2004 Presidential Election Poll

James Lee wrote: Have I redeemed myself yet for making light of the usage of the word "gay"?

No! Now put that hairshirt back on, and back into the pit from whence thee slithered, thou foul fiend from hell!

BillBoh1971 wrote: No seriously, i don't get the point with that "constitutional amendement" or whatever. I mean, those who don't like "gay weddings", just ignore it!! Live and let live...

agreed, live and let live, couldnt have said it better

here's a different view of the election results, with population density taken into consideration. It may be a little more accurate than the huge mass of red we all saw on the day after...

source: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

My penis is historically more popular in the blue states...but the larger-than-expected turnout recently has tended to shift it towards the red.

I'm trying to think of a way to use the two-party system to refer to my testicles (i.e., Right-wing and Left-wing) but I'm afraid I'd unduly excite some of the less moderate constituency.

BTW, even though he's dead.

I want Frank Zappa on the ticket next time 'round.

It's funny though how the democratic states in those days were the south and the republican states were the north..Not that I needed to remind you of this but Lincoln was a republican president.

If JFK were alive today he would be a reuplican...he lowered taxes, believed in a strong military...hmm?

Affirmative Action(since you brought up slavery) I think is an insult to african americans. What, the dems don't think black people are as smart so lets lower the test standards for them so they have a chance to succeed? How about the best man for the job theory? I think that would be a far more dignified way to earn a living!

Bush's cabinet has 2 black people in it and i heard he is looking into a 3rd + there has been talk about a hispanic being added to the supreme court...Clinton's cabinet had no blacks......hmmm....sounds to be like a bunch of hypocracy!

Sorry Peter Rideout., I just can't help myself!..

gdub411 wrote: Sorry Peter Rideout., I just can't help myself!..

 Gdub for Haul Monitor!

James Lee wrote: I'm not convinced that the South shouldn't have been allowed to secede in the first place. Not only would it be the 'democratic' solution, it would have been interesting to see how world history would have developed differently with two or more sovereign entities in place of the U.S.; especially since, historically, countries with many different and distant populations are significantly weaker, shorter-lived and more prone to volatile situations.

There would have been at least three countries, The North, The South and The West.  They would have been at war with each other until one overcame the other two (provided the Euros would have minded their own business).  I think the world would be a far worse place, I think the Nazis would have won WWII and there would be no fireworks on the 4th of July.

Yes, but much lend lease went to the Russians. Without the US and UK aid Russia would have been ill-equipped. The UK would have been pressed harder without the US lend lease and therefore wouldn't have been able to supply Russia because they would needed all their resources against Germany.

Also take away the american fleet of planes, suddenly the air war becomes alot more interesting between Germany and Britain and Germany would have been able to send more planes to the Russian front. The air war was key in WWII and those who controlled the air had great advantages as well in the ground campaign.

No americans in Africa may have resulted in Rommel taking Alexandria and then the Axis forces would have swept through Middle East and Asia with little resistance, probably reaching Turkey who was axis friendly and may have felt inclined to join the Germans due to recent Axis success. Then you would have seen  Rommel leading the Germans, Italians and Turkish forces over a large expanse of unguarded Russian terrritory...it would have been ugly for Russia.

Now what could the Japanese do with their superior fleet without the americans to keep them in check?......

I love History and especially love WWII Peter....bring it on!!

Ah...the Spitfires were excellent against the Germans vs the Battle of Britain but do you think they would have held the test of time over the skies of France and Germany. Fighters are great for shooting down enemy bombers, but weren't much assistance in the strategic war aspect of things or the ground campaign as well.

Germany did make fighters that would compete with your spitfires and I shudder to think what the damage german jets would have done in a prolonged war.

England doesn't dissapear because of lack of american assistance. I agree with you fully on that.....Well...not until the Japanese fleet sails on in takes Gilbalter, frees and Italian fleet from the mediterrean and inspires the german fleet to leave the safety of the Baltic Sea and the combined forces wipe the English navy off the map.