Official Gloating/Moaning Thread - Only Here Please

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:54 pm

Ew, saggy neck!

Tareeq · Post by **Tareeq** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:02 pm

I said reasonably attractive, Austin. At the very least you could've posted something in lingerie circa The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

I'm home from work with a migraine, but my fioricet has now kicked in. You'd better fix that picture by the time I wake up.

Edit: Suddenly can't type. Odd. Fioricet's not a narcotic.

Crabbs · Post by **Crabbs** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:12 pm

Congrats to MSD, YK, DD, and ECO and all the other vocal supporters of the Bush team.

I look forward to the mid-term elections in 2 years for more fun

Let's hope Bush really turns into the "Uniter not Divider/Compassionate Conservative" he claimed to be in 2000.

Eco-Logic · Post by **Eco-Logic** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:23 pm

Crabbs wrote:Congrats to MSD, YK, DD, and ECO and all the other vocal supporters of the Bush team.

I look forward to the mid-term elections in 2 years for more fun

Let's hope Bush really turns into the "Uniter not Divider/Compassionate Conservative" he claimed to be in 2000.

Thanks Crabbs.

I thought this was pretty accurate, do you all agree?

Winners: Swift Boat Vets
Losers: Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, Mary Mapes, insert every other Swift Vet-hating media elitist here

Winner: Hillary Clinton
Loser: Terry McAuliffe

Winner: Zell Miller
Loser: Tom Daschle

Winner: Florida Gov. Jeb Bush
Loser: Florida election lawyers

Winner: Ron Silver
Loser: P. Diddy

Winner: Blogosphere
Loser: MSM

Winner: Hugh Hewitt (hat tip: Powerline)
Loser: Andrew Sullivan...and The Daily Kos (hat tip: Red State)

Winner: Security moms
Loser: Teresa Heinz Kerry (wonder how long before it's just Teresa Heinz again?)

Winners: Mark Steyn readers
Losers: Euroweenies

Winners: Clark County, Ohio voters
Loser: The Guardian

Winner: America

Big losers: Exit pollsters, George Soros

and I would add to that list

Loser: Zogby

Of course I know you don't agree with America, but what about the others?

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:25 pm

Koz wrote:Actually Mr. Sparkles, the Swedes speak VERY good English (better than a lot of Americans even), so the language barrier might not be that bad.

In all seriousness, after doing a little research, they actually do have 200 degree programs taught in English... I have been thinking about going back to school to get my Masters... I could go to Sweden and ride this shit out.

Nobody bombs Swedes. Even Germans.

Though I guess they did have some trouble with Russians back in the day... I guess Peter the Great wanted the hot chicks with rock hard nipples all to himself.

Coskesh · Post by **Coskesh** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:25 pm

"Let's hope Bush really turns into the "Uniter not Divider/Compassionate Conservative" he claimed to be in 2000."

I dont think anyone is really that naive. This is a guy that could give a damn what people in other countries and people in his own country say about him. He has an objective and will go full speed ahead without questioning a decision for a second. I guess that's a big part of his appeal - a true American cowboy, shoot first and fuck the questions. He won the electoral college and the popular vote, all we can do is accept the decision of the majority and hope for the best.

Congrats again.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:28 pm

Loser: Redskins
Loser: Redskins

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:31 pm

One pundit explained last night that second-term Presidents typically try to leave a legacy, so they actually tend to work more with the other side in their last years of office. They are free to take more moderate approaches to the issues without worrying about pissing off their base.

Now, I don't know how true that is, but I certainly hope it's the case. I'm not going to lie - as staunch a conservative as I am, the Republican stranglehold on the executive, legislative (and possibly) judicial branches does concern me quite a bit. I try to follow the adage of "moderation in all things," and the last thing I really want to see is a hard-right agenda for this country the next four years when the nation is so deeply split.

Tscott · Post by **Tscott** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:33 pm

This is probably all I'll say about this as I don't normally post in R&P...

I must say I'm disappointed. I'm not looking forward to 4 more years of focusing on Iraq and ignoring jobs, economy, oil/oil substitutes, and environment in our own country.

I voted with my pocketbook for the man I thought would turn the direction of our country back to focusing on our own problems and not just point to current low unemployment figures as a success while ignoring outsourcing and the fact that many people have taken jobs to survive, but are working below their educational/experience level and wanting something better.

On a personal note about the candidates, I also would've felt much better with someone who could see and work with shades of gray, instead of a my way or the highway approach to leadership.

