How will you feel if Bush is re-elected? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Strange Famous · 11-01-2004, 02:25 PM

I guess frightened. I dont think anyone in Europe can believe this can happen... but I keep reading in the states it is running neck and neck.

dksuddeth · 11-01-2004, 02:27 PM

I will feel nothing. I'm voting for the lesser of two evils is all.

Coppertop · 11-01-2004, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

strictly out of curiosity, are you serious? And if so, how will you do it?

/supports the right to die with dignity

No I am not.

mattevil · 11-01-2004, 03:31 PM

I'm going to start drinking heavily because the next few years are going to be rough ( I don't drink at all now in case your wondering).

Tophat665 · 11-01-2004, 07:00 PM

I would go fricking berserk if he were re-elected. No way this country could survive three terms of him and remain a recognizable democracy.

Fortunately, he seems unlikely to be elected even once.

hannukah harry · 11-01-2004, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Happy happy, joy joy, happy happy, joy!

wow... that's kinda gay. couldn't find a sponge bob square pants pic?

(no offense meant, it's just the pic..., not the statement that goes with it)

Go_AVS · 11-01-2004, 08:53 PM

I'm going for Ecstatic!!!

Coppertop · 11-01-2004, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

wow... that's kinda gay. couldn't find a sponge bob square pants pic?

(no offense meant, it's just the pic..., not the statement that goes with it)

Forgive him Ustwo, he knows not what he says.

On a side note: wouldn't Bush being re-elected require him being elected in the first place?

lukethebandgeek · 11-01-2004, 09:06 PM

I said dissapointed. Only because I'd be dissapointed that our nation would continue to tolarate Bush. That and the reason Bush would win hangs solely on the abortion vote. The fact that people will not overlook the abortion issue, even when they disagree with pretty much agree with all of Kerry's other ideas, is disapointing to me.

seep · 11-01-2004, 09:41 PM

"Frightened" really should have been up there; I'm feeling it too.

daswig · 11-01-2004, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tophat665

No way this country could survive three terms of him and remain a recognizable democracy.

Three terms? What, did I miss the repeal of the 22nd amendment???

powerclown · 11-01-2004, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seep

"Frightened" really should have been up there; I'm feeling it too.

Indeed. I think many, many others in America and abroad feel this way.
War is a frightening thing.
The Unknown is a frightening thing.
Both at the same time, well, it speaks for itself doesn't it.

splck · 11-01-2004, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Three terms? What, did I miss the repeal of the 22nd amendment???

I'm sure it's because of the way bush was "elected" the first time around.

I tought it was a clever comment

daswig · 11-01-2004, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by splck

I tought it was a clever comment

Try reading the applicable law sometime. Personally, I've never thought a display of ignorance was particularly clever. But hey, that's just me.

splck · 11-01-2004, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Try reading the applicable law sometime. Personally, I've never thought a display of ignorance was particularly clever. But hey, that's just me.

meh, not my country...I could care less... I still thought it was a clever comment

Tophat665 · 11-01-2004, 10:11 PM

The premise of the question is how would you feel if Bush were re-elected. Since, in the unlikely event he is elected tomorrow, it will be the first election he has won, then the only way he could possibly be re-elected is to run for and win a third term, which would, I understand, involve another ammendment. On the other hand, I have not noticed that this administration pays particular attention to the Constitution when they find it inconvenient, which leads to my concern over this country surviving in it's present form if the current occupant of the whitehouse wins two elections, securing a second and third term thereby.

Thanks, splck, but clever sometimes confuses folks who dig on the plain spoken wholesome cowboy goodness that is Bush's public brand.

host · 11-01-2004, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tophat665

The premise of the question is how would you feel if Bush were re-elected. Since, in the unlikely event he is elected tomorrow, it will be the first election he has won, then the only way he could possibly be re-elected is to run for and win a third term, which would, I understand, involve another ammendment. On the other hand, I have not noticed that this administration pays particular attention to the Constitution when they find it inconvenient, which leads to my concern over this country surviving in it's present form if the current occupant of the whitehouse wins two elections, securing a second and third term thereby.

