have the answers already, Corplinx. When the Democrats lose, they will blame it on voter fraud/voter intimidation. When the Republicans lose, they will blame the main stream media.

Of course, there is a subset of each group that may not follow the party line. When the Democrats lose, the far-left will blame the main stream media and the "secret government." When the Republicans lose, the far-right will blame the Devil.

Questioninggeller · 28th October 2004, 11:33 PM

9) My dog ate the chads.

10) Saddam hide the ballots in mobile labs in Iraq.

11) Bush's votes were stuffed in Afganistan's ballot boxes.

Abdul Alhazred · 28th October 2004, 11:52 PM

I'm voting for Bush. I want him to win big.

But if he loses, I hope he loses big.

Why?

Because win or lose, I want to avoid the bulls**t of 2000.

I want an unequivocal president this time, even more than I want my guy to win.

Can any Kerry supporter say the same?

Peace begins at home.

HarryKeogh · 29th October 2004, 04:26 AM

If Kerry loses, my excuse will be that half the American people suck. (I kid, I kid)

ManfredVonRichthoffen · 29th October 2004, 05:07 AM

I'm guessing that Bush won't make excuses. He just won't relinquish the thrown. Remember, if he believes it, it must be true.

"The economy is already in a recovery. Iraq is hard, but freedom is on the march, and everything is going fine. I don't think I did lose the election."

HarryKeogh · 29th October 2004, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManfredVonRichthoffen
I'm guessing that Bush won't make excuses. He just won't relinquish the thrown. Remember, if he believes it, it must be true.

"The economy is already in a recovery. Iraq is hard, but freedom is on the march, and everything is going fine. I don't think I did lose the election."

"...and congratulations to the world champion St. Louis Cardinals!"

Snide · 29th October 2004, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I'm voting for Bush. I want him to win big.

But if he loses, I hope he loses big.

Why?

Because win or lose, I want to avoid the bulls**t of 2000.

I want an unequivocal president this time, even more than I want my guy to win.

Can any Kerry supporter say the same?

Peace begins at home.

I'm one who can. So much for your brilliant presumption.

TragicMonkey · 29th October 2004, 07:21 AM

I want it to be close. Not so close as to give legitimacy to the inevitable legal wrangles, but close enough that whichever wins won't be able to claim that he has a mandate from the people, or that America is behind him. I want either of those ratbastards to realize that this country is really divided and disturbed, and that its time to stop pandering to the party lines and try to go moderate again. The country should be governed by officials who vote for what's right, not what their bloody party tells them will grab them more power.

Argh! When, oh when, will we have a viable non-insane third party?

[/end vent]

BPSCG · 29th October 2004, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Argh! When, oh when, will we have a viable non-insane third party?

Right after the Cubs win the World Series.

Abdul Alhazred · 29th October 2004, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Snide
I'm one who can. So much for your brilliant presumption.

What presumption? I asked a question, and you answered it. To my satisfaction, I might add.

Relax!

TragicMonkey · 29th October 2004, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Relax!

Frankie?!

DavidJames · 29th October 2004, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Frankie?!

Gone, went to Hollywood

edit - egad, how embarrassing is it that I know that.

TragicMonkey · 29th October 2004, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidJames
Gone, went to Hollywood

Which isn't necessarily the end:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/3943915.stm

Random · 29th October 2004, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I want it to be close. Not so close as to give legitimacy to the inevitable legal wrangles, but close enough that whichever wins won't be able to claim that he has a mandate from the people, or that America is behind him. I want either of those ratbastards to realize that this country is really divided and disturbed, and that its time to stop pandering to the party lines and try to go moderate again...

[/end vent]

Absolutely! Remember when Bush came into the White House? He realized that the country was deeply polarized and adopted a more centrist policy standpoint, becoming â€œa uniter, not a dividerâ€.

TragicMonkey · 29th October 2004, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Random
Absolutely! Remember when Bush came into the White House? He realized that the country was deeply polarized and adopted a more centrist policy standpoint, becoming â€œa uniter, not a dividerâ€.

"The bitterness is strong in this one." --Patty Bouvier

DavidJames · 29th October 2004, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
"The bitterness is strong in this one." --Patty Bouvier

"But the truth, he knows all to well" --DavidJames

corplinx · 29th October 2004, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Random
Absolutely! Remember when Bush came into the White House? He realized that the country was deeply polarized and adopted a more centrist policy standpoint, becoming â€œa uniter, not a dividerâ€.

