jimshiz

That's what I meant by "it's a can of worms"...you can not simply say seatbelts are optional now without dealing with all those other "root causes" that are unfortunately related now because of the stupid laws...

OK - pile on... I don't see anything wrong with any of the proposals that you listed except the one about the "age of the earth/world"...however there are ways to word even that and satisfy both sides...

If not wearning seat belts and not wearing motorcycle helmets only effected the people not doing it, then it would be a personal privacy issue. Unfortunately, there are costs and other people's lives potentially at stake when responding to accidents involving someone not wearing seatbelts or helmets. It is a can of worms. If someone can say that the cost would not effect me and they can say no paramedic will be hurt responding to a more serious accident, then we might be able to say these issues are truly isolated to those people not wearing seatbelts or helmets. The "5 whys !!!" - Why do we have to wear seatbelts?", "Why do costs to others rise when someone not wearing a seatbelt is hurt?", "Why do hospitals have to cover the difference when an individual's insurance does not cover the cost?", "Why do hospitals have to charge so much?", "Why are hospitals insurance rates so high?", etc. Ditto for people smoking dope !!! There are consequences to people other than that one who smoked dope which makes it my business!

bulls^&t !!! Your argument is not mathematically sound, nor is it true in any way, shape, or form. Certainly some of the 100 million might have wanted to vote for "none of the above"; but it is absolutely FALSE that all 100 million wanted to vote for "none of the above". The percent of people who would have voted for "none of the above" likely account for the margin of error in most polls.

WRONGO !!! Statistically, once your population sample size reaches a certain number, it correctly predicts the final outcome +/- some error tolerance and will not be that far off from the percentages determined from a sufficiently large enough subset of the entire population. However, there could be more variances than one might expect in the final electoral college counts. But, they would not be significant. This only works if the subset population accurately reflects the same characteristics as the total population. This would not work if for example you excluded ALL city dwellers, or all blacks, or all women, etc. Also, this was NOT a choice between the lesser of two evils or even a choice between just two people because you have to account for the fact that Kerry did win a "runoff" against more than 10 others and even those 10 had to be selected from a larger number of potential candidates. And GWB had to do the same in 2000.

MERRY CHRISTMAS !!! and Happy New Year !!! Happy Thanksgiving too !!!

Enemy combatants fighting from a "Mosque" is AGAINST International Law. The enemy combatants in the "Mosque" were NOT prisoners. The soldier had no idea of the intentions of the enemy combatant. He probably did not want to wait to find out if the enemy combatant was indeed armed. Probably wanted to err on the side of living. War is hell...it is obvious that the soldier was not being negligent or criminal in his actions. His actions are perfectly understandable because I would have done the same thing. Shooting an injured, unarmed enemy combatant is NOT the same as shooting somebody waving a white flag.

At least 59 million people (or near 53% of voters) don't think his policies are extremist.

DC Tom, Would it be worth it for anybody to read "Imperial Hubris" by Anonymous? Does it matter if the reader is a "lefty" or a "righty"? Here's the link at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/157...2492282-5101454

The answer is: When is the last time a corpse was propped up longer than Yasser Arafat?

If everything else stayed equal, $1 in the stock market today has a 100% chance of increasing in the stock market if it stays there for 20 years or more. I'm not sure about the Social Security "lock box", but I think for every $1 that goes to that, exactly $1 comes out sometime in the future and I believe it is also worth less because of any inflation that happened since the $1 went in. And we all know in reality, the "lock box" was busted open long ago and only contains IOUs because that money has been spent a long time ago. You might want to study the average number of years that it takes for the stock market to double. At 5% increase per year, it takes 15 years to double. At 8% increase per year, it takes a little over 9 years to double.

Why doesn't the left compromise some and agree with some of the policies proposed by GWB? What, are they divisive or something? Arnold basically said the same thing: "Why would I listen to losers?" Schwarzenegger asked. "Let's be honest. Democrats lost every single ballot in the Bay Area." http://cbs5.com/news/local/2004/11/04/Schw...rs%3F'.html He was NOT talking about Democrats, just their ideas.

Obviously George W. Bush never said that. But, what obligation at all does he have to do things somebody else's way? No obligation whatsoever. Does anybody on this board, anybody at all, think that John F. Kerry would do anything the conservative way had he won the election? It may sound like "my way or the highway" and that is just tough. For the next four years, the losers need to go along to get along. Or they can obstruct like the last four years. I understand that even the GOP Congress did some obstructing when Bill Clinton was President. But, they also passed a lot of things he wanted. And he signed a lot of things that they initiated (because of the perceived will of the people). They went along to get along. Let's see how that all works out now for the next four years.

I voted for GWB and I also "voted" that the country is "divided". Clearly 59 million of us don't completely agree with another 55 million of us. But, our differences on most of the important things are not that far off. The may be disagreements in priorities that are huge. There may be disagreements on the means to and end. But, since GWB got the "majority", the "mandate", the "political capital"...it is his right to do the final deciding on the what and the how we do whatever. Quite frankly, it is "my way or the highway". He won. He deserves to try it his way. Do you really think if the numbers were reversed that Kerry would be doing a single thing to include the "right" into his tent? NO !!! When the liberals "win", then it will be their turn to decide what & how. But for now, we all need to support the President of the United States because he is, afterall, our leader for the next four years.

does not!

