definitely a disappointing day for many in the US and abroad. where should i spend the next four years?
Jon Beck says:
Nov 4, 2004
Well Nils, given your point of view I’d like to cheer you up by saying that there is no better place to survive the end of the world than Kyoto. I think Japan should be safe.
Good Luck!
Lexy says:
Nov 4, 2004
Come oonnn…the stock market is already skyrocketing, gas is cheaper….jeez o petes. Liberals don’t realize it but this is good for them.
Unfortunately, even when the show’s jumped the shark, it looks like it will continue to play endless reruns in syndication.
Leonard says:
Nov 4, 2004
What kind of cheese do you eat with your whine? For once Kerry did the right thing by admitting he had lost. He should have known the American people are smarter and pay more attention to moral values (the number one vote getter this election) than those who elected Clinton in 1992.
US Vet for Kerry says:
Nov 4, 2004
We are committed to war, no weapons have been found, the economy is still floundering, gas prices are still ridiculous, Bin Laden is still threatening us, and what is middle America’s main concern?
Moral Values…
It isn’t suprising that Bush won the reelection when you consider the fact that in several states people were given the opportunity to vote on gay marriage on the same ballot. The backlash gay marriage created among conservative voters played a giant role in getting evangelical Christians to the polls, particularly in the battleground state of Ohio.
leonard says:
Nov 5, 2004
And it seemed to do a better job of it than Michael Moore, Springsteen, Sharon Stone, . . . .! This is really encouraging.
Lexy says:
Nov 5, 2004
People didn’t vote Republican just cos of the gay marriage thing, it’s the entire conservative belief set. Also, I think far more people voted for Bush because they trust him to do the correct thing regarding the war, rather than voted for him just because of conservative morals (although for me it’s the entire package). Also, it’s not just Evangelical christians who voted to ban gay marriage. I know plenty of people who have no religious beliefs but strongly supported the proposal in my state to ban it.
suguru says:
Nov 5, 2004
Winston Churchill said “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” This is especially true in the US, where most voters have the attention span of a 5-year old and get their news in sound bites. It’ll be amusing to see how Bush has to clean up the mess he made with the deficit and Iraq for the next four years…I just hope the next war he starts he sends his daughters to the front line, maybe then he’d weigh his options more carefully.
Been to Wichita Falls says:
Nov 6, 2004
You go to MSU, isn’t that right next to Wichita Falls? That has got to be one of the most desolate, backwards places I ever had the misfortune to be stuck in for six weeks. I invite you to come live here in New York City for a year and take a break from the American Taliban for a bit. You will have an entirely new (liberal) outlook on the world, trust me.
It’s still breathtaking to look at the electoral vote map and see how polarized the country is, and see that now all the welfare states in the Bible belt are firmly in charge. I come from a Republican background, and have voted for Republicans in the past, so I have no problem with someone being conservative or Republican, but this administration’s bizarre agenda is just plain un-American and should be stopped.
Lexy, does “conservative belief set” mean “irresponsible deficit spending.” I graduated from college with a terrible Reaganomics hangover, although I hadn’t been to the party. Sometime in the past 10 years, Reagan’s image was repainted as some kind of Republican Party hero, and in 2000 his name was a kind of rallying cry of conservative values. I was stunned. Now I am stunned again, that a president with a first term of staggering failure could be reelected.
Clinton’s budgets repaired the deficit and started paying down the debt, but he is derided at the Ozark Casanova. Now Bush is outdoing even Reagan, impossible as that may have seemed. What is conservative about running up the biggest deficit ever, after inheriting a surplus (!), and cutting taxes as well? Why not just eliminate taxes altogether and just print more money? Heaping debt on your children is conservative?? That is not what conservatives used to stand for, and it’s wrong.
Also, I think far more people voted for Bush because they trust him to do the correct thing regarding the war…
Which correct thing is that? Invade a country without provocation that had almost nothing to do with international terrorism and kill tens of thousands more innocent people than Bin Laden did on 9/11? That is a completely un-American, tyrannical thing to do, and it stands as America’s great shame of the Twenty-First Century, a stain across all of us who call ourselves Americans, and it will not be soon washed away.
This war is already lost, this illegitemate puppet government won’t stand, just like they didn’t in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Vietnam, etc., and America is already paying a dear price in blood, prestige and money.