Anything he did that was centrist was lambasted by both sides precisely because the country was so polarized. What Bush made the mistake of thinking is that there was middle ground.

Stem Cells. Coming into the Bush presidency we had a total ban on federal dollars for embrionic stem cell research. Bush made a compromise decision that allowed funds to be spent but with restrictions.

What was the result?
Left: BUSH HAS BANNED ALL PUBLIC/PRIVATE STEM CELL RESEARCH
Right: BUSH HAS SOLD OUT THE PROLIFE MOVEMENT

The problem with being a centrist in a polarized country is that people will see you _as they want to see you_. Bill Clinton for instance was a republican on many issues but to 35 percent of people he was always peacenik pot smoking communist. Now we have a country where the liberals are also polarized and extreme.

Going into the 2000 election, Gore proposed medicare reform and the issue resonated. Bush responded by making his own plan that tried to introduce choice and get market forces once again in play.

LEFT: BUSH IS TRASHING MEDICARE
RIGHT: BUSH IS SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY ON SOCIAL ISSUES

Is Bush really as polarizing as people think, or are people mostly polarized and seeing things through their filters?

rikzilla · 29th October 2004, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I'm voting for Bush. I want him to win big.

But if he loses, I hope he loses big.

Why?

Because win or lose, I want to avoid the bulls**t of 2000.

I want an unequivocal president this time, even more than I want my guy to win.

Can any Kerry supporter say the same?

Peace begins at home.

What he said.

-z

Random · 29th October 2004, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I'm voting for Bush. I want him to win big.

But if he loses, I hope he loses big.

Why?

Because win or lose, I want to avoid the bulls**t of 2000.

I want an unequivocal president this time, even more than I want my guy to win.

Can any Kerry supporter say the same?

Peace begins at home.

As an ABB supporter, I really had to think about this one. Would I prefer a John Kerry who managed to take the White House with the help of an army of lawyers and fraudulent votes, or a George W. Bush who was freely elected by an unarguable majority of the people?

Instictively I went for Kerry, but then I stopped and thought about it. What about world opinion? What about restoring faith in our democratic process? Should I support a president who did not technically win?

Then I thought back to 2000 and everything that was happened since, smartened up and went back to supporting Kerry.

Bush must be stopped now. We can have a more sensible discussion about it in 2008 when we will hopefully have a better crop of candidates.

BPSCG · 29th October 2004, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Random
As an ABB supporter, I really had to think about this one. Would I prefer a John Kerry who managed to take the White House with the help of an army of lawyers and fraudulent votes, or a George W. Bush who was freely elected by an unarguable majority of the people?

Instictively I went for Kerry, but then I stopped and thought about it. What about world opinion? What about restoring faith in our democratic process? Should I support a president who did not technically win?

Then I thought back to 2000 and everything that was happened since, smartened up and went back to supporting Kerry.

You were following an entirely logical train of thinking there right up until the last paragraph quoted above, when you lost me.

Are you saying you would prefer Kerry, even if it took fraud to put him in?

I would not prefer to see Bush in office if it took fraud to put him there. I guess maybe I'm not doctrinaire enough.

I'm not saying I'm under any illusion that there won't be fraud in this election. But I would rather see Kerry elected with a clear majority than Bush with an obviously tainted one. Actually, I'd rather see Bush win 45 states, but you know what I mean. Could you explain what you mean?

circuit slave · 29th October 2004, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I'm voting for Bush. I want him to win big.

But if he loses, I hope he loses big.

Why?

Because win or lose, I want to avoid the bulls**t of 2000.

I want an unequivocal president this time, even more than I want my guy to win.

Can any Kerry supporter say the same?

Peace begins at home.

yeah, what he said.

But I'll go a little bit further. If bush loses. He deserves to lose.
But if he wins, he deserves to win.

yeah, that makes sense. hehe

But.............he still going to win.

Random · 29th October 2004, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
You were following an entirely logical train of thinking there right up until the last paragraph quoted above, when you lost me.

Are you saying you would prefer Kerry, even if it took fraud to put him in?

I would not prefer to see Bush in office if it took fraud to put him there. I guess maybe I'm not doctrinaire enough.