I think all the blue counties near the cities are due to the stranglehold that the liberals have in those areas.

Please, please, please...ANYBODY, left or right, who DOES agree with BF, please just say that you do. I want to know if ANYBODY here at all agrees with his statement from "Nov 3 2004, 01:08 PM". BTW - I'm far right and I DON'T agree with that statement; I'm also living in Indiana.

WRONGO !!! Statistically, once your population sample size reaches a certain number, it correctly predicts the final outcome +/- some error tolerance and will not be that far off from the percentages determined from a sufficiently large enough subset of the entire population. However, there could be more variances than one might expect in the final electoral college counts. But, they would not be significant. This only works if the subset population accurately reflects the same characteristics as the total population. This would not work if for example you excluded ALL city dwellers, or all blacks, or all women, etc. Also, this was NOT a choice between the lesser of two evils or even a choice between just two people because you have to account for the fact that Kerry did win a "runoff" against more than 10 others and even those 10 had to be selected from a larger number of potential candidates. And GWB had to do the same in 2000.

I voted Dashle because the Network News and Exit Polls will still be around, Kerry & Edwards knew their was a possibility they'd lose, many will have a short memory about Rather, and George Soros and MoveOn.org will continue to grow with added support because of this election.

The polls in Indiana are open from 6 AM to 6 PM. That is 12 hours. Employers are required by law to allow people to vote. I voted before work. I will vote no matter how many hours the polls are open. I'll just make sure I do it between the correct hours at the correct polling place.

Kerry will tax more wealthy people at progressively higher rates than those who are less wealthy. I think Kerry thinks it is OK to tax wealth upon your death for as much as possible; since you're dead, I don't think he thinks anybody will really care. Kerry will concentrate on domestics issues more than foreign policy issues. I think that he thinks foreign policy is just a necessary nuisance. More people around the world seem to like Kerry. Kofi Annan of the UN likes Kerry. Hans Blixer (the weapons inpector guy) likes Kerry. The leaders in France like Kerry. The leaders in Germany (I think) like Kerry. I think the leaders in Spain would like Kerry. I think the terrorists actually like Kerry better than Bush; but they hate him just the same because he is an American pig. Kerry does not mind using collected tax dollars to fund abortions for those who can't afford it even if those who provided the tax dollars are morally against abortion. I think Kerry places more importance on the job of a social worker over the job of a Department of Defense contractor. I think Kerry thinks teachers, police, and firemen, and others deserve to get paid more and I think he'd mandate it with government rules rather than market realities. I think Kerry thinks the minimum wage should be higher than it is. I'm not sure he believes the cost of goods and services provided by those with the higher wages will actually go up. I think Kerry thinks it is not discrimination if you hire a minority over a non-minority to "level the playing field" of past discrimination. I don't think he sees this case as discrimination as well. I think Kerry thinks George W. Bush actually lied about the weapons possibilities of Saddam Hussein. I think Kerry will appoint judges to the Supreme Court who think it is OK to interpret the Constitution based on the times rather than the original intent of the words. Kerry also thinks it is OK for judges to overturn laws made by legislators. I get the impression the Kerry thinks it is OK if you do great at your job but in your personal life you are a real letch. He does not think your personal character will effect your job performance character. Also, if you are meeting Kerry and he wants to impress you, he will be sure to say he enjoys the same things that you enjoy; even if this seems in conflict with his actual voting record. He's a nice guy. He speaks well. His wife is free to say whatever she thinks whenever she wants. To ask for anything different would be trying to subordinate your wife. All of this is just my opinion...

Somebody already mentioned that local elections are going on too; you're not just going to vote for President. If you still lurk on MBL, you'll see why I support the Electoral College. Even though the Electoral College system will determine who is President, both sides will spin the popular vote no matter what it is. But, the most important reason is because people before us fought for and died for our right to vote.

I'm 42 years old, grew up in the 1970s and I NEVER smoked pot, ever. I find it quite offensive to have to think that people will actually trust me less because I NEVER smoked pot. It puts me in a very good position with my kids when I tell them why I never did drugs. I know boat loads of people who did and do drugs. I passed joints from one person to another. I knew people who are now dead because of their drug habits. Again, that puts me in a great position when I'm trying to educate my kids on why just saying "No" is the way to go. Do you have to have drugs in your past to know it is WRONG?

92218[/snapback] I'm sorry, but the plurality of "your people" will NEVER "understand fully why you're doing what you're doing" AND I don't think the burden of proof needs to be as high as some think when it comes to "prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons". You see, to me, he/they already proved to me that what they are doing is for legitimate reasons and I do understand why he/they are doing what he/they are doing. Do I and people who think like me not count when it comes to this "global test"?

For all of these reasons he is one of the best Presidents we ever had and he will be one of the best two-term Presidents we ever have. He may "not" seem to to you, but the majority of people in "real" America knows that he is the best man for the job.