The South Defeats The North - Page 2 - Jets Insider.com Forums

jetswin · 11-04-2004, 10:49 AM

The truth about the "youth" vote is it isn't quite as skewed towards the Dems as they would like, I may be wrong, but I thought I heard something like 55-45, it just shows the Country is becoming more conservative, or closer to the middle accross the board.

chiefst2000 · 11-04-2004, 10:51 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by jetswin[/i]@Nov 4 2004, 10:49 AM
[b] The truth about the "youth" vote is it isn't quite as skewed towards the Dems as they would like, I may be wrong, but I thought I heard something like 55-45, it just shows the Country is becoming more conservative, or closer to the middle accross the board. [/b][/quote]
If its 55-45 now imagine what it's going to be when those kids grow up. Liberalism is for the young and naieve. When people grow up they will often see the light.

chiefst2000 · 11-04-2004, 11:03 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by YoungJetsFan[/i]@Nov 3 2004, 08:03 PM
[b] We have alot of Bush supporters on this website but the truth is that places like New York, New Jersey, Boston, Pennsylvania all picked Kerry to be their president.

New York chose Kerry over Bush. As did Washington by a tremendous margin and California.

That's not really a surprise to anybody. The big cities usually vote Democrat. The Big Cities are usually more diverse. While southern areas are more closed minded and old fashioned.

The South has risen again and as far as I am concerned, They won this election for George W. Bush.

I predicted that Bush would win months ago because of the south factor and because of how I felt that this country did not want to make a change in midstream. They wanted Bush and company to complete the job.

Kerry was a good candidate despite all the dirty nonsense spewed by the biast and closed minded party loyalists. I voted for Kerry because I like his ideas better and I wasn't happy with the performance of the current administration.

To use a sporting analogy. The Bush administration has had 4 straight losing seasons as far as I am concerned. Bush is an ok head coach but he's got the worst coaching staff. From Cheney to Rumsfeld to Ashcroft etc etc etc

My vote was for change and it was mostly against them. This country picked The Devil They Do Know over The Devil They Don't.

The North-South argument is a fascinating one to me. 9/11 happened in New York and we felt it the most and The Bush campaign used 9/11 as a badge of honor and New York still voted against him. Despite The Convention and The Guiliani backing.

The only thing that makes me most happy about Bush's victory is watching guys like Michael Moore go into hiding because they actually believed that they would effect this election and get the president thrown out of office. Nice try guys.

Unlike most people who follow politics. I am rooting for things to go right in Iraq. I hope that Bush does a good job at home and overseas although I have my doubts. It's a crappy administration. Their track record is pitiful. For the sake of this country,. I hope they make the right moves. [/b][/quote]
The picture in my sig is a county by county map of the election results. Please take a minute to look it over and give us your thoughts on your North-South argument. It seems to me like most of that map including the Northeast is red.

Enrique Pallazzo · 11-04-2004, 11:42 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by YoungJetsFan[/i]@Nov 3 2004, 09:03 PM
[b] The South has risen again and as far as I am concerned, They won this election for George W. Bush.

[/b][/quote]
YJF, I hope you're not forgetting that there's a LOT more red on the map than just the South. Kerry won the NorthEast, California, and a few Northern MidWestern states... other than that it was all Bush.
After reading all of these posts I'm also reminded of someone on JI that has continually said that people who voted for Bush were uneducated. This is as asinine as half the other statements I've read.
The fact of the matter is that in today's world it is very tough for a pompous, wealthy New England liberal to get elected. This is because too large a percentage of the country does not believe that candidate can relate to them. It hasn't happened since JFK (and it's questionable that he even WON that election). Look at all of the Democratic candidates that HAVE gotten elected since then... Clinton/Gore and Carter... all Southerners. The Democrats have to get it out of their minds that their elitist candidates are what the entire country admires and trusts. They need to elect someone who DOES relate to America beyond the Democratic New England boundaries. They have to remember that there is a big-ass country attached to New England.
OH and one more thing... slapping a slick ambulance chaser on a ticket doesn't work either.

HBJETFANBOB · 11-04-2004, 05:37 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by faba[/i]@Nov 4 2004, 10:16 AM
[b] One of the Democrats ignorance is that they have pretty much given up on the South- to ignore a section of the country and growing population wise is not a very smart move.
They need a moderate option in beliefs to make inroads there and in the West-otherwise they are going to continue to be drive Republican stranglehold on the Presidency and Congress. Do not ask me who that is at this time [/b][/quote]
Yes but the Republicans have given up on the East coast and west coast, I will tell you now , California use to be REAGAN Country, not anymore , people here and in NY are liberal on social issues.

What will happen is over the next 8 years when Old righties move on, young progressives in states like NM, AZ and NV along with new hispanic voters are going to turn these into blue states as well as Florida and perhaps Ohio, lets be honest it was 140,000 votes in Ohio that gave the President is supposed mandate.

The divide from blue to red is just as strong on this end, progressive thinking is not dead.

Savage69 · 11-04-2004, 05:45 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Nov 4 2004, 09:25 AM
[b] The arrogance of Kerry supporters knows no bounds, even in defeat. People from the South are close-minded? Tell me, does a person with an open mind make such a crass generalization? Is it that unfathomable for you to think that people can disagree with you without being ignorant bigots? I'm from the northeast and am very well educated. I voted for Bush enthusiastically. I can appreciate why people voted aganst him. I don't think they are stupid, or evil, or bigoted or crazy. We simply disagree. Is it really that difficult for your ego to handle the possibility that you guys could be wrong?

