(Whoa. That'll teach me to take an afternoon nap. Mark, I am going to respond here as best as I can because it seems like the right place, not because it is where -- a tip of the hat to Brad and Webroach -- I agree or disagree....)

My apologies in advance to whoever (whomever?) I may misquote!

Quote:
He said it was an attempt at humor and apologized.

I did not respond to Brad's "not" post in great part because I thought there might be a jimhogan-esque bit of Onion-ish (We're not worthy!) provocathumor in it.

webroach quote: I fully understand that about half of the voting country doesn't agree with my views. I have no trouble accepting that. Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, even implied that anyone was tricked into voting for Bush.

Quote:
Jim did. Brad was responding to both of you in his post.

I won't argue with this. Tricked? Not sure. Deluded themselves into thinking that they were voting to achieve a particular aim when the practical purposes of their candidate were something quite different? Is this being tricked?

Webroach Quote: What I do have trouble accepting is your assertion that the "values that drove the vote ARE America". By this you imply that I am NOT America, because I disagree with the values that drove the vote. Not only me, but over 50 million others as well. Because I don't go to church and pray does not mean that I am not "America", whatever that may mean to you. This country is not only for those of you who believe in God, or in denying certain lifestyles legitimacy, or that stem cell research is immoral, or in whatever. It is for all of us.

I am with webroach on this, bigtime.

Quote:
Ok, so Bush voters are stupid rednecks, and Kerry voters are "not America" I think you're reading into it a bit too much.

Please note that *NEVER*, in any of my posts did I use the term "STUPID REDNECKS*.

webroach quote:
I have no anger to get out on this, and I think it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that none of us can handle the fact that the person we voted for lost in an adult way.

Quote:
Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are suosed to accomplish what, exactly?

My assertion that "You've been had" was intended to provoke Bush voters (and I know there are some of you out there!) to consider the possibility that they *have* been had. I tried my best to put enough anti-Bush sentiment in the subject line so that Bush voters who are already certain that they have *not* been had could simply skip this thread.

"Jesusland"? I *know* with great certainty that there are one of two agnostics who voted for GWB on Tuesday just because they wanted to keep the US of A safe from terrorists. OK, so maybe they are not the brightest agnostics out there but, hey, we all get to vote, right?

As with the Jesusland map, my use of the term "Jesusland" is a device. I will keep using it from time to time though, until events convince me that it is not a legitimate device. What are your views on Armageddon?

webroach Quote: I am perfectly happy that half the country are getting what they wanted. I just think it's a bit unfortunate that many people (it would seem you included) don't seem to understand that although the other (nearly) half of the country are not getting what they want, they are still part of the country and deserve to have their voices heard just as much as those of you who voted for Bush. There seems to be this culture of "our guy won so we're right" growing, and that's very disturbing to me. I don't think anyone is right or wrong here; they just see things differently. But do I not deserve to have the same freedoms as any of the people who did vote for Bush?

I am with webroach, I think, on this. Post-Tuesday, as in post-2000, I detect a certain convenient "Get over it!' sentiment that seems to imply that we are not reasonable people if we *don't* get over it. Well, I gotta say: I am completely with the French on this. I ain't getting over it until there is a Jim-loving, limp-wristed, beaujolais-sipping, Medicare-loving, SNCF-riding, Healthcare-for-all independent (or Green?) man or woman in the Oval Office.

Quote:
Brad did not start this thread, he just responded. I cannot remember any post on this BBS that started out with "Kerry must lose!", but I can remember quite a few "Throw Bush out" posts.

This, I think, is one of the joys of incumbency.

webroach Quote:
I don't agree with the media taking pot shots at Bush any more than you do. Nor did I agree with the way ANYONE ran their political campain. But to make the assumption that people agree with the media's comments just because they voted for Kerry (or Nader or whoever) is as unfair as someone accusing you of agreeing with whatever David Duke says just because you're both Christian.

Quote:
I don't think it's a stretch to link some media comments with Jim's post, especially since he made most of those points in his post.

What comments did the media make that I made? If you can point these out, I will consider retracting them!

Seriously. I get nervous anytime my views start to mirror what is presented by our "independent" media here, and if you think that what I have to say is nothing more than recycled material from Fox News, NPR or CNN, please call me out on the particulars. Yes, I even get nervous about their assessment of 2.5-issue "moral issue" exit-poll respondents. Of course, I have to figure out *some* fucking reason that > 50% of voters would choose an ignorant, incompetent liar, so just cut me some slack while I consider that question.

webroach Quote:
I think, really, that the problem some of us have is that we're neither Democrat nor Republican. I have no political affiliation; I just want to live in a country where everybody has a say, and everybody has the same rights as everyone else. I know that may be a bit of an idealistic pipe-dream, but hey, it's my idealistic pipe-dream. I, personally, find partisan politics to be prehistoric, and I think their time has past. But hey, what do I know? I voted for the loser, right?

Heh. Idealist.

Hey, I've got this line on a furnished apartment in Puerto Vallarta that you might be interested in!

Quote:
I registered to vote with no party affiliation. I vote on the issues and on who I believe will get the job done. I don't think these debates are about a political party as much as a point of view. Ask anyone who contributes and I bet they will not say they voted for their candidate because "They were a Republican/Democrat", but because their views matched theirs closer than the other candidate.

I consider myself an independent simply because no major party has managed to represent my point of view in any credible way. Maybe I should go check out the Green party to see if they do. They could probably use the help!

What I do know is that the neocons of GWB '04 were so far away from what I consider American democratic values that I found myself compelled to vote for a lesser-of-two-evils candidate. Will the situation be any better in '08? I am not optimistic. Informed citizens who listen to Rush Limbaugh think my choices will be John McCain or Hillary Clinton. What joy there?