Election 2004

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
I think competition is good and promotes strength. It forces people and ideas to adapt, compromise, and define themselves. It leads to a dynamic marketplace of ideas and prevents slouching into regression.

A valid Democratic Party is necessary. They must stop distancing themselves from the American mainstream. The conservative shift in America over the past 25 years is a reality that they must come to terms with. Otherwise, they're going to make themselves irrelevant. This would not be good. I am a solid conservative, but I don't believe in one-party rule... that could be dangerous. I am not trying to be patronizing; it's a serious comtemplation of where things look to be heading.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
58,555
12,865
136
I have only one thing to say:
Middle America IS stupid, and it's got nothing to do with education levels. They're just stupid. I live in Middle America, and see it every day. I can't wait to move.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,531
2
81
CW, I didn't read every single reply here, but let me sum up my thoughts on your little fairy tale in a few sentences.

The Democrats are the elitists? "Some people call you the elite.....I call you my base" - You tell me, did Kerry say that or did Bush say that?

They key here is something you said, though you fail to realize it's significance.

"The overriding factor comes down to a very simple concept: morals and attitude."

The fact that small-town America, which is where nearly all of Bush's votes come from, votes this way should be highly disturbing. Forget the facts. Forget the record. Forget the war. Forget the failures. Forget the rest of the world. Forget the rest of the administration.

You can throw out all of the other spew you wrote, and please don't try to disguise it as an aide to the left.

I'm not saying that there aren't people who voted for Bush on issues - and I'm not going to argue the pros and cons of those - it's been done a thousand times here and elsewhere....but if the exit polls are telling the truth, issues weren't the biggest factor for people that voted for Bush - and that should scare all of us.
 

Spamela

Diamond Member
Oct 30, 2000
3,859
0
76
They must stop distancing themselves from the American mainstream
you'd have an argument if 49% of voters didn't reject Bush.
IMHO, 49% overlaps the mainstream substantially.
 

Excelsior

Lifer
May 30, 2002
19,048
18
81
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Originally posted by: alchemize
Excellent post Jerome.

Didn't take long for some to come represent exactly what you say.

The era of Michael Moore is over, They've been exposed as frauds. The past, present, and future of America is not going to be determined by those who screech longest and loudest. Arnold is the future democrat, if they would only recognize it.

If Arnold is the future of Democrats in general than that does not bode well considering how things are going. Remember he is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. You can't have it both ways if you want to win the South.

Like he could do much worse than Kerry? He didn't a win a single state.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
NeoV: I'm not saying "The Democrats are elitists." I'm saying that there's a faction with the party that I call the arrogant elites, and they are damaging the Dems chances at being more successful. I don't expect most here to accept this... it's up to the majority of moderates.

I know many Democrats, and many are just like the people the elitists disparage over and over. This is why there are more registered Democrats in this country, but many vote Republican at the national levels. Look at the state of Ohio: If every Democrat voted for their ticket in that state, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to a Republican to win. The fact is the Dems are losing their own because of that vocal minority that's hateful. arrogant, and hopelessly out of touch with the mainstream. It's a hard pill to swallow.

This isn't a disguise as an aid to the Left.... it's a wary observation of one-party rule.
 

SnowyEnigma

Senior member
May 21, 2003
399
0
0
The most intriguing thing I found was the referendum found on the ballot of most swing states. What kind of people would turn out to defend the "moral" values of the US? These people are the conservatives, in spit of lost jobs or disintegrating social skills, who vote against gay marriage in great masses. I'm very surprised the dems did not see that coming, otherwise the presidency would be Kerry?s.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Robor, you do not understand the issues, much less the Republican Party or me.

Morality isn't same sex marriage or abortion. Morality is a code of values to guide our actions, and it affects ALL issues. You can try and take apart morality from something like economy or foreign policy, but it doesn't work. It's a lesson you and many others have yet to understand. Morality comes first... it's the core issue from which all others are derived. Most mainstream people intuitively understand this.

As long as you think simple thoughts like morality is religion, and morality doesn't actually effect people's lives and is unimportant, you will not understand what I am saying.


Conservatives have done an excellent job marketing the Republican party as the morals based party and the Democrats as having few to no morals. I do not agree that Dems have no morals, but I think that the marketing job has been successful to date.