You beat me to the punch......I was going to point out that Bush was selected
by 5 SCOTUS justices 4 years ago. If he loses the election later today, about
half those who voted in 2000 will view Bush as the second president to serve
in the last 30 years who was unelected. At least Ford was elected to a federal office.....congressman from Michigan.

So far, the voting here is <h3>83 negative and 27 positive</h3>
as a reaction to the possibility of a Bush victory.

Seems that the Bush supporters at this politics forum, if they have weighed in on this thread in a representative number, project a presence on this forum in a much more vocal and with greater frequency per capita than Kerry supporters.

daswig · 11-01-2004, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tophat665

Thanks, splck, but clever sometimes confuses folks who dig on the plain spoken wholesome cowboy goodness that is Bush's public brand.

Please read: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...dmentxxii.html

It's "on the four corners", as they say.

host · 11-01-2004, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Try reading the applicable law sometime. Personally, I've never thought a display of ignorance was particularly clever. But hey, that's just me.

Such belligerent words, coming from you....someone I who have
reluctantly grown to respect and admire because you convinced me that you
are a competent attorney blessed with a sense of humor, a sharp wit, and
an intelligent way of assessing and describing issues and events, even if you
arrive at an opinion opposite of mine, surprise me! Please consider that even legal scholars <br>and SCOTUS justices disagree on this very contentious legal confrontation.Your response, quote above, leaves me little choice but to post the following:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/legaldocs/stevenstext121300.htm">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/legaldocs/stevenstext121300.htm</a>
Text: Justice Stevens's Dissent

Associated Press
Wednesday, December 13, 2000; Page A34

Following is a dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer:

The Constitution assigns to the States the primary responsibility for determining the manner of selecting the Presidential electors. See Art. II, Section. 1, clause. 2. When questions arise about the meaning of state laws, including election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as providing the final answers. On rare occasions, however, either federal statutes or the Federal Constitution may require federal judicial intervention in state elections. This is not such an occasion.

The federal questions that ultimately emerged in this case are not substantial. Article II provides that "(e)ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." It does not create state legislatures out of whole cloth, but rather takes them as they come-as creatures born of, and constrained by, their state constitutions. Lest there be any doubt, we stated over 100 years ago in McPherson v. Blacker (1892), that "(w)hat is forbidden or required to be done by a State" in the Article II context "is forbidden or required of the legislative power under state constitutions as they exist." In the same vein, we also observed that "(t)he (State's) legislative power is the supreme authority except as limited by the constitution of the State." The legislative power in Florida is subject to judicial review pursuant to Article V of the Florida Constitution, and nothing in Article II of the Federal Constitution frees the state legislature from the constraints in the state constitution that created it. Moreover, the Florida Legislature's own decision to employ a unitary code for all elections indicates that it intended the Florida Supreme Court to play the same role in Presidential elections that it has historically played in resolving electoral disputes. The Florida Supreme Court's exercise of appellate jurisdiction therefore was wholly consistent with, and indeed contemplated by, the grant of authority in Article II.

It hardly needs stating that Congress, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. Sec. 5, did not impose any affirmative duties upon the States that their governmental branches could "violate." Rather, Sec. 5 provides a safe harbor for States to select electors in contested elections "by judicial or other methods" established by laws prior to the election day. Section 5, like Article II, assumes the involvement of the state judiciary in interpreting state election laws and resolving election disputes under those laws. Neither Sec. 5 nor Article II grants federal judges any special authority to substitute their views for those of the state judiciary on matters of state law.

