PDA

View Full Version : Twenty-one Reasons Why Bush Will Win


HondaMan
07-16-2004, 11:37 PM
Twenty-one Reasons Why Bush Will Win by Scott Elliott, aka The Blogging Caesar, February 7, 2004 < http://www.electionprojection.com/essay1.html >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. No more drunk driving lightning bolts

Just four days before the election, muckrakers uncovered a dirty little secret on their GOP rival. Twenty-four years earlier, George W. Bush was arrested for drunk driving. To make matters worse, he answered no when a reporter asked if he'd ever been arrested. It was the kind of bombshell that would have ruined his shot at the White House, except for the lead in the polls he had at the time. The effect of the report was evident later in exit polls. They indicated that a majority of people who made up their minds within three days of the election voted for Al Gore. Normally, undecideds break overwhelmingly to the candidate from the party out of the White House. In addition, an unknown number of voters who had been attracted to Bush's image of integrity were motivated to stay home. Without this perfectly-timed political hand grenade, Bush would have won the election with room to spare, and the blatant partisanship of the Supreme Court (of Florida, that is) would have remained local news. In all likelihood, Bush won't face a similar devastating revelation this year.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Bush defeated the incumbent party in a time of peace and prosperity

In 2000, Al Gore enjoyed a huge advantage going into the election season. He was the sitting vice president during a time when the country was enjoying an extended period of peace and prosperity. Even under those circumstances, the American people thought enough of George W. Bush to elect him anyway. All things being equal, Bush will benefit from being in the incumbent party this time around. (I can hear Democrats mumbling something about Gore's poor campaign strategy losing the election. Maybe that contributed, but, nevertheless, Bush did possess a certain degree of electability. Imagine John Kerry..er..or not.)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Democratic get-out-the-vote

Special interests serving the Democratic party developed an intimidating get-out-the-vote machine during the 90's. That process culminated in an heroic effort in 2000. The result? Dubya took the best punch well-heeled civil rights activists and unions had to offer and still came out on top. Those Democratic special interests will be hard-pressed to match that performance and even less likely to exceed it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. National Security and the War on Terror

The United States of America was forever changed on that day in September when all of us were so violently ripped from of our mirage of security. Never again will peace be thought of as a given in American life. We are a nation at war. It is a war that will continue for a long time against a ruthless, unprincipled adversary bent on the merciless taking of civilian life. They have stated their desire to kill us, each and every one, simply because we are Americans. In such times, we are instinctively drawn to leaders who show the determination to proactively confront and conquer the threats we face. Most of us understand that a co-existent relationship with these enemies cannot be negotiated; they must be subdued through absolute victory in the theater of war. Bush understands this, and Americans know it. I hesitate to bring politics into the War on Terror, but the facts are obvious. Our President and his party in general have shown themselves much more willing to implement the iron-fisted policies necessary to vanquish this insidious foe. Speaking loudly, while leaving the big stick in the closet, is not the trademark of this administration when it comes to terrorism. There can be no denying that George W. Bush is serious about actively protecting our people and our nation. The vast majority of voters, even those who may disagree with the path down which that action is taking us, take comfort, consciously or not, in the protection our military provides under the firm hand of our Commander-in-Chief. This sense of protection through vigilance will be a huge factor this November in polling booths across the country.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. The perfect timing of the economic cycle

The recession of 2001 started very early in Bush's presidency. So early, in fact, that it is absurd to suggest Bush's policies had anything to do with it. The downturn was compounded by the disastrous economic effects of September 11. Bush understood that America needed to pour on the fuel to keep our economic engine from stalling. His tax cuts and immediate tax rebates provided a boost that helped avert a deeper, longer recession. The economy has since turned the corner and is picking up steam. If the current trends continue, and they should, by November the economic outlook held by the electorate should be much improved. And Bush will benefit considerably at the ballot box.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. The perfect timing of the national conventions

This is an excellent point brought up by PoliPundit last November. Here's the meat of those thoughts (I paraphrase just a little): "The Democrats made a major blunder in the 2004 presidential race by choosing to hold their national convention on July 26 in Boston. The GOP will be holding its convention in the first week of September. I could go on endlessly about why this helps the GOP, but here are four concise reasons:
1. Bush will be able to continue spending his Primary money until September and use his general election money from September to November. The Democratic candidate, however, will be out of money by July, because of a tough Primary, and then have to make his general election funds last from July to November. This exaggerates Bush's already crushing money advantage.
2. 9/11 will be a few days after the GOP convention.
3. By holding the Democratic convention on July 26, the Democrats risk losing the post-convention bounce in the polls by election day.
4. The summer Olympics are between the two conventions and will suck the air out of the DNC message."