The implications are clear in this election, even if you don't agree with the actions that one takes based on those morals, you can understand where the underlying priciple comes from and possibly even identify with it.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Guys, there are two things worth noting here.

Point #1: No matter how much patronizing "moral fiber" posts you make, the facts simply don't support your conclusion. 48% of the country must be ok with the Democratic party, or at least they like it better than the alternative. That percentage has been MUCH lower in past presidential elections, for both Republican and Democrat candidates, and both parties have come back strong. You can say the country is moving away from Democratic positions...show me some evidence of that! The fact that Bush won by a margin that was historically quite small (look it up) would not seem to indicate that the Democrats are doomed. If you can find me some FACTS to support that, go ahead.

Point #2: Parties adapt when necessary to better represent the views of their populations. Remember, the idea is the politicians are supposed to support us, not the other way around. If it looks like that needs to be done, and like I said, I see no evidence of that, I'm confident the Democrats can figure it out, all on their own. Just like you Republicans have. I actually remember when you guys didn't pander to the religious right, why do you think I don't consider myself a Republican any more?

I'm sure this will be followed up with some truly pseudo-intellectual, truly patronizing posts talking about how Democrats have lost touch with the moral fiber of this country and will die because of it. Good concept, now prove it. If it's THAT obvious, let's see some proof. Bush won the election? Good for him, SOMEONE had to win, does the other party die every time they lose an election. Seriously, show me some proof and I'll be happy to agree with you. But you have nothing supportable. This is a tech message board, and you guys sound like televangalists. I'm a scientist, show me some science and I'll admit I was wrong.

Honestly, you guys won, congrats. But you're acting like this is the first time anyone has won or lost anything. Enjoy it while it lasts, it's not going to last forever. It never does.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Rainsford, this is not a scientific experiment, it's an analysis of trends. The US has been moving more conservative for at least 25 years, and the latest election fits this pattern. All I'm saying is nothing shows me this decline of the Left will change anytime soon. The arrogant elitists turn off the mainstream, and will only make things worse. The more hateful, arrogant, and insulting they become the more it will isolate them. The more they call out fascists, racists, religious bigots, and stupids to middle America and tens of millions of decent, hardworking people, the less support they will get. It doesn't take a brainsurgeon to see that you won't make many converts by trashing their very being and values.

A lot of people -you included- might think that the Dems will make a comeback based on some economic issue or abortion issue or something like that. This will not happen. The Dems will start to come back when they more closely reflect the morals and attitude of the mainstream. It's a mistake to think that some "detail" will somehow stop the long-term shift to conservatism. It will take a structural change over a period of time. America's basic sense of life, attitude, and outlook on man and the universe is profoundly different from the arrogant elites. The Dems will continue to slide until they reform.
 

illustri

Golden Member
Mar 14, 2001
1,490
0
0
cwjerome, you've been pretty won over by the campaign that you continue with the stumps even after the election. Your premise of the decline of liberalism is supported by little more your opinion; does it take into no account how in the past 25 years (as you mentioned) theres been 12 years of democratic presidency? You mention an "analysis of trends" without any actual analysis as if merely writing the words would justifiy your point. You accuse liberals of labeling their opposition with insulting epithets as if conservative voices have all been polite. You yoursesf are guilty yourself by calling them "arrogant elitist." The problem I've always had in discussion with you is how you presuppose the obviousness of your words without offering explanation.
 

stateofbeasley

Senior member
Jan 26, 2004
519
0
0
Why are you so angry? Every post I read of yours feels like you are yelling at people like me. I could say exactly the same thing about people who keep quoting me the Bible and saying that its facts, that's the way it is, and that I'm wrong wrong wrong because I don't subscribe to their beliefs.

That's hateful, arrogant, and insulting in my book.

Originally posted by: cwjerome
The more hateful, arrogant, and insulting they become the more it will isolate them. The more they call out fascists, racists, religious bigots, and stupids to middle America and tens of millions of decent, hardworking people, the less support they will get. It doesn't take a brainsurgeon to see that you won't make many converts by trashing their very being and values.

