skinsfan913 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 For the Dems to win the South they would need to do what Bush did. First they would need a candidate with family ties, preferrably a brother, that is a governor in a state with a lot of electoral votes. Then all they have to do is challenge the chad marks on all ballots and throw half of them away. I mean who cares if you dont win the popular vote(which to me is what really counts) you only need the electoral college(whoever the hell they are). By the way what is so MORAL about lieing and cheating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by skinsfan913 For the Dems to win the South they would need to do what Bush did. First they would need a candidate with family ties, preferrably a brother, that is a governor in a state with a lot of electoral votes. Then all they have to do is challenge the chad marks on all ballots and throw half of them away. I mean who cares if you dont win the popular vote(which to me is what really counts) you only need the electoral college(whoever the hell they are). By the way what is so MORAL about lieing and cheating? And I now present exhibit B showing why the Dems cant win the south. As long as they continue to think that they lose because of wacky conspiracy theories and cheating, they'll never win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by skinsfan913 For the Dems to win the South they would need to do what Bush did. First they would need a candidate with family ties, preferrably a brother, that is a governor in a state with a lot of electoral votes. Then all they have to do is challenge the chad marks on all ballots and throw half of them away. I mean who cares if you dont win the popular vote(which to me is what really counts) you only need the electoral college(whoever the hell they are). By the way what is so MORAL about lieing and cheating? dam some still hold a grudge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by jbooma Lucky your logic is off because they are voting on "their" morals, has nothing to do with you at all, they are not forcing you do anything you do not want to do. We all have the right to vote how we want, that is why this country works. Hah "their morals" what a load of.... we both know when people say morals they really want to force other people to do what they think is right. That is why we have drug laws, sodomy laws, drinking age, gay marriage etc. None of those thing hurt the people that don't use them, but it isn't enough for the Morality Police to just not partake in those things they have to stop others too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Actually, I think drugs should be legalized, and taxed to death. But your belief that by doing this will somehow lead to less crime and less gang activity is shortsighted at best. all the evidence points to less crime, without the easy drug money gangs would be without a valuable resource. And less people will be thrown in jail and labled criminals when they are in fact just oppressed by the State. And mandatory minimums are rather stupid, but not having them wouldnt lead to less crime either. I agree, I am sorry if I implied they did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty all the evidence points to less crime, without the easy drug money gangs would be without a valuable resource. And less people will be thrown in jail and labled criminals when they are in fact just oppressed by the State. I agree, I am sorry if I implied they did Shows this evidence please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 The economy was tanking under Clinton, Bush has fixed it. WOW :laugh: :respect: :laugh: This gets poster of the year nomination for the most blinded ideological comment I've seen on ES in a LONG time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by Huly If I responded to some of these post like I would like too I would be forever banned from this site. I am a southern gal and I am republican all the way! During the elections the news media stated this and I agree 100% Bush= Morals Kerry=Economy I voted for morals as I believe this country needs more of them. Look at how many children alone were killed in DC this year. Most of the things Kerry stood for I am against. It has nothing to do with race etc. It is my moral and religion and my conservative side that leads me to being republican. Huly I want to ask you an honest question. What gains in the moral area have been made in this latest period of GOP full control in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty Hah "their morals" what a load of.... we both know when people say morals they really want to force other people to do what they think is right. That is why we have drug laws, sodomy laws, drinking age, gay marriage etc. None of those thing hurt the people that don't use them, but it isn't enough for the Morality Police to just not partake in those things they have to stop others too. We have drug laws because it is against the law, the same with drinking etc... So in your world you think there shouldn't be any laws at all, just do what you want. It doesn't matter if it impacts others or not, that is not the point. It is what is best for society at that time. The only reason the reason gay marriages are not accepted right now is because many are not ready for it, similar to cival rights, it sucks but it takes time to change what many have grown up with, you are younger so you haven't lived through it. We have no clue what is like in the 60's but we do in the 80's and 90's. Kind of hard to judge others when you haven't experienced it yourself. As for your point about legalizing drugs, why don't you go spend some time in jail one night and see some of these guys who are so damaged by the drugs they do not even know who they are. It is pretty sad, and what is even sadder is a lot of these individuals don't have the family or friends to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by Huly If I responded to some of these post like I would like too I would be forever banned from this site. I am a southern gal and I am republican all the way! During the elections the news media stated this and I agree 100% Bush= Morals Kerry=Economy I voted for morals as I believe this country needs more of them. Look at how many children alone were killed in DC this year. Most of the things Kerry stood for I am against. It has nothing to do with race etc. It is my moral and religion and my conservative side that leads me to being republican. Huly, not to sound mean, and arrogatn, because I like your posts, but thanks for making my point for me. A person who would equate morals to Bush IS following the RNC propaganda machine. What is voting morals BTW? Seriously, I would like to know why you think Bush is a "man of morals" when he has done absolutely nothing