I'm not saying I'm under any illusion that there won't be fraud in this election. But I would rather see Kerry elected with a clear majority than Bush with an obviously tainted one. Actually, I'd rather see Bush win 45 states, but you know what I mean. Could you explain what you mean?

Simple, I weighed the two choices in my mind and came to the conclusion that George Bush would do more damage to this country with four more years in office than a fraudulently elected Kerry.

We have seen what Bush does with the office with no real mandate. Abandoning any semblance of fiscal responsibility. A half- trillion dollar Medicare program that doesnâ€™t even solve the problem it was designed to. Failing to address the issue of Al Queda until it was too late. And a war and occupation in Iraq that even the most virulently rabid Bush supporter has to admit has not been handled as well as it could have been.

Iâ€™m not sure this country could survive another four years of that.

Iâ€™ve seen Kerry act as our senator and when I imagine him in the presidency, the image that comes to mind is one of a poll-watching middle of the roader. If he had no mandate, he would be even less willing to go out on a limb and push for some kind of nutty agenda.

As for the damage to democracy that another court appointed president could cause, the problems with our system are still here after 2000 with only cosmetic improvements. A legitimate presidency would not encourage the real change that we need, but another president asterisk might.

Thus my conclusion that a fraudulent Kerry would be better than a legitimate Bush. I donâ€™t particularly like the conclusion that I have reached, but that is what I am stuck with.

Snide · 29th October 2004, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
What presumption? I asked a question, and you answered it. To my satisfaction, I might add.

Relax!

OK. I just assumed that you couldn't possibly not know that at least one of Kerry's supporters could say the same, so I took it as a sarcastic slam. My bad and I apologize if I was wrong.

Snide · 29th October 2004, 01:09 PM

A thought to add that other people have mentioned elsewhere. I don't think of myself as an ABB, but if you want to lump me in with that group, I'd prefer to be called an ABBCRR (Bush, Cheney ,Rove and Rumsfeld...you could add a third R for Rice if you wish).

Dorian Gray · 29th October 2004, 01:24 PM

I am for a no CARB diet - No Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld or Bush.

Quote:

I'm guessing that Bush won't make excuses. He just won't relinquish the thrown.

"Thrown" is why there are so many challenges in this election.

corplinx · 3rd November 2004, 10:38 AM

Alright, the day is here but I don't have access to the talking heads on TV. What are the excuses so far?

The Don · 3rd November 2004, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
Anything he did that was centrist was lambasted by both sides precisely because the country was so polarized. What Bush made the mistake of thinking is that there was middle ground.

Stem Cells. Coming into the Bush presidency we had a total ban on federal dollars for embrionic stem cell research. Bush made a compromise decision that allowed funds to be spent but with restrictions.

What was the result?
Left: BUSH HAS BANNED ALL PUBLIC/PRIVATE STEM CELL RESEARCH
Right: BUSH HAS SOLD OUT THE PROLIFE MOVEMENT

The problem with being a centrist in a polarized country is that people will see you _as they want to see you_. Bill Clinton for instance was a republican on many issues but to 35 percent of people he was always peacenik pot smoking communist. Now we have a country where the liberals are also polarized and extreme.

Going into the 2000 election, Gore proposed medicare reform and the issue resonated. Bush responded by making his own plan that tried to introduce choice and get market forces once again in play.

LEFT: BUSH IS TRASHING MEDICARE
RIGHT: BUSH IS SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY ON SOCIAL ISSUES

Is Bush really as polarizing as people think, or are people mostly polarized and seeing things through their filters?

It's no fun having an argument with someone who puts across well considered points in such an even handed way. Can you not resort to name calling and adopting straw men instead ?

TillEulenspiegel · 3rd November 2004, 10:51 AM

Corpse:
"The problem with being a centrist in a polarized country is that people will see you _as they want to see you_. "

VERY astute judgment and unfortunately too correct.