 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Illustri, you are basically right that I am mainly giving my "conclusion", and not the full analysis. If this were a research paper I would have it all. Instead, it's an internet forum... so it's more editorial.... just like everything is here. Don't be offended because I sound confident. I'm the first to admit it's just how I see things (along with many others), and throwing out some food for thought.

When I say the last 25 years, I'm talking about since 1980.

I'm not saying nobody should call anyone a name... I'm saying the attitudes of the "arrogant elitists" offend the sensibilities of mainstream America. If I call a white-supremacist an idiot racist, is that bad? As always, there's a context: mine is that some people are isolating themselves by their hateful arrogance. If you think my point so far has been there shouldn't be name-calling, you may have missed my point.
 

illustri

Golden Member
Mar 14, 2001
1,490
0
0
cwjerome, one of your points was the ineffectuality of liberals in their name calling which I agree with you, partly. But when you say theres no fault in calling a duck a duck, I contend that theres likewise none in calling out fascists, racists, religious bigots, and stupids when you see them. 1980 was during the Carter administration, which though many would argue was an unpopular one, still negates your point that theres been much of a trend in the politics of America. I'll also add that its ironic that you wave the banner of inclusion, while all the time characterizing an opposing group as hateful arrogants.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Illustri, you are basically right that I am mainly giving my "conclusion", and not the full analysis.

Cwjerome does not feel he should have support his statements with arguments or facts. Call him on it and you will get a variety of excuses: you're too stupid; it's obvious; this is just food for thought.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume cwjerome can't support his conclusions. Even IF somewhere there is support for his arguments, he's shown he's not interested in sharing them. In essence, communicating with him is absolutely useless.

:thumbsdown:
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I'm sorry, I was referring to the equal sums of $74.6 million both received for the general election, and in return they couldn't raise or spend private funds after accepting their party's nomination.

I will concede that $23 million raised is more, but not "a hell of a lot more". I think by the time you count 527s, it would even more equal. George Soros spent 100 times more money than the SwiftVets did for example.

The Democratic Party is as well-moneyed as the Reps. They are both big money and in the hands of interests, and whether it comes from AT&T or Trial Lawyers makes little difference.

Show me the information that George Soros rasied more money than the 527 groups. Anyone going into politics has to have money, quit trying to spin it. The fact is Bush spent ~20% more than Kerry or ~$51 MILLION more.

Originally posted by: Pandaren
If what I think you are saying is correct, you believe that these "elitists" are stereotyping people like you. This kind of post isn't going to win you many points - it comes off as insulting, demeaning, and yes, elitist in its own right.

Thats why its still divided, you're just as a elitists as anyone else. You more of a elites than I am...

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Yeah, good perspective. You are the perfect example of my topic. Like a monkey who keeps hitting the shock button....

Thats a prime example that a"Arrogant Elite".

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Tab says:What? You're view of liberals is focused on 3 groups? The Republicans have plenty of extreme-right wings figureheads such a Ann Culter, Sean Hannity and Faux News."

No, I only use those three as examples. I don't need a list to get my point across. And of course the right has extreme figureheads, but you'd have a hard time telling mainstream America that FoxNews is an extreme right-wing figurehead. This speaks volumes about your out of touch leftist bias. I'm saying the average American relates to the right much more... they don't care for being called Jesus-freaks, fascists, stupids, and racists.

The Republican Party has done a great job with converting the term liberal into insulting term as well as making those agaisnt the war supposedly un-patriotic. We don't like it any much as you do, not that I really consider myself a democrat.

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Tab says, "In general most of those with a average education are conservative, however those with less of a education and those with a higher education are liberal. Statisically, middle america has less of a education than high America."

This makes no sense, except to show my point about arrogant elitists. What is "high America?" How do you know liberals have higher education? Are there more liberal PhDs than conservative? Does more ducation make someone smarter? Once again you claim superiority because you think libs are the smartest and know what's right for everyone. You're just as bad as those you demonize.

Tab says, "If you force your own personal religious beliefs amoung others, you're not stupid just a bigot. I don't support any anti-military protests personal. Bringing down the morale of troops is what kills them."