Democrats just don't get it, even after the last 10 years in which they have become marginalized at a fantastic pace. The GOP now controls Congress by almost 30 seats, and the Senate by 10, and has controlled the Presidency for 20 out of the past 28 years, and currently holds a majority of governorships. This type of broad-based support is NOT due solely to South Ignorance, no matter what spin, or fables you are hearing today from the DNC or the mainstream media. Hatred, arrogance, smugness, elitism - these have all been rejected, resoundingly and consistently. Saying that conservatives or others who disgree with you are idiots, morons, sheep, god-heads, close-minded or some other awful thing is not a winning strategy. Get over yourselves. Your party is a national joke right now. No President has ever been re-elected AND gained seats in both the house and senate. Yet, it happened. Bush won the popular vote, not just the South. 46% of NJ people voted for him - they are not southern fools. 48% of people in PA. Hell, Bush's % in MA IMPROVED over 2000. Think about it - he ran against a hometown guy and got more votes in that state than he did when he ran against a dude from Tennessee.

The democratic party needs to look in the mirror. Anti-Bush people need to stop the Smarter-than-thou act. Not only has it gotten to the point where is it spectacularly embarassing to them for it's ineffectiveness, it's simply and demonstrably not true.

Tuesday was a wake-up call. These last ten years have been one. Please, wake up. [/b][/quote]
Excellent as usual 5ever...I agree.. ;)

The Troll · 11-04-2004, 06:21 PM

I'm just talking about what I saw in my area from voters. My mom voted for Bush because he is a religious man, although she hasn't gone to church in ten years. I talked to a guy my age at the polls who voted for Bush because he was afraid Kerry was going to take his guns away. I talked to two girls who were voting for Bush because he was a "DILF". A friend of mine supported Bush because he said Kerry was a baby-killer and a faggot. Look, I'm just going by what I have seen. If you want to call me a bigot, then go ahead and do so. I don't care, I voted for John Kerry, you voted for the queer-hater. I don't have my finger on the pulse of the entire South, but in my area, Southwest Louisiana, those are typically the responses I got. Nothing about Iraq. Nothing about foreign policy. Just "Don't take my guns", "Don't kill babies" (Soldiers, though, is okay :rolleyes:), "Don't let Tinkerbell get married", "Kerry hates Jesus." They are misinformed opinions, and close-minded opinions, and I am bitterly dissapointed in my fellow Coonasses.

Come Back to NY · 11-04-2004, 06:24 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by The Troll[/i]@Nov 4 2004, 06:21 PM
[b] I'm just talking about what I saw in my area from voters. [b]My mom voted for Bush because he is a religious man[/b], although she hasn't gone to church in ten years. I talked to a guy my age at the polls who voted for Bush because he was afraid Kerry was going to take his guns away. I talked to two girls who were voting for Bush because he was a "DILF". A friend of mine supported Bush because he said Kerry was a baby-killer and a faggot. Look, I'm just going by what I have seen. If you want to call me a bigot, then go ahead and do so. I don't care, I voted for John Kerry, you voted for the queer-hater. I don't have my finger on the pulse of the entire South, but in my area, Southwest Louisiana, those are typically the responses I got. Nothing about Iraq. Nothing about foreign policy. Just "Don't take my guns", "Don't kill babies" (Soldiers, though, is okay ), "Don't let Tinkerbell get married", "Kerry hates Jesus." They are misinformed opinions, and close-minded opinions, and I am bitterly dissapointed in my fellow Coonasses. [/b][/quote]
Its' easy to see why their views/opinions are totally distant from yours!

HBJETFANBOB · 11-04-2004, 06:32 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000+Nov 4 2004, 10:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (chiefst2000 @ Nov 4 2004, 10:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by isired@Nov 3 2004, 09:42 PM
[b] <!--QuoteBegin-Come Back to NY[/i]@Nov 3 2004, 09:47 PM
[b] What an idiot statement...how about the fact the "big cities" usually have the greatest percentage of welfare recipients and they feel the rats are a sure bet to secure their welfare??? [/b][/quote]
true, because there's always a huge voter turnout of welfare recipients out to secure their welfare.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

man, there is some BS being slung around here on both sides. very entertaining. [/b][/quote]
I rent apartments to those welfare recipients and believe me when I tell you that they all vote. Those people are professionals at working the system. [/b][/quote]
You must charge cheap rent