with dignity his entire life? Would you consider his campaign a "moral" one? How about spreading rumers about your opponent being a liar, thief, traitor, calling their spouse a slut and a druggie. This is one of the so-called things your man of "orals" has done. If it was up to me, I'd choose a billy goat over Bush if the deciding line was morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics WOW :laugh: :respect: :laugh: This gets poster of the year nomination for the most blinded ideological comment I've seen on ES in a LONG time. Of course I notice that in neither of your posts, you've cited any evidence to the contrary. Typical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty all the evidence points to less crime, without the easy drug money gangs would be without a valuable resource. And less people will be thrown in jail and labled criminals when they are in fact just oppressed by the State. I agree, I am sorry if I implied they did That is wrong, because the gangs will then find something else they want that they don't have. Crime isn't going away if you legalize drugs, you are a fool if you think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Too late Chomerics. You're the typical arrogant MA type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Damn, gotta go and catch a plane, good luck guys talk to ya tomorrow. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics WOW :laugh: :respect: :laugh: This gets poster of the year nomination for the most blinded ideological comment I've seen on ES in a LONG time. Chom he is right, the economy was falling, now I don't think it was Clinton's fault it just happened under him, and under Bush and other reasons the economy has picked back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Actually, I think drugs should be legalized, and taxed to death. But your belief that by doing this will somehow lead to less crime and less gang activity is shortsighted at best. And mandatory minimums are rather stupid, but not having them wouldnt lead to less crime either. Disagree on both. Underground economies always create incentives for crime, and drugs are the main source of income for gangs. Gangs will not go away completely, of course, but they will be less successful, and not as alluring to new recruits without all the drug cash they can flash around now. Mandatory minimums put people in prisons that should not be there. When they come out, they are more likely to be hardened criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by jbooma We have drug laws because it is against the law, We have circular reasoning because our reasoning is circular Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff Too late Chomerics. You're the typical arrogant MA type. It's funny to me that people point to the north as being arrogant when we all know the north will vote for a southerner but not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by jbooma That is wrong, because the gangs will then find something else they want that they don't have. Crime isn't going away if you legalize drugs, you are a fool if you think so. Was the mob affected by the end of prohibition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by jbooma That is wrong, because the gangs will then find something else they want that they don't have. Crime isn't going away if you legalize drugs, you are a fool if you think so. We will always have crime. The argument is the end of drug prohibition/war on drugs will decrease a great deal of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by Destino Was the mob effected by the end of prohibition? Yes. It did not go completely away, but it did affected. There was still gambling, prostitution, extortion, etc. but none of those matters were quite as easy money as rumrunning. Luckily for the criminal organizations, we now give them drug prohibition so they can thrive in modern times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by Destino It's funny to me that people point to the north as being arrogant when we all know the north will vote for a southerner but not the other way around. I thought we just did...Twice in fact Of course we had to dumb him down to make him acceptable ....at least in some peoples view :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by Destino Now that you taken on the GOP image you've won most of the battle. Time to start thinking “what can we do to make life better for middle class white people.” Acknowledge their fears address their concerns. Exactly. Because the black middle class vote is already in their back pocket. Take them for granted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by TheSteve Exactly. Because the black middle class vote is already in their back pocket. Take them for granted! Yep. As I said in my first post... 1. The notion that Bush is just a spoiled rich kid and the Dems stick up for the little man ended when people realized that Kerry has married into money, twice. His wealth is just as inherited. People have begun to realize that in order to run for president you pretty much have to be rich and white no matter what side you're on. This has somewhat diluted the notion that the left side is there to stick up for the little man. 2. Some minorities feel that their votes are taken for granted, that Dems essentially say "Hey, you're a minority, you'll vote for us, right?" The last campaign, Kerry drove this feeling home by visiting a bunch of black churches at the last minute essentially giving that feeling. [/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huly Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty Hah "their morals" what a load of.... we both know when people say morals they really want to force other people to do what they think is right. That is why we have drug laws, sodomy laws, drinking age, gay marriage etc. None of those thing hurt the people that don't use them, but it isn't enough for the Morality Police to just not partake in those things they have to stop others too. Why do you vote for who you want? You believe in their platform. I voted for the person's platform I believe in. No harm no foul. If you look at any of the thousands of abortion threads you will see I am anti abortion so why should I vote pro choice when I do not believe in it? That is just one of the many examples I can give you. I do not force my values on anyone. If someone ask my honest oppinion then I will tell them but I do not shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. After reading many of your post in other threads and this one you seem to be the person trying to shove your ideas on others and your post are the most negative. You need to look at yourself before you try to influence anyone else to be a Dem or Liberal or whatever else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.