Al · Post by Al » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:34 pm

When does P-Diddy start the executions?

Papageno · Post by **Papageno** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:36 pm

<rant mode>
Despite the electoral results, the Swift Boat Vets for "Truth" are a bunch of fucking character assassins (John McCain has said as much, though not in so many words) who can't get over the fact that they are on the wrong side of history re: the Vietnam war, so no, I don't agree that they're "winners." Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

Chris Matthews is right about those evil fucks.
</rant mode>

DD · Post by DD » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:40 pm

Papageno wrote:<rant mode>
Despite the electoral results, the Swift Boat Vets for "Truth" are a bunch of fucking character assassins (John McCain has said as much, though not in so many words) who can't get over the fact that they are on the wrong side of history re: the Vietnam war, so no, I don't agree that they're "winners." Fuck them and the horse they rode in on. Chris Matthews is right about those evil fucks.
</rant mode>

Ah, a typically coherent rebuttal of the Swift Boat claims.

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:44 pm

DD wrote:
Papageno wrote:<rant mode>
Despite the electoral results, the Swift Boat Vets for "Truth" are a bunch of fucking character assassins (John McCain has said as much, though not in so many words) who can't get over the fact that they are on the wrong side of history re: the Vietnam war, so no, I don't agree that they're "winners." Fuck them and the horse they rode in on. Chris Matthews is right about those evil fucks.
</rant mode>
Ah, a typically coherent rebuttal of the Swift Boat claims.

Please don't do this. That shit is so over.

Papageno · Post by **Papageno** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:44 pm

Yeah, I guess it doesn't mean anything that the guys that were actually on Kerry's boat all back him against the Swifties, with the exception of one guy (Sandusky, IIRC). I guess Kerry must have promised them all plum jobs in his administration if elected.

Please. The Swifties have been a hatchet job organization since Chuck Colson put them together back in the Nixon Administration.

Papageno · Post by **Papageno** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:55 pm

Another thing that's making me livid right now: WTF happened to the YOUTH VOTE!?!?!? I've voted in every Presidential and Congressional election since I was 18, without fail, even absentee when I was living in Germany in my early 20s twenty years ago. Why the hell can't more than 19% of the 18-29 types get their asses to a polling place? What is so fucking hard about it?

Someone please explain this to me.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:56 pm

The Preacher wrote:
aussie77 wrote:
The Preacher wrote:
aussie77 wrote:Except that I didn't compare it to the death of a friend. I gave context on the strength of feeling required for me to want to cry. Point out to me just ONCE where I said "Bush winning the election is like a friend dying."
The election makes you want to cry. The last time you cried it was the death of a friend. The election elicits the same feelings as the death of a friend.
Err.. maybe if you have severe logic problems. I did not say I cried.
Severe reading comprehension problem? I clearly never said you did.

I did not say I felt the same way as when a friend died. I simply provided a basis of comparison to give some relative worth to the fact I felt like crying. If I cried every time Meet Joe Black was showing on cable, then my crying over the election would carry no meaning. That I *felt* like crying, and given that crying is a rare event for me sparked by something of reasonable magnitude, then some relative value of my feelings about the election is given.
Your comparison absolutely never addressed the rarity of your crying. You simply gave the context of the last time you did so. If you meant to say that you only cried rarely, then I understand. That is not what you said and trying to interpret your initial statement as such would require omniscience on our part. Given that you only provided the context, that is the only thing we can assume you are comparing.

You know, I have to wonder something at this point. My original post was a response to how I felt about this election result. Exactly at what point you felt the need to argue with me about my own feelings is unclear. Exactly what your purpose is in arguing with me about my own feelings is is also unclear. However I can state this: if the point of your continued arguing over semantics is to somehow establish that I do indeed need perspective in my life as Tareeq originally suggested, I can only tell you to kiss my lily-white ass. If there is some other purpose for your continued posting, then please make it clear because I'm getting kind of sick of this.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:57 pm

All the hand-wringing. I can't say that I woudn't be doing the same if things went the other way - but I have a long history of dealing with crushing disappointment as a Bills fan, so I'm sure I could deal with it sans the claims that America is doomed and we're all going to die.

I would love to be measured and respectful of the opposition here and I will try to do that (even for the ones actually crying and thinking that the world is on the brink of death now).

But I would like to take the opportunity to look the Hollywood crowd over, and give them a hearty "Fuck you".

