Bush has won for the second term!!!

With so much out there to learn from, whether it be native american beliefs, the teaching of plato or the concept of choas theory you find deep meaning in a script (quick heads up, neither Luke skywalker, Anikin or Yoda said those things , they are fictional characters) written by a guy who was out to make a few bucks. And though I know it's death to say it here, other than the special effects, they never were that really good of movies.

You question whether I am willing to go deep enough to understand the sentiment of a movie. I am asking you for more than hollywood quotes and inarticulate rambling.

Those weren't movie quotes. You obviously don't understand how I take meaning, just don't think too hard.

When Lucas first made Starwars, if you watch the documentary on the trilogy, he was not out to make a buck.. he created starwars to show a point. If you don't understand that writers create to make a point, you just lost me there. All writers have something from their lives in their movie.

It seems like some people just hate Lucas cause he did things his way, and it really scares people how he can suceed more separate from Hollywood. Lucas was an Outcast, The jedi knight II game was called: Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast. There is a reason for that title.

Again, don't worry too much if you can't understand, it takes time for some people.

"Again, don't worry too much if you can't understand, it takes time for some people."

Nice shot at a dig, but no dice, it didn't take.

I enjoyed starwars when I was 7, maybe 14 years old. What Lucas said in his movies has been said 1000 times before by much better writers, in much better movies or books. Star Wars is just a western with some special effects thrown in there. But whatever gets your rocks off is cool by me.

I understand why some writers write, as I make a living as a writer and artist. All writers don't write for the same reasons, and the same writer can write different things for different reasons. That being said, who cares.

I just think that to base your life philosophy on a poorly written movie trilogy is just a scarey way to approach things. But to each their own. I am still looking to the answer of the question posed back in page 9 of this thread. For what reasons did you, in particular, vote for Bush.

No hollywood references please. No deflecting please. No going on a tangent please. No rambling incoherently please.

No "you can't understand my choice", an intelligent person can relay their thoughts and expressions clearly and concisely. If Einstein can explain the theory of relativity to a seven-year old, I'm sure you can clearly explain your reasoning to me.

and may the force be with you

I voted Bush because he relates to me more than Kerry. (religion, party, business beliefs, living location)

There is no why. He just has more in common with me than what I find common in Kerry. The only thing I have in common with Kerry is an interest in science and thinking too much.

This is what happened,

Bush spoke to republicans, they listened

Kerry spoke to democrats, they listened...

We voted, and Bush won.

Now was that so difficult?

May I ask what was the defining policy that bush espoused that really made you want to vote for him?

The most important thing to me was terrorism. Then 2nd was the economy. I think Bush has a plan, and to put Kerry on that plan would alter the outcome that Bush intended, or Karl Rove, or whoever you think may have masterminded this strategy on terror. I just feel that Bush can survive pressure and he has done it, and Kerry hasn't been driving, so I'll let Bush finish the trip and let the democrats act as the backseat driver for another 4 years.

Now was that so difficult?

No, I answered that, and spewed a rant before. You just skipped over the whole thing and just asked me for the outline I just provided. 🙂

The reason for the rant wasn't about Bush at all, it was all about dealing with conflicts. That was it. Nothing more in the rant.

What really makes me wonder, is the states that are more prone to suffer a terrorist attack (including the state that has suffered twice at the hands of terrorists, the coastal states that are the main business centres of the US, feel that Kerry would do a better job than Bush re: terrorism.

There is a reason, and it has to do with waterways, population, crime, and other problematic factors. Republicans usually are voted for in low populated states. It is historically true.

High populated states would vote for Kerry because most cities with crime have something to complain about, so they might as well blame the National Government executive.

DC and Minnesota never vote Republican, not even for Ronald Reagan in 1984 who took 97.6 % of the Electoral vote 525 votes to Walter Mondale's 13 (DC = 3 electoral) (Minnesota = 10 electoral votes)

What are the reasons, you mentioned what they have to do with but you didn't give any. Could it be and educational thing?

