Posted on 11/01/2004 5:05:06 PM PST by LS
Amen to both of your points. Well said.
If liberals are such great people, how come conservatives are fun and liberals are dour and spiteful?
Rubbish. Not even LBJ-Goldwater or Reagan-Mondale was such a rout. 65-34 would mean Bush won every state, and even DC. This cannot happen. A landslide nowadays means 55-45.
Bush 341, Kerry 197 ev.
That's more like it. We could get there with a 52-48% victory.
We were very united on 911. What happened was the media working with the DNC decided the only way to take out the President was to cast doubt on the war on terror. They did a brilliant job of propaganda, trying to effect a bloodless coup. Let's just pray that they were not successful. We shall all know tomorrow.
well stated!!!!!
That's what I call home schooling. The Coral Spring's Sam's by any chance?
Bump
I realy don't think that's the problem.
I really think that no matter what, 25-33% of the electorate is 'terminally lib,' and that goes if 9-11 victimized 6,000, 9,000, 12,000 or 15,000. Their minds just filter and register things a certain (odd) way. Their reaction is superficially the same.
I think, similarly, that 25-33% of the electorate is 'terminally conservative,' and react to things also according to their world view.
The balance, the middle 34-50%, has no particularly strong opinions either way. I don't think that they would be reacting much differently if 6,000 people were killed om 9-11, or 12,000. Some will gravitate to the right, others to the left, others will be terminally 'open minded,' which is to say 'empty headed.'
None of this really has much to do with a body count. People belive what they believe. That's all.
Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?
You know, I saw a film on 9/11 about New York City through the eyes of six filmmakers, and one idiot bald-headed guy with four earrings said he was "most worried about what 9/11 would do to our domestic politics" and he marched against the Iraq war. Sick.
I sat on my floor and cried. And I HATE New York. No, my point is that the deaths of 3,000 Americans was not sufficient to galvanize the rest of the United States to unite and destroy these SOBs.
I'm sure many undedcideds have been holding their breath waiting to see if we would be attacked by terrorists before the election.
Given that so many voters are numbskulls (and my life depends on their 'wisdom'), I'm beginning to like Heinlein's Starship Trooper notion that only people who have done military (or equivalent) service of some kind are qualified to be citizens and to vote to choose a government.
No, we weren't united. I recently saw an HBO movie about six NYC filmmakers and their "takes" on 9/11, and one of them, a baldheaded dude with six earrings, said he was "most worried about what it would do to our DOMESTIC politics," and he "marched against the war." Sadly, we have NEVER been united in this fight.
Yah, I think you're right. But how, then, in WW II, did the country get almost 98% of the people united? I mean, look at the list of HOLLYWOOD people who VOLUNTEERED!! (Borgnine, Holden, Bronson, Stewart, Savalas, Curtis . . . . on and on!) Even elite execs resigned positions and joined up.
I understood your initial point perfectly. Ignore those with limited ability for abstract thinking.
ALL good points.
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.