Now, on to the issue of "mandate". We'll all remember of course, that Bush treated his first election victory as if he had a mandate, so we shouldn't be at all surprised if we see that again.

The difference though, is that one can argue that he actually has it this time. It looks like he'll get greater than 50% of the vote, and his party has extended their control in Congress (including unseating the Senate Minorty Leader apparently).

How could one imagine that the Republicans couldn't (or wouldn't) take advantage of that. I think that some people in this thread need to understanding that it's not Bush's supporters that are out of touch with "America". As I said in some of the threads leading into yesterday - the liberal side of the aisle needs to start understanding that their worldview is NOT the majority opinion. If they finally understand that, they can begin to see where they differ from America, and where they can go to reclaim a majority status.

One more point about this election, which may be good or bad, depending on your feelings. From start to finish, the Iraq War is now entirely something that will be Bush's legacy. Had Kerry won this election, Bush certainly would have shouldered responsibility for starting it, but Kerry would start shouldering the responsibility for how it ended.

But now, Bush's legacy will hang or be heralded on how he concludes that conflict in the next four years, and that will allow history to solely judge him for how things turn out there.

I would rather have Bush responsible for ALL of it, than to allow Kerry the luxury of blaming any failures on his watch on Bush, thus making the whole think murky. Bush's legacy now stands or falls on the success of stabilizing Iraq.

Coskesh · Post by **Coskesh** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:59 pm

I just have a hard time with the "people who were concerned with morality voted for Bush" thing.

We have a guy that has had a lurid past (coke use, drinking, DUI) who has daughters who like to party and have had some trouble with the law, versus a guy who's main crimes it seems was to have gone to vietnam and came back to tell Congress to shove it and that his wife is outspoken. One of his daughters is in Harvard Med school, and I don't know anything about the other.

When they say 'morality' do they mean 'against abortion'? I understand going against Clinton when you want to vote 'morality' but what's the problem with Kerry?

Also, anyone catch the interview with PDiddy on NBC? The woman asked him about the fact that there didn't seem to be an increase in voter turnout in the 18-25 range, and he just spoke over her about how much of a victory it was for his campaign (Vote or Die) and blah blah blah blah. Thanks for nothing, P-Diddy!

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:02 pm

If your perspective was that this election was akin to a friend dying (as I have adequately demonstrated is the only possible way your initial post can be intepreted by the rest of us) then I do believe you need perspective.

If you were trying to say something else, then only upon further clarification did it come out (the rarity of such feelings, which seems quite reasonable).

I'm sorry if my challenging you wrought more anguish upon you than what you were already enduring with the last night's results.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:04 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:Now, on to the issue of "mandate". We'll all remember of course, that Bush treated his first election victory as if he had a mandate, so we shouldn't be at all surprised if we see that again.

The difference though, is that one can argue that he actually has it this time. It looks like he'll get greater than 50% of the vote, and his party has extended their control in Congress (including unseating the Senate Minorty Leader apparently).

For once RM9 we see eye to eye

He really does have a mandate this time, for better or for worse. What he does with it we will see. I guess I can just remain pessimistically optimistic

I think that some people in this thread need to understanding that it's not Bush's supporters that are out of touch with "America". As I said in some of the threads leading into yesterday - the liberal side of the aisle needs to start understanding that their worldview is NOT the majority opinion.

True that at this point the liberal side isn't the majority opinion. I don't know that any side claiming in excess of 40% of the vote could be said to be 'out of touch with America' though. The other interesting and disappointing thing to me was how many people on BOTH sides went into the election believing things that were simply factually untrue as a result of spin from both campaigns. This is not intended as a slam on anyone, but because of the way the media handles things, and the vicious turn that the election took I wonder if it isn't really a case of most voters being out of touch with reality. And I mean that for BOTH sides of the fence.

One more point about this election, which may be good or bad, depending on your feelings. From start to finish, the Iraq War is now entirely something that will be Bush's legacy. Had Kerry won this election, Bush certainly would have shouldered responsibility for starting it, but Kerry would start shouldering the responsibility for how it ended.

But now, Bush's legacy will hang or be heralded on how he concludes that conflict in the next four years, and that will allow history to solely judge him for how things turn out there.

I would rather have Bush responsible for ALL of it, than to allow Kerry the luxury of blaming any failures on his watch on Bush, thus making the whole think murky. Bush's legacy now stands or falls on the success of stabilizing Iraq.