The two months between September's Republican National Convention and Election Day will be a great time to be Republican. I can't wait!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. The collective weakness of the Democratic hopefuls.

The weakness of this crop of Democratic contenders has been well documented. Suffice it to say that whoever emerges with the opportunity to face Bush will be no Al Gore, as if that were a boast.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Same Sex marriage

With the rulings handed down by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts and a law in Ohio banning gay marriage, we are on a collision course with this issue that will force it into the political spotlight this year. The country is largely opposed to gay marriage, generally ambivalent toward civil unions, and mostly against a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as a joining of one man with one woman. That is the national consensus. However, if we look deeper into the intensity of each group on these issues, we see a much different picture. A few supporters of gay marriage are adamant in their views. They will mostly vote against Bush regardless of his stance, notwithstanding log cabin Republicans. However, most people who support gay marriages and civil unions, and thus oppose an amendment, do not hold that position with a great degree of fervor. By and large, they will not be motivated to take their votes away from Bush or to make sure they get out and vote against him when they would otherwise stay home. It's simply not that big an issue with them. It is an entirely different thing for a large portion of those who support the amendment. Their opposition to changing the traditional definition of marriage runs deep and strong. It is a big deal to them. Bush's stand on this issue will directly create votes for him among those whose intense feelings on this issue will overwhelm their general indifference to the political process.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Republican get-out-the-vote

Possibly the most significant development in the American election process since 2000 is the unbelievable strides the GOP has made in terms of volunteerism and organization. Once a domain dominated by Democratic special interests, get-out-the-vote is now practically a wash, and GOP operatives are frenetically working to increase the breadth and depth of grass-roots support structures all over the country. This is an amazing turnaround from 2000. It, alone, will turn many a close state into a comfortable Bush victory, while moving some comfortable Gore states within striking distance for the President.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Florida is much more Republican now

A startling event took place in 2002. It was startling both in its circumstances and in the lack of focus it received. That event was the Florida gubernatorial election. What happened there, when taken in the context of the voting debacle two years earlier, was truly phenomenal. I'll recap it for you:

In 2002, Terry McAuliffe pledged that Jeb Bush, the president's own brother, would be defeated in his re-election bid. In fact, the DNC made the Florida governor's race their number one priority of the 2002 election cycle. Moreover, only two years removed from the spectacle of 2000, emotions and energy should have been be running extremely high among Democrats. Did we see massive Democratic turnout? Did Terry's threats come true, for once? Nope! What transpired was not a humiliating GOP defeat, but a Bush-brother victory by a count that exceeded Jeb's first election margin. He won by an amazing 13 points! It was a complete and utter repudiation of the revenge factor and clearly showed the strength of the GOP in that state. Without Florida as an obvious pickup target, the Democrats' options to gain ground shrink considerably.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Redistricting

President Bush has gained a small yet concrete advantage heading into the elections this year. Red states in 2000 netted Bush 271 electoral votes. This year those same states would give him 278. In other words, he could lose a state like New Hampshire, Nevada or West Virginia and win anyway. Even losing a larger state such as Louisiana or Colorado would produce a 269-269 tie.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. The Base is solid

Despite his forays into fiscal liberalism - Medicare, immigration, education - the President maintains phenomenal support among Republicans. A poll in late January by the American Research Group found only 10% of GOPers disapprove of the job he is doing. Eighty-six percent approve. In addition, the vocal displeasure at his aforementioned transgressions has apparently not fallen on deaf ears. Recently he has offered peace offerings to the GOP faithful, such as a spending freeze on non-defense spending. Finally, his rock-solid conservative stands on abortion, judicial appointments, taxes, gay marriage, and National Security are sure to bring out a sizeable elephant stampede in November.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Proven leadership

Can we trust a privileged businessman who has served but 6 years in elected office to handle the affairs of the most powerful nation on earth? In 2000, voters put their faith in an untested George W Bush. Four years later, his courageous, principled, and steadfast leadership has led this country through some of its most trying times. Even those who dislike and disagree with President Bush would be hard-pressed to deny the resolve of his leadership. He provided and continues to provide a steady hand when we need it most. Voters will feel eminently more confident to put their trust in him again this year.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. New Hampshire is more Republican