Reminds me of the Doobie Brothers album title" What were once vices are now habits", except the reality is "What once was considered far right is now centrist"

Musta listened to The Pretenders "Back to Ohio" an anti-Reagan-Conservative lament 10 times today , except the line".. by a government that had no pride" should now be "by a government that had too much pride". <sigh>

28th October 2004, 05:43 PM	#1
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	What will the excuses be? When Bush/Kerry lose, I think we can predict the templates their supporters will use. 1. Blame the media. Bush-ites will blame CBS and the NYT for their partisanship. Kerry voters will blame the rise of Faux news and the lack of a balance for Rush Limbaugh. The more lunatic fringe will claim that the "corporate conservative media backed bush". 2. Blame the electorate. "We couldn't get our message out" = "You were too dumb to realize you should vote for us" 3. Blame third parties. 4. Voter fraud. 5. Planet X (of course) What excuses can you guys see coming from a mile away?
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

28th October 2004, 10:28 PM	#3
caseclosed New Blood Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 17	7. Bush/Kerry will admit that they were not capable to hold the office of president and bow down in good honor? 8. Cobb/Badnarik/Nader will shrug is off, being the only ones who know that nothing will change either way.
caseclosed New Blood Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 17

28th October 2004, 10:45 PM	#4
Dorian Gray Hypocrisy Detector Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 20,195	I doubt Kerry would blame the media. Attack ads, maybe, but not the media. Bush would definitely blame them.
	__________________ "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka "Rational arguments don't work on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people." - House Additionally to Carlin being funnier than Izzard, I think Dorian is funnier than the Marquis. - Ron Tomkins

28th October 2004, 11:52 PM	#7
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	Re: What will the excuses be? I'm voting for Bush. I want him to win big. But if he loses, I hope he loses big. Why? Because win or lose, I want to avoid the bulls**t of 2000. I want an unequivocal president this time, even more than I want my guy to win. Can any Kerry supporter say the same? Peace begins at home.

29th October 2004, 07:15 AM	#11
Snide Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Twin Cities Posts: 3,187	Re: Re: What will the excuses be? Quote: Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred I'm voting for Bush. I want him to win big. But if he loses, I hope he loses big. Why? Because win or lose, I want to avoid the bulls**t of 2000. I want an unequivocal president this time, even more than I want my guy to win. Can any Kerry supporter say the same? Peace begins at home. I'm one who can. So much for your brilliant presumption.

28th October 2004, 07:24 PM	#2
Snide Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Twin Cities Posts: 3,187	6. Distortions/lies from the opposition: Kerry: "Global test," "I voted for before against $87 billion," Swifties Bush: Michael Moore, missing bombs (being exploited by Kerry), "Wrong war" criticism (without offering specifics)

28th October 2004, 10:48 PM	#5
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Japan Posts: 2,308	You have the answers already, Corplinx. When the Democrats lose, they will blame it on voter fraud/voter intimidation. When the Republicans lose, they will blame the main stream media. Of course, there is a subset of each group that may not follow the party line. When the Democrats lose, the far-left will blame the main stream media and the "secret government." When the Republicans lose, the far-right will blame the Devil.

28th October 2004, 11:33 PM	#6
Questioninggeller Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,030	9) My dog ate the chads. 10) Saddam hide the ballots in mobile labs in Iraq. 11) Bush's votes were stuffed in Afganistan's ballot boxes.

29th October 2004, 04:26 AM	#8
HarryKeogh Catholic School Survivor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 11,342	If Kerry loses, my excuse will be that half the American people suck. (I kid, I kid)

29th October 2004, 05:07 AM	#9
ManfredVonRichthoffen Mook Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,513	I'm guessing that Bush won't make excuses. He just won't relinquish the thrown. Remember, if he believes it, it must be true. "The economy is already in a recovery. Iraq is hard, but freedom is on the march, and everything is going fine. I don't think I did lose the election."

29th October 2004, 05:08 AM	#10
HarryKeogh Catholic School Survivor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 11,342	Quote: Originally posted by ManfredVonRichthoffen I'm guessing that Bush won't make excuses. He just won't relinquish the thrown. Remember, if he believes it, it must be true. "The economy is already in a recovery. Iraq is hard, but freedom is on the march, and everything is going fine. I don't think I did lose the election." "...and congratulations to the world champion St. Louis Cardinals!"