Nice finish. It is true that at least now we will give Bush a chance to finish what he started, and he can be judged by that. I just sincerely hope that he does a good job and that if he does so people on both sides give him credit. Likewise if he continues to screw things up I hope people on both sides see that for what it is too

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:06 pm

The Preacher wrote:If your perspective was that this election was akin to a friend dying (as I have adequately demonstrated is the only possible way your initial post can be intepreted by the rest of us) then I do believe you need perspective.

If you were trying to say something else, then only upon further clarification did it come out (the rarity of such feelings, which seems quite reasonable).

I'm sorry if my challenging you wrought more anguish upon you than what you were already enduring with the last night's results.

Look, if you have some issue with me, take it to PMs. Unless you are trying to feel good about yourself with this argument somehow. I could continue to argue the point but it is really quite stupid and pointless... hint hint.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:06 pm

4 more beers!

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:06 pm

Coskesh wrote:We have a guy that has had a lurid past (coke use, drinking, DUI)

For one, that's in his past, and Christians are allegedly big on forgiving the pasts of born-again Christians.

Second, drinking isn't exactly a knock on someone's morality. Third, as far as I recall, the issue of coke use has never been more than an unsubstantiated rumor.

And again, drug use doesn't seem to outweight BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIAN on their morality scale. Why does this confound you? Is it that difficult to conclude that they don't share the same moral values as you?

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:08 pm

aussie77 wrote:You haven't adequately demonstrated anything. I'm just sick of this pointless argument that contributes nothing to the discussion. End of story. Now can we please let it end?

Aaaaaaaasssssss yyyyyooooouuuuuu wwwwwwiiiiiissssshhhhhhhh.....

Oh, and I have no issue with you at all. Why does challenging someone's position in an R&P thread (quite coolly I might add) equate to having an issue with someone? I have no ill feelings, nor have I ever.

Crabbs · Post by **Crabbs** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:08 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:I would rather have Bush responsible for ALL of it, than to allow Kerry the luxury of blaming any failures on his watch on Bush, thus making the whole think murky. Bush's legacy now stands or falls on the success of stabilizing Iraq.

I think this is a very good point, it's sink or swim for his legacy now.

Crabbs · Post by **Crabbs** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:12 pm

Coskesh wrote: The woman asked him about the fact that there didn't seem to be an increase in voter turnout in the 18-25 range, and he just spoke over her about how much of a victory it was for his campaign (Vote or Die) and blah blah blah blah. Thanks for nothing, P-Diddy!

But there was... % wise no, but # wise there was a huge increase across the board. So I think That is a positive. The more people that think they have a voice the better our country can be, even if I don't agree with the majority decision.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:13 pm

For once RM9 we see eye to eye

Hooray!

I don't know that any side claiming in excess of 40% of the vote could be said to be 'out of touch with America' though.

When I say "out of touch", I am referring to the fact that they just don't seem to understand that 51% of the people voting don't agree with them, their worldview, or the package they are selling.

In other words, they're "out of touch"-ness doesn't stem from their 48-51 ratio - it stems from them not understanding that they are on the wrong side of that 48-51 ratio. I think it will be very easy for them to reverse that with the right candidate, with the right positions (i.e. a candidate other than Hillary Clinton).

Nice finish. It is true that at least now we will give Bush a chance to finish what he started, and he can be judged by that. I just sincerely hope that he does a good job and that if he does so people on both sides give him credit. Likewise if he continues to screw things up I hope people on both sides see that for what it is too

Well, there's lots of details, and ultimately I'm sure I will be more leniant in my analysis and application of blame than you - but there won't be any historical argument that Bush's stewardship of this issue for 7 years will put the blame or credit squarely in his lap.

And if the President is at all concerned about his legacy - that's a good thing, more than a bad thing.

Edit: I said before that I wouldn't want Kerry to have the out to blame failures on Bush. I also wouldn't want Bush to have the out to claim that Kerry just fuct it up after he took over.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:15 pm

The Preacher wrote:
aussie77 wrote:You haven't adequately demonstrated anything. I'm just sick of this pointless argument that contributes nothing to the discussion. End of story. Now can we please let it end?
Aaaaaaaasssssss yyyyyooooouuuuuu wwwwwwiiiiiissssshhhhhhhh.....

Oh, and I have no issue with you at all. Why does challenging someone's position in an R&P thread (quite coolly I might add) equate to having an issue with someone? I have no ill feelings, nor have I ever.