Florida and New Hampshire were the two states that Ralph Nader's candidacy lost for Al Gore. I've already addressed the current situation in Florida. New Hampshire is not much different. Voters there have now elected two Republican senators, a Republican governor, and two Republican representatives. The GOP has a 3 to 1 advantage in the state senate and better than a 2 to 1 advantage in the state house. A Democratic victory here will be quite a feat, indeed.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. Minnesota and Iowa are more Republican

Pew research conducted a nationwide poll last summer to measure changes in party affiliation since the tragedy of September 11. Minnesota and Iowa have been trending Republican of late, and these shifts were quantified in that poll. They present yet another headache for McAuliffe's bunch. Now they have to row against the current in states that Al Gore won.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. Governor Schwarzenegger

California's fiscal health is the inevitable result of a steady diet of liberal policies. Last year, voters in this very blue state decided to switch chefs between meals. They settled on a Republican. In fact, over 60% of them voted for a GOP candidate. Does this mean 60% will vote for Bush? Not a chance. However, with this clear rejection of liberal economics and with the structural advantage that comes with control of the Governor's mansion, Republicans have a shot at competing for the biggest electoral prize in the nation. Regardless of the eventual winner, a competitive GOP in California would require Democrats to funnel precious resources to protect their most valuable bastion.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. Ohio's social conservatism

Since Florida and New Hampshire are no longer the targets they once were for the DNC, Ohio becomes the challenge of choice. On the surface, Bush's narrow victory there in 2000 would give Democrats hope of taking it from the GOP in 2004. However, the political winds are blowing in the GOP's favor this year. Ohio's recent passage of a ban on gay marriage highlights their socially conservative lean. The impending battle in the gay marriage debate will solidify and motivate social conservatives in this crucial state, resulting in a more difficult obstacle for the Democrats to overcome.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18. The Deaniacs' pending revolt

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean has been a veritable political highlight reel. Never before in my memory has a candidate followed a path similar to the one of this eccentric politician. In the race for the Democratic nomination, it has been thoroughly entertaining to see this man so flamboyantly hurtle himself to the front of the pack only to relegate himself to also-ran status through clumsy mis-steps and childish outbursts, all in a period of a few months. But, even though he's finished as a viable choice, his candidacy will have far-reaching effects on the election in November. What Dean did was to identify and add fuel to a smoldering fire within a segment of the Democratic party. These liberal Bush-haters haven't broken their engagement with him. They understand that he "feels their anger" - the same anger that will now compel them vote for a third party candidate rather than betray their man by voting for the victorious Democratic foe. This group won't be huge, but it will be enough to give Bush another advantage.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Democratic experts still think Dubya's dumb

I had to add this one. Bush has made a career out of having his opponents "misunderestimate" him. They show no signs of realizing that they really aren't dealing with a moron. How many more times will the Democrats ponder, "How did he do that?"



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. Giuliani's campaigning

As I've mentioned above, national security will be paramount in voters' minds this election season. After Bush, no one personifies the triumph of American resolve in the aftermath of September 11 more than Rudy Giuliani. In the time since, he has shown himself to be a willing advocate for Bush and other Republicans on the campaign trail. His active presence can only help Bush's standing in November.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21. Democratic filibusters of Bush's judicial nominees

An issue that, if used wisely, can be very effective in wooing conservatives and moderates alike, is the heavy-handed, partisan tactics of Democratic senators. Never before have a president's judicial nominees been subjected to filibusters with the reckless abandon employed by this group of liberal lawmakers. Democrats have charted virgin territory in their quest to stall Bush's vision for a balanced, non-activist federal judiciary. The GOP has an opportunity to wield this obstructionist track record to attract more moderate voters and win a larger portion of the Hispanic vote - read this.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure there are more reasons for optimism. I'm also sure my counterparts on the left could come up with their own list of reasons for them to be hopeful. But the point has been made: President Bush is going to be one tough hombre to dislodge from that thar White House. When you Bushies out there are discouraged by the spin and disappointed by the polls, just read this list again and stop your fretting.

But don't stop donating and volunteering. That will play a most critical part in making this view become a reality. He is certainly not assured of re-election, but, with our continued support and hard work, all signs point to a second term for George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States.

Flame away liberals...I got my flame suit on! (f)(l)(a)( :lol:

larchmont
07-17-2004, 12:18 AM
I personally ran out of patience at #4. Didn't make it past that.

Hey, HondaMan, admit it -- those are awfully lame, aren't they?

OK, let's just take one of them as an example. How about #2:
It's a questionable factor which is irrelevant besides, and further, it takes no account of events since 2000.