Lexy says:
Nov 7, 2004
Actually, I go to Michigan state University, not whatever school you are talking about, and live in a very populated and active atmosphere. Michigan has gone Democrat ever since Reagan, so it’s a pretty liberal state, especially the Detroit area which is where I live. And no thanks, I’d rather barf than live anywhere near one of the super liberal coasts!! :)
Leonard says:
Nov 9, 2004
nils: it’s too bad you’ve been out of touch with the United States all these years. Like most ex-pat bloggers, you’ve bought into the prevailing philosophy of the blog-community. It’s a counter-culture community so it’s naturally counter-the-culture.
Clinton did not cure the economy. He encouraged the go-go, do-anything-at-any price economy that gave us Enron and the energy crisis. The bubble burst before the 2000 election blowing the world economy into a tailspin. Remember, Bush inherited the Clinton-Gore recession (as well as the Clinton intelligence apparatus that missed Osams’s plot) Only Bush’s tax-breaks and economic program pulled the economy out of that tailspin.
suguru says:
Nov 10, 2004
If you believe the Democrats, Bush is solely responsible for the recession–if you believe the Republicans, Bush’s tax cuts saved the economy from the “Clinton-Gore” recession, thank Jesus. Ask any economist who isn’t on either party’s payroll, though, and they’ll just shake their heads at both arguments–reality isn’t that simple.
Contrary to both parties’ rhetoric, the economy doesn’t snap to attention and do whatever the president tells it to do–but most economists have said a tax cut targeted at the lower and middle classes (which spend a much higher percentage of tax savings than the upper class) would have done a lot more to stimulate the economy and pull it out of recession than Bush’s tax cuts. Granted, doing something was better than the alternative (doing nothing), but given that he could have done better and that the deficit is rapidly turning into a chasm, I find it hard to view Bush as anything but incompetent when it comes to the economy. I think The Economist had the best headline on the election–it was “The Incompetent vs. The Incoherent”…you can guess who was who…
0 comments
gleek says:
Nov 4, 2004
definitely a disappointing day for many in the US and abroad. where should i spend the next four years?
Jon Beck says:
Nov 4, 2004
Well Nils, given your point of view I’d like to cheer you up by saying that there is no better place to survive the end of the world than Kyoto. I think Japan should be safe.
Good Luck!
Lexy says:
Nov 4, 2004
Come oonnn…the stock market is already skyrocketing, gas is cheaper….jeez o petes. Liberals don’t realize it but this is good for them.
Rick says:
Nov 4, 2004
Bush again. Ridiculous, awful. Simply nuts. Sadly, not surprising.
But true, it would be nice witness the End here in Kyoto.
M Sinclair Stevens says:
Nov 4, 2004
Unfortunately, even when the show’s jumped the shark, it looks like it will continue to play endless reruns in syndication.
Leonard says:
Nov 4, 2004
What kind of cheese do you eat with your whine? For once Kerry did the right thing by admitting he had lost. He should have known the American people are smarter and pay more attention to moral values (the number one vote getter this election) than those who elected Clinton in 1992.
US Vet for Kerry says:
Nov 4, 2004
We are committed to war, no weapons have been found, the economy is still floundering, gas prices are still ridiculous, Bin Laden is still threatening us, and what is middle America’s main concern?
Gays.
Brilliant. You guys never cease to amaze me.
Eric says:
Nov 4, 2004
Moral Values…
It isn’t suprising that Bush won the reelection when you consider the fact that in several states people were given the opportunity to vote on gay marriage on the same ballot. The backlash gay marriage created among conservative voters played a giant role in getting evangelical Christians to the polls, particularly in the battleground state of Ohio.
leonard says:
Nov 5, 2004
And it seemed to do a better job of it than Michael Moore, Springsteen, Sharon Stone, . . . .! This is really encouraging.
Lexy says:
Nov 5, 2004
People didn’t vote Republican just cos of the gay marriage thing, it’s the entire conservative belief set. Also, I think far more people voted for Bush because they trust him to do the correct thing regarding the war, rather than voted for him just because of conservative morals (although for me it’s the entire package). Also, it’s not just Evangelical christians who voted to ban gay marriage. I know plenty of people who have no religious beliefs but strongly supported the proposal in my state to ban it.
suguru says:
Nov 5, 2004
Winston Churchill said “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” This is especially true in the US, where most voters have the attention span of a 5-year old and get their news in sound bites. It’ll be amusing to see how Bush has to clean up the mess he made with the deficit and Iraq for the next four years…I just hope the next war he starts he sends his daughters to the front line, maybe then he’d weigh his options more carefully.