Nor are petitioners correct in asserting that the failure of the Florida Supreme Court to specify in detail the precise manner in which the "intent of the voter," is to be determined rises to the level of a constitutional violation. We found such a violation when individual votes within the same State were weighted unequally, but we have never before called into question the substantive standard by which a State determines that a vote has been legally cast. And there is no reason to think that the guidance provided to the factfinders, specifically the various canvassing boards, by the "intent of the voter" standard is any less sufficient-or will lead to results any less uniform-than, for example, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard employed everyday by ordinary citizens in courtrooms across this country.

Admittedly, the use of differing substandards for determining voter intent in different counties employing similar voting systems may raise serious concerns. Those concerns are alleviated-if not eliminated-by the fact that a single impartial magistrate will ultimately adjudicate all objections arising from the recount process. Of course, as a general matter, "(t)he interpretation of constitutional principles must not be too literal. We must remember that the machinery of government would not work if it were not allowed a little play in its joints." If it were otherwise, Florida's decision to leave to each county the determination of what balloting system to employ-despite enormous differences in accuracy-might run afoul of equal protection. So, too, might the similar decisions of the vast majority of state legislatures to delegate to local authorities certain decisions with respect to voting systems and ballot design.

Even assuming that aspects of the remedial scheme might ultimately be found to violate the Equal Protection Clause, I could not subscribe to the majority's disposition of the case. As the majority explicitly holds, once a state legislature determines to select electors through a popular vote, the right to have one's vote counted is of constitutional stature. As the majority further acknowledges, Florida law holds that all ballots that reveal the intent of the voter constitute valid votes. Recognizing these principles, the majority nonetheless orders the termination of the contest proceeding before all such votes have been tabulated. Under their own reasoning, the appropriate course of action would be to remand to allow more specific procedures for implementing the legislature's uniform general standard to be established.

In the interest of finality, however, the majority effectively orders the disenfranchisement of an unknown number of voters whose ballots reveal their intent-and are therefore legal votes under state law-but were for some reason rejected by ballot-counting machines. It does so on the basis of the deadlines set forth in Title 3 of the United States Code. Ante, at 11. But, as I have already noted, those provisions merely provide rules of decision for Congress to follow when selecting among conflicting slates of electors. Supra, at 2. They do not prohibit a State from counting what the majority concedes to be legal votes until a bona fide winner is determined. Indeed, in 1960, Hawaii appointed two slates of electors and Congress chose to count the one appointed on January 4, 1961, well after the Title 3 deadlines. Thus, nothing prevents the majority, even if it properly found an equal protection violation, from ordering relief appropriate to remedy that violation without depriving Florida voters of their right to have their votes counted. As the majority notes, "(a) desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees."

Finally, neither in this case, nor in its earlier opinion in Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434 (Fla., Nov. 21, 2000), did the Florida Supreme Court make any substantive change in Florida electoral law. Its decisions were rooted in long-established precedent and were consistent with the relevant statutory provisions, taken as a whole. It did what courts do-it decided the case before it in light of the legislature's intent to leave no legally cast vote uncounted. In so doing, it relied on the sufficiency of the general "intent of the voter" standard articulated by the state legislature, coupled with a procedure for ultimate review by an impartial judge, to resolve the concern about disparate evaluations of contested ballots. If we assume-as I do-that the members of that court and the judges who would have carried out its mandate are impartial, its decision does not even raise a colorable federal question.

What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. <h2>One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.</h2>

I respectfully dissent.

daswig · 11-01-2004, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Such belligerent words, coming from you

ROTFLMAO!!!

Dear, dear host....if that's your idea of "belligerent", you lead a much more peaceful, serene life than I do.

I'm going to try to do this without undue sarcasm. I suggest you compare the date on your quote with the date of February 12, 1999, and tell me which date came first.