That might indeed be the very weakest on the list, but upon cursory examination, none of the others are much better.

pocketkiller
07-19-2004, 05:49 PM
I think the reasons some of which are quite compelling, have not been made known by the media. Media attention has always been less than adequate on economic growth and progress in Iraq, let alone these other 21 issues. I too think Democrats have a big surprise coming this November. Ohh the arrogance.

larchmont
07-19-2004, 06:02 PM
....I too think Democrats have a big surprise coming this November.....
Like what?

pocketkiller
07-19-2004, 06:03 PM
Like they will LOSE!

larchmont
07-19-2004, 06:06 PM
Like they will LOSE!
Well, OK. :D

But won't EITHER side be "surprised" if they lose?

Actually.....I think anyone with his/her head on straight isn't going to be surprised no matter what, because it's anybody's ballgame.
Even if it turns out to be a rout, one way or the other.
(As is sometimes pointed out, elections involving incumbent presidents rarely wind up being very close.)

You talk about the "arrogance" of Democrats, and since there's plenty of that to go around I'm not going to argue with it.
But I don't think many Democrats are assuming Bush is going to be defeated. Hoping, yes. And feeling they have a good chance to win, yes. But assuming? I doubt it. I think that anything that looks like it is just posturing.

pocketkiller
07-19-2004, 08:06 PM
I guess I'll agree, although keeping in mind that we don't even know what platforms Kerry is running on yet. Supposedly he will announce it at the end of July.

We need jobs!
We need healthcare!
We are gonna raise taxes!

Thanks John. I couldn't say it any better myself. (except the taxes part)

HondaMan
07-19-2004, 09:16 PM
I guess I'll agree, although keeping in mind that we don't even know what platforms Kerry is running on yet. Supposedly he will announce it at the end of July.

We need jobs!
We need healthcare!
We are gonna raise taxes!

Thanks John. I couldn't say it any better myself. (except the taxes part)

I bet he will flip flop on those issues as well! LOL

http://logo.cafepress.com/nocache/7/356074.264907.gif

pocketkiller
07-20-2004, 04:50 PM
Notice how nobody chimes in here to talk about Kerry's platforms.

How can you support someone who's ideas you don't know? Hey, I still might vote for Kerry if he tells me what his plans are.

larchmont
07-20-2004, 11:39 PM
Notice how nobody chimes in here to talk about Kerry's platforms.

How can you support someone who's ideas you don't know? Hey, I still might vote for Kerry if he tells me what his plans are.
Very simple:

When you come right down to it.....like Nader says, the truth is that he's more similar to Bush than he is different. The two parties are really pretty centrist these days.

Except for a couple of things.

He's smarter.

And he's not going to do the really dumb stuff.

How's that for ya?


Some specifics:

-- When Supreme Court vacancies arise (and they WILL arise in the next four years, maybe as many as 3 or 4), he won't pick anti-choice right-wing morons.
(OK, bring on your wisecracks here.....but really, anything that you come back with, including "pro-choice left-wing morons" will be less bad.)

-- He'll think at least twice before trying to repeal the Bill of Rights.

-- When something comes up about poor people and the disadvantaged, he might actually listen.

-- He probably won't invade any countries without knowing what the hell he's doing.
Oh BTW having been in the miltary might help a little. :doh:

-- We'll see motorcycles on TV more often.

TSX 'R' US
07-23-2004, 02:25 AM
Notice how nobody chimes in here to talk about Kerry's platforms.

How can you support someone who's ideas you don't know? Hey, I still might vote for Kerry if he tells me what his plans are.
ynot? There are people who vote cause they "think" they're repub/dem.. :donno:

pocketkiller
07-26-2004, 02:24 PM
Very simple:

When you come right down to it.....like Nader says, the truth is that he's more similar to Bush than he is different. The two parties are really pretty centrist these days.

NO way Kerry is centrist. Didn't you hear about the liberal rankings in the Senate? I believe Kerry and Edwards rank #1 and #4 as MOST LIBERAL.

Except for a couple of things.

He's smarter.

You can't prove this, and Bush has a much better cabinet.

And he's not going to do the really dumb stuff.

How's that for ya?


Some specifics:

-- When Supreme Court vacancies arise (and they WILL arise in the next four years, maybe as many as 3 or 4), he won't pick anti-choice right-wing morons.

He won't be able to pick due to the opposition filibuster....oops that's what is happening to Bush right now!

(OK, bring on your wisecracks here.....but really, anything that you come back with, including "pro-choice left-wing morons" will be less bad.)