jets5ever · 11-04-2004, 06:34 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by The Troll[/i]@Nov 4 2004, 06:21 PM
[b] I'm just talking about what I saw in my area from voters. My mom voted for Bush because he is a religious man, although she hasn't gone to church in ten years. I talked to a guy my age at the polls who voted for Bush because he was afraid Kerry was going to take his guns away. I talked to two girls who were voting for Bush because he was a "DILF". A friend of mine supported Bush because he said Kerry was a baby-killer and a faggot. Look, I'm just going by what I have seen. If you want to call me a bigot, then go ahead and do so. I don't care, I voted for John Kerry, you voted for the queer-hater. I don't have my finger on the pulse of the entire South, but in my area, Southwest Louisiana, those are typically the responses I got. Nothing about Iraq. Nothing about foreign policy. Just "Don't take my guns", "Don't kill babies" (Soldiers, though, is okay :rolleyes:), "Don't let Tinkerbell get married", "Kerry hates Jesus." They are misinformed opinions, and close-minded opinions, and I am bitterly dissapointed in my fellow Coonasses. [/b][/quote]
Kerry did not support Gay Marriage either. Bush supports civil unions, like Kerry. The only difference in their views on the subject is regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment. Bush supports, Kerry opposes. You honestly think bigotry is the only reason why people are opposed to legalizeing gay marriage? What is the difference if gay unions are called civil unions or marriage? It is not a "rights" issue. If it were, civil unions would be acceptable. Often, gay marriage proponents ask others, 'How does gay marriage affect you?!?" Fine, valid question. I ask you, what does the title of the union have to do with the rights aspect of the issue? How does calling the union by a different name affect them? Spare me the lectures about equality. Man-woman unions and man-man or woman-woman are different things. I thought we should celebrate diversity? Why is calling it marriage such a big deal to both sides? Why aren't civil unions OK? Also, if civil unions aren't OK in your book, why did you vote for Kerry?

Kerry DOES want to take guns away. That is a rational fear of gun owners. People make analogously exaggerated absurd quips about Bush's positions. Kerry does support "baby-killing" even late term abortion. Abortion [i]is[/i] atrocious. Is that a "bigoted" view in your opinion? Does supporting abortion = open mindedness? You claim that others are close-minded, yet you are quick to label and dismiss ANYONE who disagrees with you. Can't you see how arrogant that is??

I don't know what a DILF is, so I can't respond to that one :D

The Troll · 11-05-2004, 02:37 AM

I voted for John Kerry based on foreign policy. I do not agree with George Bush's decision to go into Iraq, and I do not agree with the way Afghanistan was handle. The troops that are in Iraq right now should be in Afghanistan. Is the world better off without Sadaam? Of course it is. But this wasn't the right time to go after him. Not after Osama Bin Laden had just killed 3,000 innocent people ON OUR SOIL. I know a lot of people may have voted for Bush based on his foreign policy, but I didn't. I think his foreign policy does nothing but inspire even more global hatred of an already hated country. We need allies. And Bush has done nothing but alienate. The United States and England can't alone defeat the Middle East. It just isn't going to happen. We need help from the rest of Europe, and with Bush we aren't going to get that. He also has shown no plan on changing any of his policies in Iraq, claiming that everything is going smoothly. They're going to have elections in January. Great, now when do we get the hell out of there?

I don't support homosexuality. I think it is disgusting and I used to thing it was horribly wrong. But I do realize that it isn't a choice. It is no different than denying black people the right to vote. They were born that way, did they have a choice? No. It doesn't affect me if they get married. Civil union, marriage? Whatever. Do what you want, it isn't going to bother me, because they breathe, eat, and sleep just like we do. They are American citizens and in a country founded on the freedom to do what you want, I find it very hypocritical to deny them a freedom allowed to all other Americans. I know John Kerry believes in the sanctity of marriage. I watched the debates, unlike most people I know around here. They didn't know that. They went into the polls believing the John Kerry was for gays, despite what me or anyone else told them otherwise. The bigotry is still in full force down here. The deep south is so much different from other places I have been. If anyone tells you that there is no bigotry down here, that are flat-out lying. I've lived here my entire life and I see it every single day.

As for abortion, my opinion is that they are neccesary. If some 12-year old girl gets raped by her father, should she be forced to carry a baby for nine months, regardless of whether she puts it up for adoption? I don't think so. If a girl gets raped, should she be forced to suffer through nine months of carrying a child? I don't think so. Say a crackhead gets pregnant? Should the child be scarred permanently, or should it be spared from suffering? I think the latter. But it is so hard to draw the line between what should be acceptable and what shouldn't. Whoever is President isn't going to change abortion. Bush has been in office for four years, and we still have abortion, and even if his Supreme Court were to over-turn Roe vs. Wade, there are still going to be abortions, legal or not.

You don't want to know what a "DILF" is.

4th&Long · 11-05-2004, 07:59 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by savage69[/i]@Nov 3 2004, 08:59 PM
[b] YJF Fan..The South has been Republican since Regan..There was a time
when there were Great Democrats..Men Like Zell Miller of today..FDR,HST
and here's a thought on JFK who I also admired..He brought the US to the
Brink of Nuclear War because of the USSR putting Missile's in Cuba.. Oh and
by the way for you who love to use this Phrase..Cuba never attacked us either!!
I enlisted right after that..Not to worry my Liberal friends! There are still Americans that care about America ,so you Guys will always have the right to ***** and demean the Country as you please..And there will be no Draft as Kerry lied about as he always has since he came back from his 3-4 Months in Nam and then lied about our Troops that were still in Combat..Tell me YJF exactly what plan that Kerry had did you like?? And in his 20 years in the Senate what did you admire about anything he did?? <_< [/b][/quote]
Zell Miller...a great Democrat... :D

Bugg · 11-05-2004, 08:55 AM

Big problem for the Northeast and cities in general-COSTS. In the thread about gavin Newsom, Bit noted housing prices could be so high and yet we called San Francisco a dump. Simply, there's a fast-approaching tipping point, where businesses and people who earn a living decide that with broadband and telecommumincations technology, all the shows, restaurants and Bloomberg's precious Manhattan culture are going to keep those people in a place where everything costs too damn much and parasites are indulged on their dime.