29th October 2004, 07:21 AM	#12
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,071	I want it to be close. Not so close as to give legitimacy to the inevitable legal wrangles, but close enough that whichever wins won't be able to claim that he has a mandate from the people, or that America is behind him. I want either of those ratbastards to realize that this country is really divided and disturbed, and that its time to stop pandering to the party lines and try to go moderate again. The country should be governed by officials who vote for what's right, not what their bloody party tells them will grab them more power. Argh! When, oh when, will we have a viable non-insane third party? [/end vent]
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

29th October 2004, 07:32 AM	#13
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Quote: Originally posted by TragicMonkey Argh! When, oh when, will we have a viable non-insane third party? Right after the Cubs win the World Series.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

29th October 2004, 08:14 AM	#14
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	Re: Re: Re: What will the excuses be? Quote: Originally posted by Snide I'm one who can. So much for your brilliant presumption. What presumption? I asked a question, and you answered it. To my satisfaction, I might add. Relax!

29th October 2004, 08:15 AM	#15
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,071	Re: Re: Re: Re: What will the excuses be? Quote: Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred Relax! Frankie?!
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

29th October 2004, 08:18 AM	#16
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,085	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What will the excuses be? Quote: Originally posted by TragicMonkey Frankie?! Gone, went to Hollywood edit - egad, how embarrassing is it that I know that.

29th October 2004, 08:20 AM	#17
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,071	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What will the excuses be? Quote: Originally posted by DavidJames Gone, went to Hollywood Which isn't necessarily the end: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/3943915.stm
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

29th October 2004, 08:48 AM	#18
Random Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,463	Quote: Originally posted by TragicMonkey I want it to be close. Not so close as to give legitimacy to the inevitable legal wrangles, but close enough that whichever wins won't be able to claim that he has a mandate from the people, or that America is behind him. I want either of those ratbastards to realize that this country is really divided and disturbed, and that its time to stop pandering to the party lines and try to go moderate again... [/end vent] Absolutely! Remember when Bush came into the White House? He realized that the country was deeply polarized and adopted a more centrist policy standpoint, becoming â€œa uniter, not a dividerâ€.
	__________________ ...So, the next time you find yourself desperately Googling for some factual example that proves your argument is right, and failing to find even one, stop. See if you can put the brakes on and actually say, out loud, "Wait a second. If the things I'm saying in order to bolster my argument are consistently wrong, then maybe my argument is also wrong." -Cracked

29th October 2004, 08:53 AM	#19
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,071	Quote: Originally posted by Random Absolutely! Remember when Bush came into the White House? He realized that the country was deeply polarized and adopted a more centrist policy standpoint, becoming â€œa uniter, not a dividerâ€. "The bitterness is strong in this one." --Patty Bouvier
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

29th October 2004, 08:58 AM	#20
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,085	Quote: Originally posted by TragicMonkey "The bitterness is strong in this one." --Patty Bouvier "But the truth, he knows all to well" --DavidJames

29th October 2004, 09:09 AM	#21
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Quote: Originally posted by Random Absolutely! Remember when Bush came into the White House? He realized that the country was deeply polarized and adopted a more centrist policy standpoint, becoming â€œa uniter, not a dividerâ€. Anything he did that was centrist was lambasted by both sides precisely because the country was so polarized. What Bush made the mistake of thinking is that there was middle ground. Stem Cells. Coming into the Bush presidency we had a total ban on federal dollars for embrionic stem cell research. Bush made a compromise decision that allowed funds to be spent but with restrictions. What was the result? Left: BUSH HAS BANNED ALL PUBLIC/PRIVATE STEM CELL RESEARCH Right: BUSH HAS SOLD OUT THE PROLIFE MOVEMENT The problem with being a centrist in a polarized country is that people will see you _as they want to see you_. Bill Clinton for instance was a republican on many issues but to 35 percent of people he was always peacenik pot smoking communist. Now we have a country where the liberals are also polarized and extreme. Going into the 2000 election, Gore proposed medicare reform and the issue resonated. Bush responded by making his own plan that tried to introduce choice and get market forces once again in play. LEFT: BUSH IS TRASHING MEDICARE RIGHT: BUSH IS SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY ON SOCIAL ISSUES Is Bush really as polarizing as people think, or are people mostly polarized and seeing things through their filters?
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

29th October 2004, 09:13 AM	#22
rikzilla Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,001	Re: Re: What will the excuses be? Quote: Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred I'm voting for Bush. I want him to win big. But if he loses, I hope he loses big. Why? Because win or lose, I want to avoid the bulls**t of 2000. I want an unequivocal president this time, even more than I want my guy to win. Can any Kerry supporter say the same? Peace begins at home. What he said. -z
	__________________ "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon." -Chancellor Gorkon "inside Mr .Skinny lives a big man" -pillory (18 Jan 2007)