Coppertop · 11-02-2004, 12:13 PM

This is how I'd feel:

jujueye · 11-02-2004, 05:32 PM

[QUOTE=Boo]He reopened a war that has little chance of being a full victory and has ran up a huge deficet while doing it. I do wonder what other choices he had.
QUOTE]

Good point, but I feel he cares little about the deficit he has single handedly created. He knows eventually he will be out of office and will not have to deal with it at all. I hate to point to Clinton because he was inthe right place at the right time, but he still managed to smooth things out and remain on good terms with foreign countries. We were prosperous and respected. Bush really was handed a plate full of shit, I agree. But he doesn't seem to care about fixing it. He laughs too much when on tv and appears to be too jovial about everything. He has allowed corporations to reshape things like clean air laws. Isn't that little strange? Instead of holding true to many Americans, he sems to have just picked his friends.

An exceptional president should be re-elected. I just don't believe Bush has been exceptional. Is Kerry a great replacement? We don't really know.

Stompy · 11-02-2004, 08:22 PM

At this point.. I'm beginning to think that maybe this country deserves everything it will go through. Natural selection after all..

If people are foolish enough to re-elect him back into office, then they simply have to deal with the consequences when the time comes, I guess.

We're given this opportunity to assess a situation and fix any mistakes that are presented to us (and there are a lot), and we just let it fall apart. Unfortunately, when you allow a majority of fools to vote, you run the risk (of course) of allowing a fool into power. The lovely double-edged sword of our representative govt...

When used properly, the system works wonders, but when misused, as we have seen, can be very dangerous.

If Bush wins, I won't complain... but I hope people don't expect me to stand up for this country when the time comes or hold any respect for it, because I'll just smile and turn the other way.. maybe utter an, "I told you so," or two.

Deal with your own probs!

assilem · 11-02-2004, 08:22 PM

If W wins?

Better than if Kerry won. Good. I guess.

onetime2 · 11-02-2004, 08:34 PM

I voted satisfied.

Conclamo Ludus · 11-02-2004, 08:36 PM

I'll be slightly disappointed, but will get on with my life.

onetime2 · 11-02-2004, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tophat665

The premise of the question is how would you feel if Bush were re-elected. Since, in the unlikely event he is elected tomorrow, it will be the first election he has won, then the only way he could possibly be re-elected is to run for and win a third term, which would, I understand, involve another ammendment. On the other hand, I have not noticed that this administration pays particular attention to the Constitution when they find it inconvenient, which leads to my concern over this country surviving in it's present form if the current occupant of the whitehouse wins two elections, securing a second and third term thereby.

Thanks, splck, but clever sometimes confuses folks who dig on the plain spoken wholesome cowboy goodness that is Bush's public brand.

Well, by your reasoning, he should be eligible for a third term since he wasn't elected the first time around.

KMA-628 · 11-02-2004, 09:09 PM

Hey Stompy -

Remember this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

This is the "How will you feel if KERRY is elected", the Bush thread is here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=74434

You said it here:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=74455&page=2

um, care to explain your actions? I am not surprised, just didn't think you would be so blatent.

roadkill · 11-02-2004, 09:21 PM

I'm going to be postal to see him elected this time round. I dislike and disapprove of him!

djtestudo · 11-02-2004, 09:31 PM

Since it appears to be pretty much for Bush, I am satisfied. I think Bush is the best of all of the candidates out there, and will do the best job.

ibis · 11-02-2004, 09:39 PM

I want a "fucked" option, please.

djtestudo · 11-02-2004, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ibis

I want a "fucked" option, please.

You do...it's called "Kerry".

DJMala · 11-02-2004, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnker85

I thought that the system was set up for the average joe to be able to become President.

The system is set up so that anyone can become president, regardless of race, gender (supposedly), family connections, etc. I expect any presidential candidate, however, to be a cut above the average joe. Smart enough to surround himself with the right people to advise you on things you don't know about, and wise enough to admit a mistake and take action to correct it, rather than plunging blindly over the cliff.

From the way this election appears to be going, it appears my fellow Americans do not agree.

Quote:

But with that said, I don't think that Bush is an average joe at all. Anyone with an Ivy leage education is not average, by far. I think that Bush plays the average joe for the average joe, because no one likes to be shown up.