I'm sorry, but aren't you forcing your beliefs on others? Oh yeah, it's only all those crazed religious nuts who are storming our streets with their screaming sermons and forcing their religion on us. You have such a distorted view of religion and people... yes, yes people like you will not connect with the moderate mainstream.

There a plenty of studies that show those with PhDs are much more liberal than others. Does education make someone smarter? In general it does, as for politically it has a influence. How are we forcing our beilefs that every American should be equal? No one is forcing you to marry your same sex.

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Tab says, "George W Bush still believes there are WMDs in Iraq. He even consistantly jokes about it."

This is why you lose. Underestimate the intelligence of those you hate.... like Reagan, and he rolled- like Bush, and he rolled. Arrogance and hate breeds failure.

Tab says, "There are a lot of funamentalists nutcases, the Patriot Act is a move towards a facist Goverment."

Same old same old. Thanks, you were the perfect speciman... your fellow arrogant elitists will nod their heads with approval, the Democratic Party will warily keep you within reach, and mainstream America will reject you outright. If the Dems wake up and realize people like you do more harm than good, they would surge in popularity and power.

I underestimate of those I hate? I didn't run the Democratic nomination nor would I have even voted for Kerry, I would have perfered Edwards or Wesely Clark. You're the perfect speicemen of your own example. You consistently make fun of me like I am a little child your post is extremely arrogant and insulting. The left is not declining by any means, your party won by ~2%!




 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
illustri says, "cwjerome, one of your points was the ineffectuality of liberals in their name calling which I agree with you, partly. But when you say theres no fault in calling a duck a duck, I contend that theres likewise none in calling out fascists, racists, religious bigots, and stupids when you see them. 1980 was during the Carter administration, which though many would argue was an unpopular one, still negates your point that theres been much of a trend in the politics of America. I'll also add that its ironic that you wave the banner of inclusion, while all the time characterizing an opposing group as hateful arrogants."


Let me better explain. It's not the name calling per se, it's who is calling the names and what EFFECT it has. My problem with the arrogant elitists calling names isn't because name-calling is bad- it's a contextual observation. I am looking at the fact that such name calling alienates a huge group of people (middle America for a lack of a better term), and isolates the name-callers. This, I believe, is having a negative effect on the Democratic Party.

Your Carter administration comment is discouraging. I've been taking your posts seriously, but if you're going to play games don't waste my time. I am talking about the fact that Reagan the contender built a following and WON the election in 1980, signaling a birth of the modern conservative expansion. Would you be happy if I said, November 2, 1980? Or maybe I should amend it to Jan.15, 1981 when Reagan officially took office? What difference does it make? None... it doesn't change the meaning of what I'm saying, and pinpointing an exact hour of the start is to give in to meaningless evasions.

Are you seriously disputing the notion that the US has not gotten more conservative over the last 25 or so years? Wow, that's quite a claim... going against conventional wisdom to say the least. If the few basic facts presented here (More Rep presidencies, and a higher % of the vote; the House going Rep and not just maintaining but getting stronger; the Senate going Rep and not just maintaining but getting stronger; the Reps going from a minority of governorships to a strong majority) don't convince you, I guess we can open that topic up. Personally I think it's a waste of time... even most die-hard leftists can acknowledge there's been a conservative shift in the US over the past couple decades.

If we want to understand how and why this has happened, one thing to do is look at the Democratic Party itself. What are they doing? What's helping, and what's hurting? Look at who is in the Party what what their effect is on the Party as a whole. Compare this with what moderate, mainstream Americans think. These are the things I do, and these are the conclusions I (and many others) arrive at. Nothings 100%, but there's a lot of validity to it.

Compare what the arrogant elite's values and beliefs are with mainstream America's. Look at how the arrogant elites talk about and refer to the mainstream. How can anyone deny that it's extremely antagonistic and it's hurting the Dems chances come election times. This latest election is just another example: the Dems arguable had the issues and should have won many elections, including the presidency... but they didn't, because all the spew coming from the Dems via arrogant elites simply turn off the average person.