29th October 2004, 09:32 AM	#23
Random Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,463	Re: Re: What will the excuses be? Quote: Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred I'm voting for Bush. I want him to win big. But if he loses, I hope he loses big. Why? Because win or lose, I want to avoid the bulls**t of 2000. I want an unequivocal president this time, even more than I want my guy to win. Can any Kerry supporter say the same? Peace begins at home. As an ABB supporter, I really had to think about this one. Would I prefer a John Kerry who managed to take the White House with the help of an army of lawyers and fraudulent votes, or a George W. Bush who was freely elected by an unarguable majority of the people? Instictively I went for Kerry, but then I stopped and thought about it. What about world opinion? What about restoring faith in our democratic process? Should I support a president who did not technically win? Then I thought back to 2000 and everything that was happened since, smartened up and went back to supporting Kerry. Bush must be stopped now. We can have a more sensible discussion about it in 2008 when we will hopefully have a better crop of candidates.
	__________________ ...So, the next time you find yourself desperately Googling for some factual example that proves your argument is right, and failing to find even one, stop. See if you can put the brakes on and actually say, out loud, "Wait a second. If the things I'm saying in order to bolster my argument are consistently wrong, then maybe my argument is also wrong." -Cracked

29th October 2004, 09:44 AM	#24
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Re: Re: Re: What will the excuses be? Quote: Originally posted by Random As an ABB supporter, I really had to think about this one. Would I prefer a John Kerry who managed to take the White House with the help of an army of lawyers and fraudulent votes, or a George W. Bush who was freely elected by an unarguable majority of the people? Instictively I went for Kerry, but then I stopped and thought about it. What about world opinion? What about restoring faith in our democratic process? Should I support a president who did not technically win? Then I thought back to 2000 and everything that was happened since, smartened up and went back to supporting Kerry. You were following an entirely logical train of thinking there right up until the last paragraph quoted above, when you lost me. Are you saying you would prefer Kerry, even if it took fraud to put him in? I would not prefer to see Bush in office if it took fraud to put him there. I guess maybe I'm not doctrinaire enough. I'm not saying I'm under any illusion that there won't be fraud in this election. But I would rather see Kerry elected with a clear majority than Bush with an obviously tainted one. Actually, I'd rather see Bush win 45 states, but you know what I mean. Could you explain what you mean?
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

29th October 2004, 10:06 AM	#25
circuit slave Thinker Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 149	Re: Re: What will the excuses be? Quote: Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred I'm voting for Bush. I want him to win big. But if he loses, I hope he loses big. Why? Because win or lose, I want to avoid the bulls**t of 2000. I want an unequivocal president this time, even more than I want my guy to win. Can any Kerry supporter say the same? Peace begins at home. yeah, what he said. But I'll go a little bit further. If bush loses. He deserves to lose. But if he wins, he deserves to win. yeah, that makes sense. hehe But.............he still going to win.
circuit slave Thinker Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 149

29th October 2004, 10:11 AM	#26
Random Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,463	Re: Re: Re: Re: What will the excuses be? Quote: Originally posted by BPSCG You were following an entirely logical train of thinking there right up until the last paragraph quoted above, when you lost me. Are you saying you would prefer Kerry, even if it took fraud to put him in? I would not prefer to see Bush in office if it took fraud to put him there. I guess maybe I'm not doctrinaire enough. I'm not saying I'm under any illusion that there won't be fraud in this election. But I would rather see Kerry elected with a clear majority than Bush with an obviously tainted one. Actually, I'd rather see Bush win 45 states, but you know what I mean. Could you explain what you mean? Simple, I weighed the two choices in my mind and came to the conclusion that George Bush would do more damage to this country with four more years in office than a fraudulently elected Kerry. We have seen what Bush does with the office with no real mandate. Abandoning any semblance of fiscal responsibility. A half- trillion dollar Medicare program that doesnâ€™t even solve the problem it was designed to. Failing to address the issue of Al Queda until it was too late. And a war and occupation in Iraq that even the most virulently rabid Bush supporter has to admit has not been handled as well as it could have been. Iâ€™m not sure this country could survive another four years of that. Iâ€™ve seen Kerry act as our senator and when I imagine him in the presidency, the image that comes to mind is one of a poll-watching middle of the roader. If he had no mandate, he would be even less willing to go out on a limb and push for some kind of nutty agenda. As for the damage to democracy that another court appointed president could cause, the problems with our system are still here after 2000 with only cosmetic improvements. A legitimate presidency would not encourage the real change that we need, but another president asterisk might. Thus my conclusion that a fraudulent Kerry would be better than a legitimate Bush. I donâ€™t particularly like the conclusion that I have reached, but that is what I am stuck with.
	__________________ ...So, the next time you find yourself desperately Googling for some factual example that proves your argument is right, and failing to find even one, stop. See if you can put the brakes on and actually say, out loud, "Wait a second. If the things I'm saying in order to bolster my argument are consistently wrong, then maybe my argument is also wrong." -Cracked