Simple fact-NYC and other big cities give soup to nuts arrays of social services for people that are essentially nonworking irresponsible people. Someone-ME AND YOU-have to pay for it,. And if you live in NYC like I do, you cannot in good conscience send your children to public schools, which for the most part aren't good after 5th grade. (side note-what genius decided to abandon grades k-8 schools for intermediate schools- a DUMB IDEA!). Your house,or apartment costs more; so does your food, gas, electric, and so on.

No business really needs to physically be in a city. Bloomberg wants to make Manhattan a boutique city, a playground for the rich-WHICH IS INSANE in the long-term. , At some point, you make the calculation that city life is too expensive. And when that happens en masse, forget it. NYC will look like the 1970s all over again. It can and will happen if places like NYC don't get their costs and expenses under controls. Not just taxes-all costs.

The Dems love this poor vs. rich dichotomy, because in theory there will always be poor than rich. But what is rich? their definition seems to include 2 working people trying to pay thier bills on $100K(a fireman and a nurse?), which isn't what any of us would call rich.

When Kerry whined about healthcare, all those supposedly-rich people wre thinking was ,there goes my co-payment and my health insurance premiums , whether they're paid direct or withheld. Look, the really poor use the ER like the doctor; they use drugs, don't use cotraception, don't work, and in some cases aren't citizens at all. When Kerry talked like that, it was code to the underclasss that we're gonna get in the middle class's pockets to pay for your entitlement. And we know how that's worked with assigned risk in auto insurance-NOT AT ALL. And yet you liberals wonder why so many Americans don't want any part of your redistribtion of wealth to people who contribute nothing to this country. It's because tyou exist in a fantasyland where no one is responsible for thier actions, and anyone who works is just a mak to be soaked.

I live in Brooklyn. But for how much longer, I really don't know. That so many of the people who live in NYC don't see what's happening is almost scary. Guiliani got this; whether anyone else after him does is doubtful. I see local and state governments that waste money on things like renaming streets(the most numerous acts of the NYC Council!) rather than fixing the schools and roads or cutting usesless bureaucracy. No one is going to start a business here. And if you have a business here, the cost and regulation will at some point cause you to consider relocating. You cannot keep chasing businesses and keep up this circus.

Jeffersson said represeentative democracy can survive only as long as the citizenry denies itself the temptation to vote the treasury to itself. In Blue urban America, it's at that point now.

So when you wonder why Red America is so solid, it's because demographically, it's getting bigger and more populous. And the future for the Democrats doesn't look any better unless they change their government in cities. And I don't see it happening. Enjoy LA, NYC, Berkley, Mass., San Francisco-it will be all you ahve

Jet Moses · 11-05-2004, 09:04 AM

Great post, Bugg. Another "good intentions paving the road to hell" are socialist rent controls. Placing rent control on apt's, causes the landlords to tack on subsidies to everybody else's rent, to make up the difference.

Rent control also leads to an apartment shortage, leading to ever escalating rents for the honest joe who isn't gaming the system.

Bugg · 11-05-2004, 09:24 AM

Rnet control was instituted in NYC during WWII as a temporary measure. Still in effect. And it benefits more rich white Manhattan elites than it does anyone who's poor.

sackdance · 11-05-2004, 09:27 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Nov 4 2004, 10:09 AM
[b] Hammer this is still a country divided, even in the South. [/b][/quote]
Country divided? Yes. We are a country divided; divided on how we feel about the recent Republican SWEEP of the nation. As it stands, more are happy than sad about it.

Face it, this election was a mandate. If I were a Democrat, I'd think more about cleaning up my yard than *****ing about the neighbors.

chiefst2000 · 11-05-2004, 09:51 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by HBJETFANBOB+Nov 4 2004, 06:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (HBJETFANBOB @ Nov 4 2004, 06:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by chiefst2000@Nov 4 2004, 10:19 AM
[b] [quote]Originally posted by isired@Nov 3 2004, 09:42 PM
[b] <!--QuoteBegin-Come Back to NY[/i]@Nov 3 2004, 09:47 PM
[b] What an idiot statement...how about the fact the "big cities" usually have the greatest percentage of welfare recipients and they feel the rats are a sure bet to secure their welfare??? [/b][/quote]
true, because there's always a huge voter turnout of welfare recipients out to secure their welfare.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

man, there is some BS being slung around here on both sides. very entertaining. [/b][/quote]
I rent apartments to those welfare recipients and believe me when I tell you that they all vote. Those people are professionals at working the system. [/b][/quote]
You must charge cheap rent [/b][/quote]
The government pays their rent. They NEVER pay. And now that Section 8 rents have been reduced by 20% across the board we are no longer accepting Government tennants. No landlord will deal with those dirt bags for market rent. We have left multiple apartments vacant rather then accept those people.

11-04-2004, 10:49 AM	#21
jetswin stumblin mumblin butt fumblin Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Westchester Co. Posts: 35,458	The truth about the "youth" vote is it isn't quite as skewed towards the Dems as they would like, I may be wrong, but I thought I heard something like 55-45, it just shows the Country is becoming more conservative, or closer to the middle accross the board.

11-04-2004, 10:51 AM	#22
chiefst2000 Champion of Common Sense All Pro Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,820	[quote][i]Originally posted by jetswin[/i]@Nov 4 2004, 10:49 AM [b] The truth about the "youth" vote is it isn't quite as skewed towards the Dems as they would like, I may be wrong, but I thought I heard something like 55-45, it just shows the Country is becoming more conservative, or closer to the middle accross the board. [/b][/quote] If its 55-45 now imagine what it's going to be when those kids grow up. Liberalism is for the young and naieve. When people grow up they will often see the light.

11-04-2004, 11:03 AM	#23
chiefst2000 Champion of Common Sense All Pro Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,820	[quote][i]Originally posted by YoungJetsFan[/i]@Nov 3 2004, 08:03 PM [b] We have alot of Bush supporters on this website but the truth is that places like New York, New Jersey, Boston, Pennsylvania all picked Kerry to be their president. New York chose Kerry over Bush. As did Washington by a tremendous margin and California. That's not really a surprise to anybody. The big cities usually vote Democrat. The Big Cities are usually more diverse. While southern areas are more closed minded and old fashioned. The South has risen again and as far as I am concerned, They won this election for George W. Bush. I predicted that Bush would win months ago because of the south factor and because of how I felt that this country did not want to make a change in midstream. They wanted Bush and company to complete the job. Kerry was a good candidate despite all the dirty nonsense spewed by the biast and closed minded party loyalists. I voted for Kerry because I like his ideas better and I wasn't happy with the performance of the current administration. To use a sporting analogy. The Bush administration has had 4 straight losing seasons as far as I am concerned. Bush is an ok head coach but he's got the worst coaching staff. From Cheney to Rumsfeld to Ashcroft etc etc etc My vote was for change and it was mostly against them. This country picked The Devil They Do Know over The Devil They Don't. The North-South argument is a fascinating one to me. 9/11 happened in New York and we felt it the most and The Bush campaign used 9/11 as a badge of honor and New York still voted against him. Despite The Convention and The Guiliani backing. The only thing that makes me most happy about Bush's victory is watching guys like Michael Moore go into hiding because they actually believed that they would effect this election and get the president thrown out of office. Nice try guys. Unlike most people who follow politics. I am rooting for things to go right in Iraq. I hope that Bush does a good job at home and overseas although I have my doubts. It's a crappy administration. Their track record is pitiful. For the sake of this country,. I hope they make the right moves. [/b][/quote] The picture in my sig is a county by county map of the election results. Please take a minute to look it over and give us your thoughts on your North-South argument. It seems to me like most of that map including the Northeast is red.

11-04-2004, 11:42 AM	#24
Enrique Pallazzo All Pro Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 1,631	[quote][i]Originally posted by YoungJetsFan[/i]@Nov 3 2004, 09:03 PM [b] The South has risen again and as far as I am concerned, They won this election for George W. Bush. [/b][/quote] YJF, I hope you're not forgetting that there's a LOT more red on the map than just the South. Kerry won the NorthEast, California, and a few Northern MidWestern states... other than that it was all Bush. After reading all of these posts I'm also reminded of someone on JI that has continually said that people who voted for Bush were uneducated. This is as asinine as half the other statements I've read. The fact of the matter is that in today's world it is very tough for a pompous, wealthy New England liberal to get elected. This is because too large a percentage of the country does not believe that candidate can relate to them. It hasn't happened since JFK (and it's questionable that he even WON that election). Look at all of the Democratic candidates that HAVE gotten elected since then... Clinton/Gore and Carter... all Southerners. The Democrats have to get it out of their minds that their elitist candidates are what the entire country admires and trusts. They need to elect someone who DOES relate to America beyond the Democratic New England boundaries. They have to remember that there is a big-ass country attached to New England. OH and one more thing... slapping a slick ambulance chaser on a ticket doesn't work either.

11-04-2004, 05:37 PM	#25
HBJETFANBOB Veteran Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Huntington Beach , CA ( The OC) Posts: 2,107	[quote][i]Originally posted by faba[/i]@Nov 4 2004, 10:16 AM [b] One of the Democrats ignorance is that they have pretty much given up on the South- to ignore a section of the country and growing population wise is not a very smart move. They need a moderate option in beliefs to make inroads there and in the West-otherwise they are going to continue to be drive Republican stranglehold on the Presidency and Congress. Do not ask me who that is at this time [/b][/quote] Yes but the Republicans have given up on the East coast and west coast, I will tell you now , California use to be REAGAN Country, not anymore , people here and in NY are liberal on social issues. What will happen is over the next 8 years when Old righties move on, young progressives in states like NM, AZ and NV along with new hispanic voters are going to turn these into blue states as well as Florida and perhaps Ohio, lets be honest it was 140,000 votes in Ohio that gave the President is supposed mandate. The divide from blue to red is just as strong on this end, progressive thinking is not dead.

11-04-2004, 05:45 PM	#26
Savage69 Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 39,240	[quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Nov 4 2004, 09:25 AM [b] The arrogance of Kerry supporters knows no bounds, even in defeat. People from the South are close-minded? Tell me, does a person with an open mind make such a crass generalization? Is it that unfathomable for you to think that people can disagree with you without being ignorant bigots? I'm from the northeast and am very well educated. I voted for Bush enthusiastically. I can appreciate why people voted aganst him. I don't think they are stupid, or evil, or bigoted or crazy. We simply disagree. Is it really that difficult for your ego to handle the possibility that you guys could be wrong? Democrats just don't get it, even after the last 10 years in which they have become marginalized at a fantastic pace. The GOP now controls Congress by almost 30 seats, and the Senate by 10, and has controlled the Presidency for 20 out of the past 28 years, and currently holds a majority of governorships. This type of broad-based support is NOT due solely to South Ignorance, no matter what spin, or fables you are hearing today from the DNC or the mainstream media. Hatred, arrogance, smugness, elitism - these have all been rejected, resoundingly and consistently. Saying that conservatives or others who disgree with you are idiots, morons, sheep, god-heads, close-minded or some other awful thing is not a winning strategy. Get over yourselves. Your party is a national joke right now. No President has ever been re-elected AND gained seats in both the house and senate. Yet, it happened. Bush won the popular vote, not just the South. 46% of NJ people voted for him - they are not southern fools. 48% of people in PA. Hell, Bush's % in MA IMPROVED over 2000. Think about it - he ran against a hometown guy and got more votes in that state than he did when he ran against a dude from Tennessee. The democratic party needs to look in the mirror. Anti-Bush people need to stop the Smarter-than-thou act. Not only has it gotten to the point where is it spectacularly embarassing to them for it's ineffectiveness, it's simply and demonstrably not true. Tuesday was a wake-up call. These last ten years have been one. Please, wake up. [/b][/quote] Excellent as usual 5ever...I agree.. ;)

11-04-2004, 06:21 PM	#27
The Troll Banned Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: The Bayou Posts: 3,215	I'm just talking about what I saw in my area from voters. My mom voted for Bush because he is a religious man, although she hasn't gone to church in ten years. I talked to a guy my age at the polls who voted for Bush because he was afraid Kerry was going to take his guns away. I talked to two girls who were voting for Bush because he was a "DILF". A friend of mine supported Bush because he said Kerry was a baby-killer and a faggot. Look, I'm just going by what I have seen. If you want to call me a bigot, then go ahead and do so. I don't care, I voted for John Kerry, you voted for the queer-hater. I don't have my finger on the pulse of the entire South, but in my area, Southwest Louisiana, those are typically the responses I got. Nothing about Iraq. Nothing about foreign policy. Just "Don't take my guns", "Don't kill babies" (Soldiers, though, is okay :rolleyes:), "Don't let Tinkerbell get married", "Kerry hates Jesus." They are misinformed opinions, and close-minded opinions, and I am bitterly dissapointed in my fellow Coonasses.

11-04-2004, 06:24 PM	#28
Come Back to NY Making lotsa $$$ off obama's stupidity... Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 31,407	[quote][i]Originally posted by The Troll[/i]@Nov 4 2004, 06:21 PM [b] I'm just talking about what I saw in my area from voters. [b]My mom voted for Bush because he is a religious man[/b], although she hasn't gone to church in ten years. I talked to a guy my age at the polls who voted for Bush because he was afraid Kerry was going to take his guns away. I talked to two girls who were voting for Bush because he was a "DILF". A friend of mine supported Bush because he said Kerry was a baby-killer and a faggot. Look, I'm just going by what I have seen. If you want to call me a bigot, then go ahead and do so. I don't care, I voted for John Kerry, you voted for the queer-hater. I don't have my finger on the pulse of the entire South, but in my area, Southwest Louisiana, those are typically the responses I got. Nothing about Iraq. Nothing about foreign policy. Just "Don't take my guns", "Don't kill babies" (Soldiers, though, is okay ), "Don't let Tinkerbell get married", "Kerry hates Jesus." They are misinformed opinions, and close-minded opinions, and I am bitterly dissapointed in my fellow Coonasses. [/b][/quote] Its' easy to see why their views/opinions are totally distant from yours!

11-04-2004, 06:32 PM	#29
HBJETFANBOB Veteran Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Huntington Beach , CA ( The OC) Posts: 2,107	[quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000+Nov 4 2004, 10:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (chiefst2000 @ Nov 4 2004, 10:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by isired@Nov 3 2004, 09:42 PM [b] <!--QuoteBegin-Come Back to NY[/i]@Nov 3 2004, 09:47 PM [b] What an idiot statement...how about the fact the "big cities" usually have the greatest percentage of welfare recipients and they feel the rats are a sure bet to secure their welfare??? [/b][/quote] true, because there's always a huge voter turnout of welfare recipients out to secure their welfare. :lol: :lol: :lol: man, there is some BS being slung around here on both sides. very entertaining. [/b][/quote] I rent apartments to those welfare recipients and believe me when I tell you that they all vote. Those people are professionals at working the system. [/b][/quote] You must charge cheap rent

11-04-2004, 06:34 PM	#30
jets5ever Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Boston Posts: 11,692	[quote][i]Originally posted by The Troll[/i]@Nov 4 2004, 06:21 PM [b] I'm just talking about what I saw in my area from voters. My mom voted for Bush because he is a religious man, although she hasn't gone to church in ten years. I talked to a guy my age at the polls who voted for Bush because he was afraid Kerry was going to take his guns away. I talked to two girls who were voting for Bush because he was a "DILF". A friend of mine supported Bush because he said Kerry was a baby-killer and a faggot. Look, I'm just going by what I have seen. If you want to call me a bigot, then go ahead and do so. I don't care, I voted for John Kerry, you voted for the queer-hater. I don't have my finger on the pulse of the entire South, but in my area, Southwest Louisiana, those are typically the responses I got. Nothing about Iraq. Nothing about foreign policy. Just "Don't take my guns", "Don't kill babies" (Soldiers, though, is okay :rolleyes:), "Don't let Tinkerbell get married", "Kerry hates Jesus." They are misinformed opinions, and close-minded opinions, and I am bitterly dissapointed in my fellow Coonasses. [/b][/quote] Kerry did not support Gay Marriage either. Bush supports civil unions, like Kerry. The only difference in their views on the subject is regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment. Bush supports, Kerry opposes. You honestly think bigotry is the only reason why people are opposed to legalizeing gay marriage? What is the difference if gay unions are called civil unions or marriage? It is not a "rights" issue. If it were, civil unions would be acceptable. Often, gay marriage proponents ask others, 'How does gay marriage affect you?!?" Fine, valid question. I ask you, what does the title of the union have to do with the rights aspect of the issue? How does calling the union by a different name affect them? Spare me the lectures about equality. Man-woman unions and man-man or woman-woman are different things. I thought we should celebrate diversity? Why is calling it marriage such a big deal to both sides? Why aren't civil unions OK? Also, if civil unions aren't OK in your book, why did you vote for Kerry? Kerry DOES want to take guns away. That is a rational fear of gun owners. People make analogously exaggerated absurd quips about Bush's positions. Kerry does support "baby-killing" even late term abortion. Abortion [i]is[/i] atrocious. Is that a "bigoted" view in your opinion? Does supporting abortion = open mindedness? You claim that others are close-minded, yet you are quick to label and dismiss ANYONE who disagrees with you. Can't you see how arrogant that is?? I don't know what a DILF is, so I can't respond to that one :D

11-05-2004, 02:37 AM	#31
The Troll Banned Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: The Bayou Posts: 3,215	I voted for John Kerry based on foreign policy. I do not agree with George Bush's decision to go into Iraq, and I do not agree with the way Afghanistan was handle. The troops that are in Iraq right now should be in Afghanistan. Is the world better off without Sadaam? Of course it is. But this wasn't the right time to go after him. Not after Osama Bin Laden had just killed 3,000 innocent people ON OUR SOIL. I know a lot of people may have voted for Bush based on his foreign policy, but I didn't. I think his foreign policy does nothing but inspire even more global hatred of an already hated country. We need allies. And Bush has done nothing but alienate. The United States and England can't alone defeat the Middle East. It just isn't going to happen. We need help from the rest of Europe, and with Bush we aren't going to get that. He also has shown no plan on changing any of his policies in Iraq, claiming that everything is going smoothly. They're going to have elections in January. Great, now when do we get the hell out of there? I don't support homosexuality. I think it is disgusting and I used to thing it was horribly wrong. But I do realize that it isn't a choice. It is no different than denying black people the right to vote. They were born that way, did they have a choice? No. It doesn't affect me if they get married. Civil union, marriage? Whatever. Do what you want, it isn't going to bother me, because they breathe, eat, and sleep just like we do. They are American citizens and in a country founded on the freedom to do what you want, I find it very hypocritical to deny them a freedom allowed to all other Americans. I know John Kerry believes in the sanctity of marriage. I watched the debates, unlike most people I know around here. They didn't know that. They went into the polls believing the John Kerry was for gays, despite what me or anyone else told them otherwise. The bigotry is still in full force down here. The deep south is so much different from other places I have been. If anyone tells you that there is no bigotry down here, that are flat-out lying. I've lived here my entire life and I see it every single day. As for abortion, my opinion is that they are neccesary. If some 12-year old girl gets raped by her father, should she be forced to carry a baby for nine months, regardless of whether she puts it up for adoption? I don't think so. If a girl gets raped, should she be forced to suffer through nine months of carrying a child? I don't think so. Say a crackhead gets pregnant? Should the child be scarred permanently, or should it be spared from suffering? I think the latter. But it is so hard to draw the line between what should be acceptable and what shouldn't. Whoever is President isn't going to change abortion. Bush has been in office for four years, and we still have abortion, and even if his Supreme Court were to over-turn Roe vs. Wade, there are still going to be abortions, legal or not. You don't want to know what a "DILF" is.

11-05-2004, 07:59 AM	#32
4th&Long All League Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: NYC Posts: 574	[quote][i]Originally posted by savage69[/i]@Nov 3 2004, 08:59 PM [b] YJF Fan..The South has been Republican since Regan..There was a time when there were Great Democrats..Men Like Zell Miller of today..FDR,HST and here's a thought on JFK who I also admired..He brought the US to the Brink of Nuclear War because of the USSR putting Missile's in Cuba.. Oh and by the way for you who love to use this Phrase..Cuba never attacked us either!! I enlisted right after that..Not to worry my Liberal friends! There are still Americans that care about America ,so you Guys will always have the right to ***** and demean the Country as you please..And there will be no Draft as Kerry lied about as he always has since he came back from his 3-4 Months in Nam and then lied about our Troops that were still in Combat..Tell me YJF exactly what plan that Kerry had did you like?? And in his 20 years in the Senate what did you admire about anything he did?? <_< [/b][/quote] Zell Miller...a great Democrat... :D