I can understand how the rise of conservatism has pushed some people on the Left into a defensive, extremist stance that's belligerent towards religion and hateful towards so many.... but that will only hasten the decline. If the Dems expelled the arrogant elites from serious discussion, they would capture so many more people in the middle and middle-right. Of course, I'm expressing my perspective largely to a crowd that's made up of the people I accuse of being arrogant elites... so I don't expect much agreement.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,271
9,353
146
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Are you seriously disputing the notion that the US has not gotten more conservative over the last 25 or so years?
He may not be, but I am. Come out of your pillow fort bunker and visit any major American city and go to the openly gay section. Turn on HBO. See the bare boobies and hear the once taboo word "fvck" flung around. Or go watch Howard Stern's show. His T&A&FartJoke extravaganza couldn't have gotten on ANY major or minor media outlet in 1979. And I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, to learn that the internet is, almost more than anything else, one big pron delivery device.

These times, they are ALWAYS changing.

Something is happening, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?

You, your aged grandmother, and John Ashcroft can decry this all you want, and, often enough, I'd gladly join you at the crumbling cultural barricades (except for the fact that I can't stand your pompous self certitude) against the more mindless changes, but, in toto, they're here, sometimes they're (gasp) queer, and there's money to be made.

And nothing, cw, NOTHING, stands in the way of commerce.

You know what I particularly hate, cw, in this tsunami of irrestible cultural leveling? The debasement of the English language. Now everything is a transitive verb, like "Beer me".

But you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Cultural change happens slowly, but it DOES happen inexorably, and you are on the losing end of that equation. Do your happy dance that GWB won in large part piggy backed on the red state horror over the prospect of affording gay Americans the diginity and legal safety of marriage with which to consecrate their unions. It will not last.

The world moves towards inclusion. This is the real teaching of Jesus, metaphorically, in action.

Oh, yes, I know that all accross America, a majority would deny gays marriage. In the late '50's and the early 60's, do you not know that any ballot iniative outlawing miscegenation would have passed by huge majorities in every Southern state, and, I suspect, in most Northern ones as well? And today, a scant few decades later, no one except the KKK and Stormfront would publically object to a black marrying a white.

Shift happens, and over the long run, it is ALWAYS towards tolerance and inclusion.

My guess is that you haven't lived long enough to viscerally know that the political penduluum always swings in the short term. I remember a time in the mid 60's when the Republicans were left for dead as a party, FAR more marginalized than the Dems are today. Look it up on Wikpedia or something, cw, before you crow too long and too loudly about your coming conservative thousand year Reich.

For in the long run,, blacks are no longer slaves, women get the vote, and gays will get the legal right to marry. In the long run, as it becomes a smaller and smaller planet, both antipodal "conservative" myths, the myth of rugged individualism and the hubris that you can legislate your particular morality over others and make it stick long term will be swept away, even from your eyes.

In your social and political certitude, cw, you have much more in common with the Taliban and the House of Saud and Fidel Castro than you could ever imagine. You are all serious true believers fighting hopeless rear guard actions against change.

Lastly, cw, nobody like a sore winner, or a pompous one. Enough with the "advice for the lowly Dems". Do your little dance and get on with it. Every dog has his day.

Yeats knew it, the cyclical rise and fall, in 1939 facing the specter of an all powerful Hitler. "All things fall and are built again / And those that build them again are gay" [old meaning]

Confucius knew it 4000 years ago. Yin always transmuting into Yang transmuting into Yin, each contually presaging and presupposing and containing the other, with change the great leveler and only true constant.

Donovan knew it, too, "First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is."

Enjoy your transient ascendancy while you may. Easy on that crappy noisemaker and that garish party hat, though.

But never forget, my friend, that over the long run, it's all about inclusion on a level that would blow your bigoted mind.


 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Are you seriously disputing the notion that the US has not gotten more conservative over the last 25 or so years?
pompous ...mindless ... money ...commerce......KKK and Stormfront ...Reich...slaves... Taliban ...House of Saud ... Fidel Castro ...pompous ...Hitler.... bigoted mind.
If you snip out all the noise, look how nicely you make his point!
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Are you seriously disputing the notion that the US has not gotten more conservative over the last 25 or so years?
pompous ...mindless ... money ...commerce......KKK and Stormfront ...Reich...slaves... Taliban ...House of Saud ... Fidel Castro ...pompous ...Hitler.... bigoted mind.
If you snip out all the noise, look how nicely you make his point!