29th October 2004, 01:04 PM	#27
Snide Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Twin Cities Posts: 3,187	Re: Re: Re: Re: What will the excuses be? Quote: Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred What presumption? I asked a question, and you answered it. To my satisfaction, I might add. Relax! OK. I just assumed that you couldn't possibly not know that at least one of Kerry's supporters could say the same, so I took it as a sarcastic slam. My bad and I apologize if I was wrong.

29th October 2004, 01:09 PM	#28
Snide Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Twin Cities Posts: 3,187	A thought to add that other people have mentioned elsewhere. I don't think of myself as an ABB, but if you want to lump me in with that group, I'd prefer to be called an ABBCRR (Bush, Cheney ,Rove and Rumsfeld...you could add a third R for Rice if you wish).

29th October 2004, 01:24 PM	#29
Dorian Gray Hypocrisy Detector Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 20,195	I am for a no CARB diet - No Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld or Bush. Quote: I'm guessing that Bush won't make excuses. He just won't relinquish the thrown. "Thrown" is why there are so many challenges in this election.
	__________________ "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka "Rational arguments don't work on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people." - House Additionally to Carlin being funnier than Izzard, I think Dorian is funnier than the Marquis. - Ron Tomkins

3rd November 2004, 10:38 AM	#30
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Alright, the day is here but I don't have access to the talking heads on TV. What are the excuses so far?
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

3rd November 2004, 10:48 AM	#31
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,235	Quote: Originally posted by corplinx Anything he did that was centrist was lambasted by both sides precisely because the country was so polarized. What Bush made the mistake of thinking is that there was middle ground. Stem Cells. Coming into the Bush presidency we had a total ban on federal dollars for embrionic stem cell research. Bush made a compromise decision that allowed funds to be spent but with restrictions. What was the result? Left: BUSH HAS BANNED ALL PUBLIC/PRIVATE STEM CELL RESEARCH Right: BUSH HAS SOLD OUT THE PROLIFE MOVEMENT The problem with being a centrist in a polarized country is that people will see you _as they want to see you_. Bill Clinton for instance was a republican on many issues but to 35 percent of people he was always peacenik pot smoking communist. Now we have a country where the liberals are also polarized and extreme. Going into the 2000 election, Gore proposed medicare reform and the issue resonated. Bush responded by making his own plan that tried to introduce choice and get market forces once again in play. LEFT: BUSH IS TRASHING MEDICARE RIGHT: BUSH IS SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY ON SOCIAL ISSUES Is Bush really as polarizing as people think, or are people mostly polarized and seeing things through their filters? It's no fun having an argument with someone who puts across well considered points in such an even handed way. Can you not resort to name calling and adopting straw men instead ?

3rd November 2004, 10:51 AM	#32
TillEulenspiegel Master Poster Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,310	Corpse: "The problem with being a centrist in a polarized country is that people will see you _as they want to see you_. " VERY astute judgment and unfortunately too correct. Reminds me of the Doobie Brothers album title" What were once vices are now habits", except the reality is "What once was considered far right is now centrist" Musta listened to The Pretenders "Back to Ohio" an anti-Reagan-Conservative lament 10 times today , except the line".. by a government that had no pride" should now be "by a government that had too much pride". <sigh>
	__________________ "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein "Who is Einstein to tell God what to do?" Niels Bohr Remember, %97.3 of all accidents occur %100 of the time.