I'll agree that Bush is not as dumb as he is made out to be. Mostly, the image comes from his utter lack of public speaking skills. That self-satisfied smirk he gets anytime he manages to make a semi-coherent point doesn't help, either.

I'm not at all impressed by his Ivy League education, though. He got in through his family connections and daddy's money, and just barely squeaked by the entire time.

djtestudo · 11-02-2004, 10:05 PM

Yet he managed to not only graduate from Yale, but get into Harvard Business School (without family connections) and graduate there too.

Billy Ocean · 11-02-2004, 10:13 PM

It's going to be great!

lk_3000 · 11-02-2004, 10:42 PM

anyone who promises to leave country when bush wins should start packing.

Kalibah · 11-02-2004, 10:47 PM

Happy - and safer

With A republican controlled congress- NOTHING Kerry voted on would get passed - and MOST people agree he's weaker on terror ( according to opinion polls)

Atleast with a Republican in office we can get things done AND be safer.

Mr. Kerrys tax cut repeals, Increase in taxes, etc wouldnt pass

So Safer, and more confident in Americas future

McG · 11-02-2004, 10:48 PM

Looks like Bush has Won it. Yipeee

mrbuck12000 · 11-02-2004, 10:53 PM

i can only hope for the impeachment process to begin!!!

Rdr4evr · 11-02-2004, 11:04 PM

It's not over yet.

View Poll Results: How will you feel if BUSH is Re-elected?
Ecstatic	34	13.13%
Happy	16	6.18%
Satisfied	20	7.72%
Nothing	11	4.25%
Disappointed	75	28.96%
Angry	46	17.76%
Postal	57	22.01%
Voters: 259. You may not vote on this poll

11-01-2004, 02:25 PM	#41 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I guess frightened. I dont think anyone in Europe can believe this can happen... but I keep reading in the states it is running neck and neck. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

11-01-2004, 07:00 PM	#45 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	I would go fricking berserk if he were re-elected. No way this country could survive three terms of him and remain a recognizable democracy. Fortunately, he seems unlikely to be elected even once. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

11-01-2004, 08:53 PM	#47 (permalink)
Go_AVS CSU RAM fan Location: Hockey time....	I'm going for Ecstatic!!! __________________ MIA...

11-01-2004, 09:06 PM	#49 (permalink)
lukethebandgeek Chicks dig the Saxaphone Location: Nowheresville OH	I said dissapointed. Only because I'd be dissapointed that our nation would continue to tolarate Bush. That and the reason Bush would win hangs solely on the abortion vote. The fact that people will not overlook the abortion issue, even when they disagree with pretty much agree with all of Kerry's other ideas, is disapointing to me. __________________ Yes, band camp is all it's cracked up to be. So I like Chrono... So what?

11-01-2004, 02:27 PM	#42 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	I will feel nothing. I'm voting for the lesser of two evils is all.

11-01-2004, 03:31 PM	#44 (permalink)
mattevil Addict Location: Virginia	I'm going to start drinking heavily because the next few years are going to be rough ( I don't drink at all now in case your wondering).

11-01-2004, 09:41 PM	#50 (permalink)
seep Tilted	"Frightened" really should have been up there; I'm feeling it too.

11-01-2004, 10:11 PM	#56 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	The premise of the question is how would you feel if Bush were re-elected. Since, in the unlikely event he is elected tomorrow, it will be the first election he has won, then the only way he could possibly be re-elected is to run for and win a third term, which would, I understand, involve another ammendment. On the other hand, I have not noticed that this administration pays particular attention to the Constitution when they find it inconvenient, which leads to my concern over this country surviving in it's present form if the current occupant of the whitehouse wins two elections, securing a second and third term thereby. Thanks, splck, but clever sometimes confuses folks who dig on the plain spoken wholesome cowboy goodness that is Bush's public brand. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

11-02-2004, 12:13 PM	#61 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	This is how I'd feel:

11-02-2004, 05:32 PM	#62 (permalink)
jujueye alpaca lunch for the trip Location: in my computer	[QUOTE=Boo]He reopened a war that has little chance of being a full victory and has ran up a huge deficet while doing it. I do wonder what other choices he had. QUOTE] Good point, but I feel he cares little about the deficit he has single handedly created. He knows eventually he will be out of office and will not have to deal with it at all. I hate to point to Clinton because he was inthe right place at the right time, but he still managed to smooth things out and remain on good terms with foreign countries. We were prosperous and respected. Bush really was handed a plate full of shit, I agree. But he doesn't seem to care about fixing it. He laughs too much when on tv and appears to be too jovial about everything. He has allowed corporations to reshape things like clean air laws. Isn't that little strange? Instead of holding true to many Americans, he sems to have just picked his friends. An exceptional president should be re-elected. I just don't believe Bush has been exceptional. Is Kerry a great replacement? We don't really know.

11-02-2004, 08:22 PM	#63 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	At this point.. I'm beginning to think that maybe this country deserves everything it will go through. Natural selection after all.. If people are foolish enough to re-elect him back into office, then they simply have to deal with the consequences when the time comes, I guess. We're given this opportunity to assess a situation and fix any mistakes that are presented to us (and there are a lot), and we just let it fall apart. Unfortunately, when you allow a majority of fools to vote, you run the risk (of course) of allowing a fool into power. The lovely double-edged sword of our representative govt... When used properly, the system works wonders, but when misused, as we have seen, can be very dangerous. If Bush wins, I won't complain... but I hope people don't expect me to stand up for this country when the time comes or hold any respect for it, because I'll just smile and turn the other way.. maybe utter an, "I told you so," or two. Deal with your own probs! __________________ I love lamp.

11-02-2004, 08:22 PM	#64 (permalink)
assilem Insane Location: Eternity	If W wins? Better than if Kerry won. Good. I guess. __________________ The mother of mankind, what time his pride Had cast him out from Heaven, with all his host Of rebel Angels

11-02-2004, 08:34 PM	#65 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	I voted satisfied. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

11-02-2004, 08:36 PM	#66 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	I'll be slightly disappointed, but will get on with my life. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

11-02-2004, 09:21 PM	#69 (permalink)
roadkill Insane	I'm going to be postal to see him elected this time round. I dislike and disapprove of him!

11-02-2004, 09:31 PM	#70 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Since it appears to be pretty much for Bush, I am satisfied. I think Bush is the best of all of the candidates out there, and will do the best job. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

11-02-2004, 09:39 PM	#71 (permalink)
ibis PIKE!	I want a "fucked" option, please.

11-02-2004, 10:05 PM	#74 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Yet he managed to not only graduate from Yale, but get into Harvard Business School (without family connections) and graduate there too. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

11-02-2004, 10:13 PM	#75 (permalink)
Billy Ocean Crazy Location: City London UK	It's going to be great! __________________ "To live outside the law you must be honest." - Bob Dylan

11-02-2004, 10:42 PM	#76 (permalink)
lk_3000 Tilted	anyone who promises to leave country when bush wins should start packing.

11-02-2004, 10:47 PM	#77 (permalink)
Kalibah Insane Location: Padded Playhouse	Happy - and safer With A republican controlled congress- NOTHING Kerry voted on would get passed - and MOST people agree he's weaker on terror ( according to opinion polls) Atleast with a Republican in office we can get things done AND be safer. Mr. Kerrys tax cut repeals, Increase in taxes, etc wouldnt pass So Safer, and more confident in Americas future

11-02-2004, 10:48 PM	#78 (permalink)
McG Crazy	Looks like Bush has Won it. Yipeee

11-02-2004, 10:53 PM	#79 (permalink)
mrbuck12000 Psycho Location: wisCONsin	i can only hope for the impeachment process to begin!!! __________________ "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2002

11-02-2004, 11:04 PM	#80 (permalink)
Rdr4evr Banned	It's not over yet.