-- He'll think at least twice before trying to repeal the Bill of Rights.

Do you mean gun control?

-- When something comes up about poor people and the disadvantaged, he might actually listen.

Some people actually think these "poor disadvantaged people" don't deserve communist contributions from the rich people in america. Maybe they can get a job, hmm what an idea.

-- He probably won't invade any countries without knowing what the hell he's doing.

no retort necessary here

Oh BTW having been in the miltary might help a little. :doh:

Oh you mean like Clinton was in the military too?


-- We'll see motorcycles on TV more often.

Rather see TSXs

larchmont
07-26-2004, 03:21 PM
Ouch!!!!

I'm not talking about Pocketkiller's content, which wasn't too good :donno:
but about how he screwed up the format on his post, making it look like "Larchmont" said all that stuff.

For the sake of clarity: Please note that a lot of what appears above is PK's commentary, not what I posted.


I'll just pick out a few of those things:

From Pocketkiller:
NO way Kerry is centrist. Didn't you hear about the liberal rankings in the Senate? I believe Kerry and Edwards rank #1 and #4 as MOST LIBERAL.

Bogus stats. Analysis column in newspaper today, explaining how those "rankings" arose. They're wrong.

From Pocketkiller:
Oh you mean like Clinton was in the military too?

Clinton isn't the one running for president.
It's a different time now. Clinton wouldn't have been elected or even nominated if 1992 had been now.


And perhaps the highlight, if that's the right word under the circumstances....

From Pocketkiller:
Some people actually think these "poor disadvantaged people" don't deserve communist contributions from the rich people in america. Maybe they can get a job, hmm what an idea.

Pretty strong stuff. A lot of people actually agree with that, but I'll just say this: It sure shows where he stands and how he thinks. And I personally find it scary.

pocketkiller
07-26-2004, 04:53 PM
Ouch!!!!

From Pocketkiller:
NO way Kerry is centrist. Didn't you hear about the liberal rankings in the Senate? I believe Kerry and Edwards rank #1 and #4 as MOST LIBERAL.

Bogus stats. Analysis column in newspaper today, explaining how those "rankings" arose. They're wrong.

From Pocketkiller:
Oh you mean like Clinton was in the military too?

Clinton isn't the one running for president.
It's a different time now. Clinton wouldn't have been elected or even nominated if 1992 had been now.


And perhaps the highlight, if that's the right word under the circumstances....

From Pocketkiller:
Some people actually think these "poor disadvantaged people" don't deserve communist contributions from the rich people in america. Maybe they can get a job, hmm what an idea.

Pretty strong stuff. A lot of people actually agree with that, but I'll just say this: It sure shows where he stands and how he thinks. And I personally find it scary.

I'll bet sulzberger wrote the article himself. So what are the "actual" rankings?

So you think that Kerry's 1 month in the swift boat gives him all the experience he needs to be president huh. What a great pre-requisite.

What do you find so scary about it? That you actually have to work to get what you want in this life? People with no arms can still work and live a good life in this country. Should we just throw money at them because their mommies like crack?

HondaMan
12-20-2004, 04:06 PM
Go back and look at this Larch after the big W win and remember how you thought it was all garbage: :lol:

http://www.electionprojection.com/essay1.html

I've revisited each of these 21 reasons to see if I could confirm their validity. Look for my post-election assesssment of each in italics below. - Scott Elliott, 11/04/04

joerockt
12-20-2004, 04:21 PM
Did anyone catch SNL this weekend? The cartoon was about how Santa wont deliver presents to "Red" states. Ruldolph argues with him and he breaks out this map of the US where the red states are labeled "Dumb****istan"...Havent laughed that hard in a while.

Thought this was appropriate for this thread. :D

Oh look, I found the map:
http://snapsblog.com/i/285/snaps_post-election_us-map__dumb****istan.jpg

HondaMan
12-20-2004, 04:22 PM
Did anyone catch SNL this weekend? The cartoon was about how Santa wont deliver presents to "Red" states. Ruldolph argues with him and he breaks out this map of the US where the red states are labeled "Dumb****istan"...Havent laughed that hard in a while.

Thought this was appropriate for this thread. :D

HaHa...NOT! :p

larchmont
12-20-2004, 04:44 PM
Go back and look at this Larch after the big W win and remember how you thought it was all garbage: :lol: ......
Actually I didn't think it was all garbage.