If you look at a county map, by counties in states, Bush won 2.5 million square miles, and Kerry only won 511,000 Square miles of the counties of the US.

The voting is all party based, the party is prone to live in big cities or not. I think Religion played a big part in the recent election, but tradition has alot of reason, and the differences between the 2 candidates probably make it even more confusing. They didn't differ a whole lot on most issues.

The reason there is the electoral college, is because the coastal cities of California could vote for the president and override 4 states even if all of the population voted for the other candidate.

As far as education, it doesn't matter. Most low populated states (Iowa) have some of the best schools and learning environments in the nation. Low class totals so the children can learn more 1:1 with the teacher. Usually schools in big cities have more problems generally speaking High School. A lot of High School graduates that I know of go on to college in Iowa or another state occasionally.

Originally posted by kingcoot
High populated states would vote for Kerry because most cities with crime have something to complain about, so they might as well blame the National Government executive.

wow, that has got to be the biggest load of excrament you've produced thus far.

you are so misinformed, and so vocal about it.

sorry dude, but your 'polite and balanced' views are insulting and condicending. it seems you think you are better, smarter, and an all around better human being than those in blue states...yet you say so in such a sympathetic manner.

I'm speaking generally. I've seen bigger city schools, and judging myself, I'd take a smaller city. I didn't mean colleges were better, I meant high schools. Are High Schools really good in big cities? The schools I have seen depend on the city government's resources, and not the state. If the city has bad planning, the school pretty much matches the image.

PVS, you would know how good schools are in Iowa right? Whatever.

I don't know what point you were making, but I seem to be able to swim now in negativity.

funny thing is, i never put down a thing about iowa or tried to pigeonhole
iowa people as simpletons not capable of free thought or formulating an educated opinion. so dont try to flip this around.

you are being the insulter, not the insulted

I didn't say anything about Jersey at all. Did I? I was telling KharmaDog that education wasn't a factor in how the voting went state by state. I said it was probably religous, and traditional voting reasons.

I wasn't directing anything at you. Dang.
For just stating what I observe you take alot of offense.

Ok ... I'm sorry... you are right PVS

Small Towns have the most to complain about.....

Bigger towns have no problem because they figured out all the problems.

Happy? It's not what I observed, a lie to me, but it will make you smile.

fallacy- Misunderstanding statistics, and "small statistics". Really try and see how polls and statistics can be skewed. Have they listed the population the statistics have come from? Minority groups? Have they been bent in any way?

you quote general statistics about schools in cities, but may i ask, where is your nearest ghetto? NYC and other big cities have ghettos with failing school systems...sad but a reality. this is not a reflection on 'blue states' but on the federal government such as dubya's "no (rich white) child left behind act" among other failings by previous administrations, left included.

its partly a problem with federal and local government, but is also a product of overpopulation and poverty. you cant just sit back and say "we are doing it better" because that is complete and utter bullshit. its EASY to have a good school system in iowa, less students, less poverty.

you keep talking about cities as if they are some plague on the american way of life. its part of america as iowa is part of america. overpopulation is REALITY, not a side effect from some leftist policy.

what i forgot to add is that there are many school systems which excell in rural areas, but their statistics must mingle with those of failing schools when you generalise. therefore its misleading and you are using it as a tool to make people from certain areas of america seem less educated then in your state of superior intellect...sorry...not buying it

I agree with that PVS. I'm not looking at polls when I see which counties voted for republican. I'm looking at voting results. I hope that just isn't a poll.

The only thing that concerns me about "overpopluation" is why did 20 years go by, and more people left Iowa to populate the rest of the populated states. There is a reason they are drawn to that point. It is climate, jobs, money, and living style. I'm happy where I am. I won't be moving in my life time. I don't see this as the problem created by the president, or any president. I see people choosing a place at the same time and it will be interesting watching people sort it out.

I have said, the CITIES have schools that are less capable. Not all schools in those cities. Never draw general conclusions from me.