Been to Wichita Falls says:
Nov 6, 2004
You go to MSU, isn’t that right next to Wichita Falls? That has got to be one of the most desolate, backwards places I ever had the misfortune to be stuck in for six weeks. I invite you to come live here in New York City for a year and take a break from the American Taliban for a bit. You will have an entirely new (liberal) outlook on the world, trust me.
nils says:
Nov 7, 2004
It’s still breathtaking to look at the electoral vote map and see how polarized the country is, and see that now all the welfare states in the Bible belt are firmly in charge. I come from a Republican background, and have voted for Republicans in the past, so I have no problem with someone being conservative or Republican, but this administration’s bizarre agenda is just plain un-American and should be stopped.
Lexy, does “conservative belief set” mean “irresponsible deficit spending.” I graduated from college with a terrible Reaganomics hangover, although I hadn’t been to the party. Sometime in the past 10 years, Reagan’s image was repainted as some kind of Republican Party hero, and in 2000 his name was a kind of rallying cry of conservative values. I was stunned. Now I am stunned again, that a president with a first term of staggering failure could be reelected.
Clinton’s budgets repaired the deficit and started paying down the debt, but he is derided at the Ozark Casanova. Now Bush is outdoing even Reagan, impossible as that may have seemed. What is conservative about running up the biggest deficit ever, after inheriting a surplus (!), and cutting taxes as well? Why not just eliminate taxes altogether and just print more money? Heaping debt on your children is conservative?? That is not what conservatives used to stand for, and it’s wrong.
Also, I think far more people voted for Bush because they trust him to do the correct thing regarding the war…
Which correct thing is that? Invade a country without provocation that had almost nothing to do with international terrorism and kill tens of thousands more innocent people than Bin Laden did on 9/11? That is a completely un-American, tyrannical thing to do, and it stands as America’s great shame of the Twenty-First Century, a stain across all of us who call ourselves Americans, and it will not be soon washed away.
This war is already lost, this illegitemate puppet government won’t stand, just like they didn’t in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Vietnam, etc., and America is already paying a dear price in blood, prestige and money.
Lexy says:
Nov 7, 2004
Actually, I go to Michigan state University, not whatever school you are talking about, and live in a very populated and active atmosphere. Michigan has gone Democrat ever since Reagan, so it’s a pretty liberal state, especially the Detroit area which is where I live. And no thanks, I’d rather barf than live anywhere near one of the super liberal coasts!! :)
Leonard says:
Nov 9, 2004
nils: it’s too bad you’ve been out of touch with the United States all these years. Like most ex-pat bloggers, you’ve bought into the prevailing philosophy of the blog-community. It’s a counter-culture community so it’s naturally counter-the-culture.
Clinton did not cure the economy. He encouraged the go-go, do-anything-at-any price economy that gave us Enron and the energy crisis. The bubble burst before the 2000 election blowing the world economy into a tailspin. Remember, Bush inherited the Clinton-Gore recession (as well as the Clinton intelligence apparatus that missed Osams’s plot) Only Bush’s tax-breaks and economic program pulled the economy out of that tailspin.
suguru says:
Nov 10, 2004
If you believe the Democrats, Bush is solely responsible for the recession–if you believe the Republicans, Bush’s tax cuts saved the economy from the “Clinton-Gore” recession, thank Jesus. Ask any economist who isn’t on either party’s payroll, though, and they’ll just shake their heads at both arguments–reality isn’t that simple.
Contrary to both parties’ rhetoric, the economy doesn’t snap to attention and do whatever the president tells it to do–but most economists have said a tax cut targeted at the lower and middle classes (which spend a much higher percentage of tax savings than the upper class) would have done a lot more to stimulate the economy and pull it out of recession than Bush’s tax cuts. Granted, doing something was better than the alternative (doing nothing), but given that he could have done better and that the deficit is rapidly turning into a chasm, I find it hard to view Bush as anything but incompetent when it comes to the economy. I think The Economist had the best headline on the election–it was “The Incompetent vs. The Incoherent”…you can guess who was who…