Here's what I said: "I think anyone with his/her head on straight isn't going to be surprised no matter what, because it's anybody's ballgame.....
You talk about the "arrogance" of Democrats, and since there's plenty of that to go around I'm not going to argue with it. But I don't think many Democrats are assuming Bush is going to be defeated. Hoping, yes. And feeling they have a good chance to win, yes. But assuming? I doubt it. I think that anything that looks like it is just posturing."


Larchmont, who thinks HM has been admirable in not gloating more. :D


P.S. Joerockt rocks!

HondaMan
12-20-2004, 04:59 PM
Actually I didn't think it was all garbage.

Larchmont, who thinks HM has been admirable in not gloating more. :D

P.S. Joerockt rocks!

Well, you did (more or less). Don't tempt me...I would love to gloat more! :D Joe rocks is highly debatable from where I stand. :p You sure there isn’t more to why you were banned from that other TSX website? ;) You and Larch are partners in crime when it comes to that. hehe just kidding Larch! :laugh:

larchmont
12-20-2004, 06:32 PM
It's all part of a grand design to get all the good people over here. :D

HondaMan
12-20-2004, 10:01 PM
It's all part of a grand design to get all the good people over here. :D

Rock on...it seems to be working! :D

larchmont
12-21-2004, 12:26 AM
Rock on...it seems to be working! :D
A little OT, but.....although I was kidding, I think that in the fullness of time it might work that way. I always felt that the way that site is run, the members who are on the intellectual and thoughtful side will tend eventually to be at odds with the brusque, crude treatment that sometimes occurs over there (the latter depending apparently on the PTB's mood of the moment). Although it hasn't happened as readily or consistently as I thought, it seems it is happening to some extent. And also with the recent transition over there, with the site having been basically merged with two much larger sites, it bears less and less resemblance to the site that attracted us TSX'ers in the first place.

I would look for more and more of the good old members to migrate over here, especially those of an "intellectual and thoughtful" bent.

joerockt
12-21-2004, 12:48 AM
Well, you did (more or less). Don't tempt me...I would love to gloat more! :D Joe rocks is highly debatable from where I stand. :p You sure there isn’t more to why you were banned from that other TSX website? ;) You and Larch are partners in crime when it comes to that. hehe just kidding Larch! :laugh:

Awwww...Are you just sad no one else is siding with you :rofl: Poor baby... :tardsmash

And for the record, I wasnt perma banned. :p

HondaMan
12-21-2004, 01:03 AM
Awwww...Are you just sad no one else is siding with you :rofl: Poor baby... :tardsmash

And for the record, I wasnt perma banned. :p

It's always great to see new liberals for Larch to commiserate with. LOL :rofl:

BTW, I'm very happy....Bush kicked Kerry's butt...enough said!!! :nod: :p :tardsmash

TSX 'R' US
12-21-2004, 01:04 AM
Awwww...Are you just sad no one else is siding with you :rofl: Poor baby... :tardsmash

And for the record, I wasnt perma banned. :p
:laugh: :laugh:

larchmont
12-21-2004, 01:08 AM
Awwww...Are you just sad no one else is siding with you :rofl: Poor baby... :tardsmash

And for the record, I wasnt perma banned. :p
I know -- I was thinking of saying it, to make sure other people know that.


Of course that's good for you, and also it's a better comment on that site that they didn't do a perma ban. Hopefully they didn't even consider it.

joerockt
01-03-2005, 01:05 PM
I know -- I was thinking of saying it, to make sure other people know that.


Of course that's good for you, and also it's a better comment on that site that they didn't do a perma ban. Hopefully they didn't even consider it.

Oh, it was considered...And apparently a done deal...But, things changed, someone stood up for me. So Im glad to be a part of both places now... :woot:

larchmont
01-03-2005, 01:22 PM
Oh, it was considered...And apparently a done deal...But, things changed, someone stood up for me. So Im glad to be a part of both places now... :woot:
And we hope you'll be staying around here a lot.

Different sites serve different purposes. FWIW that site has become something way different than what most people came there for in the first place, and it seems to be moving further in that direction. Not just the tone of how it's run, but even more importantly, that it's not really a TSX site any more; it's been quite overrun by the much larger TL and CL communities. Just look at the list of "moderators": it's endlesss, and dominated by people who basically don't know a TSX from......well, from anything. And who don't know the real TSX members from anything either. I'm not saying the site isn't good, just that it's not what most people came for. I think there's going to be a lot more churning there, and FWIW that most likely very few of the "real" TSX'ers will continue to find it their kind of place, unless the place starts going in some very different direction.