Heh, CW is just as a arrogent elitelist as Perknose.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Are you seriously disputing the notion that the US has not gotten more conservative over the last 25 or so years?
pompous ...mindless ... money ...commerce......KKK and Stormfront ...Reich...slaves... Taliban ...House of Saud ... Fidel Castro ...pompous ...Hitler.... bigoted mind.
If you snip out all the noise, look how nicely you make his point!

Heh, CW is just as a arrogent elitelist as Perknose.
Well, I supposed if he had used terms like "NAMBLA" and "communist" and "socialist" and "baby-killer" and "Stalin" and "France" I would tend to agree with you. But he didn't, so I fail to see the comparison.

 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,271
9,353
146
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Are you seriously disputing the notion that the US has not gotten more conservative over the last 25 or so years?
pompous ...mindless ... money ...commerce......KKK and Stormfront ...Reich...slaves... Taliban ...House of Saud ... Fidel Castro ...pompous ...Hitler.... bigoted mind.
If you snip out all the noise, look how nicely you make his point!

Heh, CW is just as a arrogent elitelist as Perknose.
Well, I supposed if he had used terms like "NAMBLA" and "communist" and "socialist" and "baby-killer" and "Stalin" and "France" I would tend to agree with you. But he didn't, so I fail to see the comparison.
alchemize, the clip and save, coupon savvy socio-political savant! Look, al, here's 20 cents off a slightly used war!

You'd buy anything for a tax cut, wouldn't you?

 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Are you seriously disputing the notion that the US has not gotten more conservative over the last 25 or so years?
pompous ...mindless ... money ...commerce......KKK and Stormfront ...Reich...slaves... Taliban ...House of Saud ... Fidel Castro ...pompous ...Hitler.... bigoted mind.
If you snip out all the noise, look how nicely you make his point!

Heh, CW is just as a arrogent elitelist as Perknose.
Well, I supposed if he had used terms like "NAMBLA" and "communist" and "socialist" and "baby-killer" and "Stalin" and "France" I would tend to agree with you. But he didn't, so I fail to see the comparison.

Arrogant Elitists, lefties = Micheal Moore and Hollywood ... Crazy Liberal Websites ... Liberals have Elitests Views.... America Wanted Bush ... Robor you don't understand you will not understand .... Tab you're wrong, I have no proof but you're wrong .. I dont need to get my point across .. You're forcing your beliefes on me ... You're a perfect speicemen ... You're a monkey .. You lose .. Same Old .... dems do more harm than good .... I am not going to mention that bush spent $50 Million more than kerry... George Soros got $100 million more but I can't back it up... There a conversative shift in america even though I have no proof no articles ... its not a scienctific experiment its a analysis of trends that I made up and have no information for ... Carter Sucks ....
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Are you seriously disputing the notion that the US has not gotten more conservative over the last 25 or so years?
pompous ...mindless ... money ...commerce......KKK and Stormfront ...Reich...slaves... Taliban ...House of Saud ... Fidel Castro ...pompous ...Hitler.... bigoted mind.
If you snip out all the noise, look how nicely you make his point!

Heh, CW is just as a arrogent elitelist as Perknose.
Well, I supposed if he had used terms like "NAMBLA" and "communist" and "socialist" and "baby-killer" and "Stalin" and "France" I would tend to agree with you. But he didn't, so I fail to see the comparison.

Arrogant Elitists, lefties = Micheal Moore and Hollywood ... Crazy Liberal Websites ... Liberals have Elitests Views.... America Wanted Bush ... Robor you don't understand you will not understand .... Tab you're wrong, I have no proof but you're wrong .. I dont need to get my point across .. You're forcing your beliefes on me ... You're a perfect speicemen ... You're a monkey .. You lose .. Same Old .... dems do more harm than good .... I am not going to mention that bush spent $50 Million more than kerry... George Soros got $100 million more but I can't back it up... There a conversative shift in america even though I have no proof no articles ... its not a scienctific experiment its a analysis of trends that I made up and have no information for ... Carter Sucks ....

I guess I don't quite see it. Unless you are equating Carter and Moore and Soros to Hitler and the Taliban?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |