Posted on 06/10/2004 12:19:49 AM PDT by kattracks
June 10, 2004 -- NOW is a good time to look back at the landslide win that sent Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980, because lots of analysts think 2004 could turn out the same way — close for a long time and then suddenly breaking wide open. In 1980, the break came just days before the vote, when Democrat Jimmy Carter finally agreed to debate. Reagan came off as sunny instead of scary and when he admonished Carter with a smile, "There you go again," it was all over.Like President Bush, Carter faced voters nervous over both the economy and foreign policy and wondering whether it's time for a change — in Carter's case, skyrocketing inflation at home plus the endless Iran hostage crisis.
But there's a big difference, since Carter kept getting bad news on both fronts, while Bush is starting to get good news on both the economy, with a surge in new jobs, and Iraq, with international support for the June 30 transfer of power.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Atheists do not need to "develop logical reasons to support his ideas of right conduct". that is just nonsense. Are you saying that Christianity is the opposite of logic, or operates in a logical vaccuum? I certainly hope not.
We all have the same fundamental concept of right and wrong, and it comes from society and our culture as a whole, as well as a general inborn genetic disposition towards our own kind. I recognize that some aspects of our culture and society stems from Christianity, but I doubt very much that its absence would make any difference at this point.
I think what is important in a politician is a dedication to protecting the right to religious freedom for all people of all persuasions, rather than special consideration for any one particular religion.
Well they see him as either the innocent or the crafty Skull and Bones manipulator. Either way, he's wrong to them. One urbanite complained that he only appeals to the flyover states. This neophyte wanted to erradicate the Electoral College so that the states with big cities could decide our presidents once and for all.
Well a lot of those mountain and plains folk enlisted in the services after 9/11. I guess we need them after all, don't we? And we need their simple common sense, too. I think we need it more than ever.
Is the NY Post saying Kerry will win in a landslide based on how the 1980 election went? Carter was the incumbent (Bush) and Reagan (Kerry) beat him in a lanslide. Using that as a guide - the incumbent loses.
Jim, I will self-ban myself over my response, if you wish. My tolerance level for fools is running low. Regards, SVITW
We have truth on our side. One or two debates and it'll be all over. Dubya will eat them alive over their recent statements, actions, and the issues.
Exactly. A lot of Dems (old Harry Truman dems, who aren't rabid liberals like the rest) say they'll vote Kerry now, but won't have the stomach to actually do it.
I think a lot of socialist-leaning sheeple are willing to talk about their voting intentions. I think a lot of patriots slam the pollster's call back on the hook after saying it's none of anyone's business how they vote.
I'm with you, a nail-biter to the end (just like a Patriots game), and then Kerry's lawyers filing lawsuits for recounts.
Factories will have to pump up production of Prozac........
Hey...good point...buy pharmaceuticals.[sic]
Among Moslems the focus on family is extreme and seems to indicate survival of the old paganism.
In Asia large business was mostly impossible except as enterprise of the ruler or of strictly family concerns until the Christians came. Viet Nam now has about 10% indigenous Christians and they make up the core of the business class because they can trust each other without having to have family connections. The nonChristians have learned to work with the Christians and do it the same way.
The Chinese, for all their great flowering of enterprise are still pretty much stuck with the ruler's businesses and family businesses. The great Chinese businesses outside of China proper hit ceilings where they need to take on foreign CEOs or Financial officers and it doesn't work. The Family cannot learn to trust the foreigner and the foreigner cannot work well in such a milieu.
Islam is the most exaggerated of family cultures. There is no trust in anything outside of the family. The religion doesn't help development because it specifically renders it "moral" to cheat a nonMoslem and to take from a nonMoslem at every opportunity.
All non JudaeoChristian major religions produce lying as the main everyday method of interaction beyond the family. In Hindu paganism and in the various paganisms of Africa and Asia, to tell a nonfamily person a true thing is to give him power over oneself and one's family. Truthtelling is a liability. Bhuddism is not a major religiion in this reckoning because the great majority of its nominal adherents are, in fact, pagans or Confucianists and Daoists.
Confucianism and its partial replacement, Maoism, produce obedience to the center, to the ruler and trust only vertically , none laterally outside of the family.
Congress cannot make any law respecting an establishment of religion. Under God in the pledge is not an establishment of religion. Neither is prayer in the schools. Establishing religion is making one religion the only legal religion or taxing to support a religious organization or it is an official religious test to hold office.
The morality that makes modern society possible is the morality of Torah extended to the world by Christianity. That morality cannot be sustained solely by legislatures and courts and Wise Men who study and decide what is useful without a background of JudaeoChristianiat. The more Christianity is pushed out of our public life the more are the laws that must be made to regulate life and the finer and finer are the aspects of life that will be the subject of laws.
You have your fundamental concept of right and wrong because you swim in a Christian sea. It is the background of the whole society. Without that foundation there is no moral reason for the rulers to not decide that a certain class of people is detrimental to proper development and to eliminate that class. Great nations have gone that route through rationalism.
Your statement makes total sense... but while you, I and all FReeper's see this election as a simple act of common sense, the politically ignorant are deeply challenged.
They are bombarded every day with the socialist blather and doubt of the network media. Every bit of good news from Iraq to the economy is tainted with a disclaimer of... 'too early to assess'... 'numbers are incomplete' or 'the-jury's-still-out'.
To me, I smell a landslide for 'W'... but then again, I thought Bush the Elder could defeat a rapist.
Right now W's domestic policy is irrelevant. If we do not survive as a nation we have no chance to affect domestic policy. That should be understood by liberals, too.
Hispanics have always been considered "up for grabs".
While they lean more Democrat, I do not believe they reach nearly 75%. The difficulty with the hispanic vote has always been about getting out their vote. It's very low. They could be a very powerful voting block, but they just don't get out to vote in very high numbers.
I believe that Schwarzenegger got a higher percentage of the hispanic vote than the Democrat who is one of their own, Cruz Bustamante.
Of course Arnold is somewhat of a special case, but it still speaks volumes, considering his challenger.
From time to time I see ridiculous aryanesque justifications for why Christianity is "superior" to all other religions, like yours. And like yours, they all are also premised on ignorant medieval concoctions of what other religions are really all about.
But hands down the majority of these kinds of diatribes come from islamists.
I'm conservative.
No, you're not. You state you're a DoD civilian. You're union. You're a Socialist.
I'd love to vote a conservative into the White House. If one was running that had a chance to win, I'd vote for him.
I hear this from every self-righteous paleo-FReeper in this forum. Parroting others, and activating a sleeper account, is not the way to establish a bona fides.
I do not really hate Bush
Of course you don't.
I blame him for making me have to vote for a 'rat because his domestic policy really sucks for the middle class majority in this country.
The next sentence is the key...
That and as I'm a Civil Servant in the DoD, the Rumsfield plan is an abomination.
Oh, concern for the middle class is your primary concern?? Sounds more like keeping your tenure and your taxpayer-funded pension is.
No one makes you vote. There is no gun to your head making you vote.
The Buddha Siddhartha Gautama had no moral foundation. His insight leads to nonattachment which is only partially in agreement with what can be called morality. It has some similar effects and some very different effects and does not really affect the great majority of nominal believers because they cannot follow the path of nonattachment and there is no morality beyond family and survival of self for them. Bhuddism is the path of a very tiny group of people who have the self discipline for it. Practical Bhuddism is mostly paganism and propitiation of the gods which has no bearing on how people treat one another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.