Because the position you are challenging is my feelings.
1) you are in no way in any kind of a position to understand my feelings in any way shape or form. Even if you did this would in no way qualify you to 'challenge' them.

2) you did it in a completely retarded fashion. You inferred something of your own accord which was not explicitly stated, and then proceeded to act as though this was some kind of damning evidence.

If your perspective was that this election was akin to a friend dying

The above quote says it all. I did not say anything that was even remotely close to "I feel as though a friend just died because Bush won the election." But hey, whatever makes you happy. In fact, this is just for you:

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:18 pm

So much for calling an end

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:20 pm

The Preacher wrote:So much for calling an end

Crikey. So shoot me for trying to finish with a picture that made fun of both of us!

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:20 pm

Holy Jeebus. Enough already with that. There is real gloating and moaning to be had here!!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:22 pm

aussie77 wrote:
The Preacher wrote:So much for calling an end
Crikey. So shoot me for trying to finish with a picture that made fun of both of us!

Except you said it was just for him.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:24 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:Holy Jeebus. Enough already with that. There is real gloating and moaning to be had here!!

Bah, I wish! You've all turned into panty-waisted Agreers. The worst sort of scum

Montag · Post by **Montag** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:28 pm

Registered to say HA! :D

Coskesh · Post by **Coskesh** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:44 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: Is it that difficult to conclude that they don't share the same moral values as you?

No, that is quite obvious. So morality means "born again Christian", that is a scary thought for me - the idea that one cannot be a moral person if he/she has not accepted Jesus.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:54 pm

Tareeq wrote:I said reasonably attractive, Austin. At the very least you could've posted something in lingerie circa The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

I'm home from work with a migraine, but my fioricet has now kicked in. You'd better fix that picture by the time I wake up.

Edit: Suddenly can't type. Odd. Fioricet's not a narcotic.

Here you go...

Now check your PM's.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:57 pm

Coskesh wrote:No, that is quite obvious. So morality means "born again Christian", that is a scary thought for me - the idea that one cannot be a moral person if he/she has not accepted Jesus.

No. Morality means different things to different people (the moral relativist that I am). So you thinking that he is immoral because he drinks doesn't mean that he is immoral because he drinks. Nor does them thinking that he is moral because he is religious mean that his is moral.

It just means that in THEIR eyes, his is morally superior to Kerry. And in YOUR eyes, he is morally inferior to Kerry.

Coskesh · Post by **Coskesh** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:15 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
Coskesh wrote:No, that is quite obvious. So morality means "born again Christian", that is a scary thought for me - the idea that one cannot be a moral person if he/she has not accepted Jesus.

No. Morality means different things to different people (the moral relativist that I am). So you thinking that he is immoral because he drinks doesn't mean that he is immoral because he drinks. Nor does them thinking that he is moral because he is religious mean that his is moral.

It just means that in THEIR eyes, his is morally superior to Kerry. And in YOUR eyes, he is morally inferior to Kerry.

Just want to clear up a few things. I don't think drinking is immoral, and I don't think Kerry is more moral than Bush - I don't know either of them. I do understand now what is meant by "people that were concerned with morality, voted for Bush". I guess I didn't like the wording, because it suggests that people that voted for Kerry are immoral or not very concerned with morality.

Eightball · Post by **Eightball** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:26 pm

Stupid intellectual property class, interfering with my posting.

Tareeq wrote:Edit: Suddenly can't type. Odd. Fioricet's not a narcotic.

Yeah but the caffeine + butalbital has nice side effects.

"The most frequently reported adverse reactions are drowsiness, light-headedness, dizziness, sedation, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and intoxicated feeling."

From: http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/esgic_ad.htm (Best Rx info site I've found).

As for the origins of the founding fathers, your first part is exactly what I meant. They all came from privileged, educated backgrounds. Unlike, ostensibly now, where you can have people come from all walks of life. That they all seem to come from privileged, educated backgrounds now...well that's another story.

Sunderer, it's quite easy. If you allow elections, and that 51% elects all of the seats/power basis of a government, than that 51% will be represented disproporitionately. The 49% minority will get much less than 49% representation. That's my issue with a unipartisan government. And, when I said full majority, I would consider the amount necessary for an amendment which is 66%. That make enough sense to you?

But I do appreciate your thoughts on the topic. Nice to come out of the woodwork just to have an explanation to you...

CeeKay · Post by **CeeKay** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:36 pm

Guys, we all need to chill and light up a big fatty! I hear Dubbayah has some choice papers for it too

[/me ducks

]