Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Me
Would you prefer an inner city welfare mom with 4 kids by different dads elect the prez? You do realize that your party has its losers, too? At least joe 6-pack has a fucking job.

What sebby said.

Take your cracker vote and secede. That way everyone is happy.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I know this is not a popular opinion but what's the big fucking deal if the decision on the next President takes two days instead of one?

Because with every passing day, the legitimacy of the presidency is called into question. It is just more fodder for the left wing crowd to undermine the presidency and the country. We don't need that right now.

This is not to say, however, that if the results in Ohio had truly been close, that I would not want those votes to be counted. But that is not the case. Ohio was not close in the statistical sense.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by dtb
What sebby said.

Take your cracker vote and secede. That way everyone is happy.

I think this was tried once, about 140 years or so ago.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by spookyfish
I think this was tried once, about 140 years or so ago.

Yeah, but then it was the cracker Dems who left...

[dtb]

Originally posted by spookyfish
I think this was tried once, about 140 years or so ago.

The difference being, if they tried again, the North would say "Good Riddance."

[dtb]

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
Yeah, but then it was the cracker Dems who left...

Semantics. The cracker Dems are now the cracker Reps.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
1. We live in two separate countries. That's just the way it is and it gets worse every year. I'm sad to see that the people who elected Bush President live overwhelmingly in states that I wouldn't visit, let alone live in.

If this is true then it has been the case since 1992. Bush got a greater percentage of the popular vote than Clinton did in either election. Granted, Clinton may have gotten some of the Perot vote, but, for example, in 1992 he only got 43% of the vote, and his portion of the Perot vote would not have put him anywhere near 50%.

The country is less divided than it was 4 years ago. By at least 3 million votes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by dtb
The difference being, if they tried again, the North would say "Good Riddance."

No they wouldn't, because there would be no one left to fund their programs. George Soros only has so much money.

[dtb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The country is less divided than it was 4 years ago. By at least 3 million votes.

I don't think so. Maybe there are more on one side than the other, but the chasm is greater.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by dtb


Take your cracker vote and secede. That way everyone is happy.

Have you checked the popular vote? I'm in the majority hun, not you. It is you who needs to secede. My suggestion is that you move to fucking France, babe. Take sebby with you.

[dtb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No they wouldn't, because there would be no one left to fund their programs. George Soros only has so much money.

Right. Because all the revenue-producing states are in the cracker belt. Good point.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by spookyfish
I think this was tried once, about 140 years or so ago.

Well you can't have it both ways. You can't take my tax dollars for your backward shit states and then shit on me with legislation to try to force me to live like you do - in the 19th century. Sure, it doesn't really affect me because I don't obey your red state laws anyway, but there's a principle here, and its called gratitude.

I'm happy to give you all money to leave me alone. But in return, you've got to live up to your side of the bargain. Just stay out of the business of us blue staters. Leave us to take the highway to hell. Thats our business.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Me
Have you checked the popular vote? I'm in the majority hun, not you. It is you who needs to secede. My suggestion is that you move to fucking France, babe. Take sebby with you.

Lovey -- you're (supposedly) in a blue state -- if anyone needs to move to France (or better yet, Pakistan -- you have surprisingly a lot in common with the religious freaks), take a look in the mirror and guess who it is.


ETA: How ironic that all of a sudden the popular vote is determinative. Quite a different tune than the one you were singing four years ago. But again, what is a little intellectual honesty to the crackers?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If this is true then it has been the case since 1992. Bush got a greater percentage of the popular vote than Clinton did in either election. Granted, Clinton may have gotten some of the Perot vote, but, for example, in 1992 he only got 43% of the vote, and his portion of the Perot vote would not have put him anywhere near 50%.

The country is less divided than it was 4 years ago. By at least 3 million votes.

Do you really believe that? Honestly? Do you think that the people who don't vote because they think it doesn't matter (and I think we can all concede that they're morons) feel that way? I think this country is bitterly divided. Much more so than in 2000.

TM

[Not Me]

Originally posted by dtb
I don't think so. Maybe there are more on one side than the other, but the chasm is greater.

You're wrong but that will be your mantra for the next 4 years. You are just putting more nails in the coffin of the Dem party.

I don't think the demise of the Dem party would be good for any of us. I earnestly want to see the Dems get their shit together. But if you wallow in self-pity/conspiracy theories/hatred of the "simple people," you won't.

Funny that TM won't visit the breadbasket of the world, but he sure will eat their food.