Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: 48%

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,187
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dear friend:

    The Presidential election was a cliffhanger -- not the mandate claimed by Bush partisans -- decided in Republican Ohio where the Democratic bid failed by a slim margin. The Democratic ticket received 48 percent of the vote, proof of widespread dissatisfaction with Republican policies. Democrats were unable to overcome the advantages accruing to an incumbent President in time of war.

    In this closely divided nation, the victory went to the party that turned out more of its supporters. Republicans successfully energized their base by exploiting concerns about the threat of terrorists and undermining of "moral values" symbolized by gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research.

    Democratic views were widely misrepresented quietly by claims that the party would ban the Bible and limit prayer. The values issue became especially potent when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled gay marriage a basic right. Many voters associated the decision with Senator John Kerry and the Democrats.

    Progressive Democratic doctrine emphasizes the moral case for the preservation of human life through universal health care, overseas military adventures, eliminating weapons of mass destruction and ending the death penalty. This moral case was never developed in the campaign.

    For the Democratic base, the most compelling issue of the election was the Iraq war. The Howard Dean phenomenon in the primaries proved that the issue could activate Democratic voters. Unfortunately, for all their disagreements about the war, George W. Bush and John Kerry agreed that the war should be continued until won.

    While both Bush and Kerry stated during their debates that the spread of nuclear weapons is the paramount issue of our time, we were disappointed that the issue was largely ignored in the presidential and congressional elections. Council for a Livable World believes this issue is crucial and remains the most important part of our work.

    Republican gains in the Senate and House, particularly in the South where Bush did so well, will complicate our efforts. However, our case transcends politics and parties. New nuclear weapons, ending the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and a worldwide ban on nuclear explosive testing are moral issues that involve the survival of humanity. We will continue to address these concerns to those in power in the Executive Branch and the Congress, secure in our belief that we can convince them of the need to take action for the preservation of life.

    Below, you can find fundraising totals for 2004 Senate, House and Presidential races. With you help, more than $1.5 million was raised in this election cycle.

    Thank you for your support, both past and future.

    Sincerely,

    John Isaacs & Guy Stevens

  2. #2
    TomShane
    Guest
    Hang on...are you saying that Bush isn't all that popular? Get out! :lol:

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    We played fair and got 48%. They cheated and got 51%. So, really, c'mon, let us have our way or else I'm taking my ball and going home.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    Post Thanks / Like
    re-read between the lines:

    Dear friend:

    The Presidential election was a cliffhanger -- in the end is certainly was the mandate claimed by Bush partisans -- decided in Republican Ohio where the Democratic bid failed once again despite our desperate attempts at falsely claiming disenfranchisement, registering illegal voters and filing bogus lawsuits. The Democratic ticket received 48 percent of the vote, proof of widespread dissatisfaction with Democratic policies considering they got more votes than we did. Democrats were unable to overcome the leadership qualities of a republican President in time of war.

    In this closely divided nation, the victory went to the party that turned out more of its supporters. Republicans successfully energized their base by sharing positive views of the future, while running on a record of economic success.

    Democratic views were widely represented loudly by virtues that are not welcome by mainstream USA. The values issue became especially potent when American realized we don't have any.

    Progressive Democratic doctrine emphasizes the moral case for the preservation of the rainforests, sea creatures, eliminating all weapons systems that support our troops and allowing free and unfettered choice to murder innocent babies. This moral deficit of ours will never be forgotten.

    For the Democratic base, the most compelling issue of the election was the Iraq war. The Howard Dean phenomenon in the primaries proved that the issue could activate Democratic voters. Unfortunately, everyone finally realized that Howard Dean is a crackpot that could not be taken seriously, and the fact that our candidate managed to hurt himself 3 times in 4 months in Nam just proves that he couldn't lead a Troop of Boy Scouts out of Central Park.

    While both Bush and Kerry stated during their debates that the spread of nuclear weapons is the paramount issue of our time, we were disappointed that the issue was largely ignored in the presidential and congressional elections. Council for a Livable World believes this issue is crucial and remains the most important part of our work.

    Republican gains in the Senate and House, particularly in the South where Bush did so well, will complicate our efforts. However, our case transcends politics and parties. Our case roams freely through the cosmos, shared with wonder amongst the trees and flowers and all the cuddly animals. New nuclear weapons, ending the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and a worldwide ban on nuclear explosive testing are moral issues that involve the survival of humanity. We will continue to address these concerns to those in power in the Executive Branch and the Congress, secure in our belief that we can convince them of the need to take action for the preservation of life.

    Below, you can find fundraising totals for 2004 Senate, House and Presidential races. With you help, more than $1.5 million was raised in this election cycle.

    Thank you for your support, both past and future.

    Sincerely (Peace love and happiness! Hugs to all xxoo),

    John Isaacs & Guy Stevens (My life partner)

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,187
    Post Thanks / Like
    i'm not playing with you anymore~!

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Progressive Democratic doctrine [/b][/quote]

    Run like hell from the word "liberal"...it&#39;s like the pro-abortion crowd to ashamed to call themselves what they really are hence they want to be labeled "pro-choice"&#33; <_<

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bman, TS got this thing straight: Bush beat Kerry fairly easily, despite having the lowest approval ratings of any incumbent in a long time...Can things get any worse for the Democrats?

    I mean, as I said the other day, this would be tantamount to the Red Sox facing the 50 win Arizona Diamondbacks in the World Series and losing in 5 or 6 games, then saying "well, at least we were close" :wacko:

    Let&#39;s be honest, Kerry and the Dems lost this thing, more than Republicans won it. Dems are just way out of touch with large parts of America and even their base is slipping a bit---the female and jewish vote is slipping away from the Dems fairly quickly. They have major problems at this point, with no Bill Clinton or Tech frenzy in sight to bail them out (ala 1994).

    No moral victories for the Dems. In future elections, it&#39;s doubtful that any Republican candidiate will have the baggage Bush had this time around, so where does that leave the Dems?

    Also, the Dems lost some hitters the other day: Daschle; Hollings; Edwards; Gephart; Martin Frost....

    The Democrats are so lost, it is silly. Even when they try to move closer to the middle, no one buys it....Remember, this is the same party that allowed a staunch Democratic conservative to go to jail for a fairly minor infraction (Jim Traficant)*; while a felon like Henry Cisneros, handed 80 years prison time, was set free and was a key member of Kerry&#39;s campaign....I didn&#39;t even mention Robert Torrecilli&#39;s nonsense.


    *Democrats got their liberal judges to railroad Traficant and make him pay for his political leanings...Joke, however, is on all the lefties like Leahy, Dodd, Hillary, Boxer and the others, now that the Dems desperately need conservitive faces and none exist ......Not Traficant, not Fritz Hollings, not Zell Miller :huh:



    [SIZE=3][color=red][b]Free Jim Traficant, you slimey liberals[/b][/color][/SIZE] B) :lol: :D

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    Riggo, Jim Traficant was a mans man ... I cannot tell you how much I admired that guy ... he was an independant thinker and no limosine liberal was gonna tell him what to think, what to say, or how to say it

    And you are correct ... for that reason his own party crucified him

    They made him an example to other democrats ... this is what happens when you dare to become uppity

    PS. Remember how they refused to allow Gov. Casey to speak at their convention cause he was pro life?

    And they say the republicans are the zealots ... we DO NOT bar pro choice republicans from airing their views in the GOP ... they speak at our conventions like everyone else {i.e. Guliani, Arnold, etc.}

    It&#39;s the dems who are rigged and exclusionary ... not the republicans

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]And they say the republicans are the zealots ... we DO NOT bar pro choice republicans from airing their views in the GOP ... they speak at our conventions like everyone else {i.e. Guliani, Arnold, etc.}
    [/b][/quote]

    Are you so naive that you can&#39;t see the reasons why they did that? They do not represent the mainstream Republicans, they do not represent most of the Republicans here. It is the same reason why Zel Miller spoke for Clinton at the DNC convention. Trying to appeal to the other-side. Also they don&#39;t want to show their true face.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Nov 5 2004, 03:59 PM
    [b] [quote][b]And they say the republicans are the zealots ... we DO NOT bar pro choice republicans from airing their views in the GOP ... they speak at our conventions like everyone else {i.e. Guliani, Arnold, etc.}
    [/b][/quote]

    Are you so naive that you can&#39;t see the reasons why they did that? They do not represent the mainstream Republicans, they do not represent most of the Republicans here. It is the same reason why Zel Miller spoke for Clinton at the DNC convention. Trying to appeal to the other-side. Also they don&#39;t want to show their true face. [/b][/quote]
    Arnold and Guiliani represent me perfectly.

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000+Nov 5 2004, 06:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (chiefst2000 @ Nov 5 2004, 06:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Section109Row15[/i]@Nov 5 2004, 03:59 PM
    [b] [quote][b]And they say the republicans are the zealots ... we DO NOT bar pro choice republicans from airing their views in the GOP ... they speak at our conventions like everyone else {i.e. Guliani, Arnold, etc.}
    [/b][/quote]

    Are you so naive that you can&#39;t see the reasons why they did that? They do not represent the mainstream Republicans, they do not represent most of the Republicans here. It is the same reason why Zel Miller spoke for Clinton at the DNC convention. Trying to appeal to the other-side. Also they don&#39;t want to show their true face. [/b][/quote]
    Arnold and Guiliani represent me perfectly. [/b][/quote]
    True, I know you are pro-choice, but most Republicans are not.

    Are you pro-homo too?

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15+Nov 5 2004, 04:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Section109Row15 @ Nov 5 2004, 04:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by chiefst2000@Nov 5 2004, 06:04 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin-Section109Row15[/i]@Nov 5 2004, 03:59 PM
    [b] [quote][b]And they say the republicans are the zealots ... we DO NOT bar pro choice republicans from airing their views in the GOP ... they speak at our conventions like everyone else {i.e. Guliani, Arnold, etc.}
    [/b][/quote]

    Are you so naive that you can&#39;t see the reasons why they did that? They do not represent the mainstream Republicans, they do not represent most of the Republicans here. It is the same reason why Zel Miller spoke for Clinton at the DNC convention. Trying to appeal to the other-side. Also they don&#39;t want to show their true face. [/b][/quote]
    Arnold and Guiliani represent me perfectly. [/b][/quote]
    True, I know you are pro-choice, but most Republicans are not.

    Are you pro-homo too? [/b][/quote]
    I wouldn&#39;t say I&#39;m pro-homo. I&#39;m ok with civil unions though. It&#39;s not really a big deal to me either way.

  13. #13
    flushingjet
    Guest
    the republicans now have a broader spectrum of appeal, with Rockefeller / RINOS becoming scarcer while democrats are left and lefter....this is a good summary

    [url=http://www.fact-index.com/u/un/united_states_republican_party.html]http://www.fact-index.com/u/un/united_stat...ican_party.html[/url]

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    [b]Flushing[/b] you&#39;re correct. [b]Hammer[/b] alluded to the same thing and he&#39;s 100% correct.

    Reading [b]Section109&#39;s[/b] stuff, I can tell a Jim Traficant would be someone he might embrace. Traficant is more in that Reform Party, America first mold, who always had very broad appeal. He was a D-1 football player at Pitt and he never stoped backing Americans first....However, the extreme left (one worlders) have totally hi-jacked the party and turned it into a party that can only win and east-west coast (barely win), so Traficant was railroaded and ousted.

    A great example of the Dem&#39;s intolerence was shown in Southern California recently. With a ton of cons mad at long-time RINO [color=pink][b]David Drier[/b][/color] over border/illegal aliens, a lesbian woman named Cynthnia Mattews (Rosie O&#39;Donnell look a like) decided to run a platform of stopping illegal immigration....

    Matthews was totally shunned by the "tolerant" Democrats. She came closer than any other Democrat in 24 years to toppling [color=pink][b]David Drier[/b][/color]. Had her party backed her, she may&#39;ve won....Enforcing our laws, it seems, is too much for the Feinstein&#39;s, Boxer&#39;s and other lunatics out west, so Matthews was hung out to dry and disgraced by her own party. I guess they&#39;d rather lose a house seat, then move a small shade closer to the middle :rolleyes:


    P.S: Anyone who doesn&#39;t believe how intolerent the Democraps are, should check out why conservative Dem Traficant is in jail for a minor offense (having staffers paint his boat on gov&#39;t time), while a monster like Henry Cisneros is free, despite being handed a 80 year prison term (not 1 day served) for a major federal crime (diverting huge amounts of HUD money to a hooker) :o :huh:


    [SIZE=3][color=red][b]Free Jim Traficant, you slimey liberals[/b][/color][/SIZE] B) :lol: :D

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    48% analysis:

    26% Michael Morons
    21% Partisan hacks
    1% Misguided fools

    :lol:

  16. #16
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    91
    Post Thanks / Like
    As the Write in votes are still being counted the new count at this time is 52 Bush and 47 Kerry. It is known that if Kerry didn&#39;t get the help of the left media Bush would have beat Kerry by at least 15 points.

  17. #17
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Nov 5 2004, 01:22 PM
    [b] The Democratic ticket received 48 percent of the vote [/b][/quote]
    As of this afternoon, has been revised to 47%

  18. #18
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Reading Section109&#39;s stuff, I can tell a Jim Traficant would be someone he might embrace. Traficant is more in that Reform Party, America first mold, who always had very broad appeal. He was a D-1 football player at Pitt and he never stoped backing Americans first....However, the extreme left (one worlders) have totally hi-jacked the party and turned it into a party that can only win and east-west coast (barely win), so Traficant was railroaded and ousted.
    [/b][/quote]

    Its funny I say a few things about needing to do something about immigration and illegal aliens and you annoint me as a moderate Democrat, yet the rest of the conservatives call me a crazy, left-wing looney liberal who hates America.

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Its funny I say a few things about needing to do something about immigration and illegal aliens and you annoint me as a moderate Democrat, yet the rest of the conservatives call me a crazy, left-wing looney liberal who hates America.[/b][/quote]

    Section, while I like some of your ideas on illegal immigration, that&#39;s not my whole basis for me thinking you&#39;re not a "looney lefty, as others do....

    Actually, reading you&#39;re posts, you come off as a Pat Buchanan type-isolationist to me-- against the nation building in the middle-east for the sake of protecting Isreal; for stonger borders in the U.S; you obviously favor the rights of American workers over the insatiable needs of corporations, ect.

    I don&#39;t see a radical lefty in my book. You may actually be more of a Reform Party populist type, who could swing more to the right in the future....

    Look, I&#39;m a registered Republican, who considers himself an Indendent Conservative. I think the spats you get in that taint you as a "looney lib" by some card carrying Rep&#39;s has to do with your ideas on Iraq. To me, that doesn&#39;t define you politically.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Riggins44[/i]@Nov 6 2004, 02:20 AM
    [b] [quote][b]Its funny I say a few things about needing to do something about immigration and illegal aliens and you annoint me as a moderate Democrat, yet the rest of the conservatives call me a crazy, left-wing looney liberal who hates America.[/b][/quote]

    Section, while I like some of your ideas on illegal immigration, that&#39;s not my whole basis for me thinking you&#39;re not a "looney lefty, as others do....

    Actually, reading you&#39;re posts, you come off as a Pat Buchanan type-isolationist to me-- against the nation building in the middle-east for the sake of protecting Isreal; for stonger borders in the U.S; you obviously favor the rights of American workers over the insatiable needs of corporations, ect.

    I don&#39;t see a radical lefty in my book. You may actually be more of a Reform Party populist type, who could swing more to the right in the future....

    Look, I&#39;m a registered Republican, who considers himself an Indendent Conservative. I think the spats you get in that taint you as a "looney lib" by some card carrying Rep&#39;s has to do with your ideas on Iraq. To me, that doesn&#39;t define you politically. [/b][/quote]
    I agree, though Sec reminds me more of a traditional blue collar democrat ... later they became Regan democrats ... and later still they took the full plunge and just became republicans, as they came to realize the democratic party had been hijacked by left-wing elites

    So to echo Riggo, I too believe there is still hope for Sec :D

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us