11-05-2004, 08:55 AM	#33
Bugg Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 4,530	Big problem for the Northeast and cities in general-COSTS. In the thread about gavin Newsom, Bit noted housing prices could be so high and yet we called San Francisco a dump. Simply, there's a fast-approaching tipping point, where businesses and people who earn a living decide that with broadband and telecommumincations technology, all the shows, restaurants and Bloomberg's precious Manhattan culture are going to keep those people in a place where everything costs too damn much and parasites are indulged on their dime. Simple fact-NYC and other big cities give soup to nuts arrays of social services for people that are essentially nonworking irresponsible people. Someone-ME AND YOU-have to pay for it,. And if you live in NYC like I do, you cannot in good conscience send your children to public schools, which for the most part aren't good after 5th grade. (side note-what genius decided to abandon grades k-8 schools for intermediate schools- a DUMB IDEA!). Your house,or apartment costs more; so does your food, gas, electric, and so on. No business really needs to physically be in a city. Bloomberg wants to make Manhattan a boutique city, a playground for the rich-WHICH IS INSANE in the long-term. , At some point, you make the calculation that city life is too expensive. And when that happens en masse, forget it. NYC will look like the 1970s all over again. It can and will happen if places like NYC don't get their costs and expenses under controls. Not just taxes-all costs. The Dems love this poor vs. rich dichotomy, because in theory there will always be poor than rich. But what is rich? their definition seems to include 2 working people trying to pay thier bills on $100K(a fireman and a nurse?), which isn't what any of us would call rich. When Kerry whined about healthcare, all those supposedly-rich people wre thinking was ,there goes my co-payment and my health insurance premiums , whether they're paid direct or withheld. Look, the really poor use the ER like the doctor; they use drugs, don't use cotraception, don't work, and in some cases aren't citizens at all. When Kerry talked like that, it was code to the underclasss that we're gonna get in the middle class's pockets to pay for your entitlement. And we know how that's worked with assigned risk in auto insurance-NOT AT ALL. And yet you liberals wonder why so many Americans don't want any part of your redistribtion of wealth to people who contribute nothing to this country. It's because tyou exist in a fantasyland where no one is responsible for thier actions, and anyone who works is just a mak to be soaked. I live in Brooklyn. But for how much longer, I really don't know. That so many of the people who live in NYC don't see what's happening is almost scary. Guiliani got this; whether anyone else after him does is doubtful. I see local and state governments that waste money on things like renaming streets(the most numerous acts of the NYC Council!) rather than fixing the schools and roads or cutting usesless bureaucracy. No one is going to start a business here. And if you have a business here, the cost and regulation will at some point cause you to consider relocating. You cannot keep chasing businesses and keep up this circus. Jeffersson said represeentative democracy can survive only as long as the citizenry denies itself the temptation to vote the treasury to itself. In Blue urban America, it's at that point now. So when you wonder why Red America is so solid, it's because demographically, it's getting bigger and more populous. And the future for the Democrats doesn't look any better unless they change their government in cities. And I don't see it happening. Enjoy LA, NYC, Berkley, Mass., San Francisco-it will be all you ahve

11-05-2004, 09:04 AM	#34
Jet Moses Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,281	Great post, Bugg. Another "good intentions paving the road to hell" are socialist rent controls. Placing rent control on apt's, causes the landlords to tack on subsidies to everybody else's rent, to make up the difference. Rent control also leads to an apartment shortage, leading to ever escalating rents for the honest joe who isn't gaming the system.

11-05-2004, 09:24 AM	#35
Bugg Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 4,530	Rnet control was instituted in NYC during WWII as a temporary measure. Still in effect. And it benefits more rich white Manhattan elites than it does anyone who's poor.

11-05-2004, 09:27 AM	#36
sackdance All Pro Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,882	[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Nov 4 2004, 10:09 AM [b] Hammer this is still a country divided, even in the South. [/b][/quote] Country divided? Yes. We are a country divided; divided on how we feel about the recent Republican SWEEP of the nation. As it stands, more are happy than sad about it. Face it, this election was a mandate. If I were a Democrat, I'd think more about cleaning up my yard than *****ing about the neighbors.

11-05-2004, 09:51 AM	#37
chiefst2000 Champion of Common Sense All Pro Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,820	[quote][i]Originally posted by HBJETFANBOB+Nov 4 2004, 06:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (HBJETFANBOB @ Nov 4 2004, 06:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by chiefst2000@Nov 4 2004, 10:19 AM [b] [quote]Originally posted by isired@Nov 3 2004, 09:42 PM [b] <!--QuoteBegin-Come Back to NY[/i]@Nov 3 2004, 09:47 PM [b] What an idiot statement...how about the fact the "big cities" usually have the greatest percentage of welfare recipients and they feel the rats are a sure bet to secure their welfare??? [/b][/quote] true, because there's always a huge voter turnout of welfare recipients out to secure their welfare. :lol: :lol: :lol: man, there is some BS being slung around here on both sides. very entertaining. [/b][/quote] I rent apartments to those welfare recipients and believe me when I tell you that they all vote. Those people are professionals at working the system. [/b][/quote] You must charge cheap rent [/b][/quote] The government pays their rent. They NEVER pay. And now that Section 8 rents have been reduced by 20% across the board we are no longer accepting Government tennants. No landlord will deal with those dirt bags for market rent. We have left multiple apartments vacant rather then accept those people.