the commissar at politburo diktat has updated election numbers showing that Bush's win actually has increased-- to well over 60 million in the post election count

Yeah, thanks. I actually blogged that, linking to PoliPundit, about four or five posts down. See "The 60 Million Vote Man."

Not that I have anything to add.

Sorry-Mr Ace--got that later.
what i meant to say was that Yahoo's updated numbers exceed those you linked on polipundit.
From 60, 360--to 60,480,193 for GWB --even after the Dem dead vote is tallied.
Every vote counts... so count every vote.
heh

In the interest of accuracy - as it stands at the moment, Bush's win, or margin of victory, has actually decreased. Both candidates have increased their vote totals, and at the moment Kerry's actual increase is larger. The difference had been almost 4M at one point it, is now 3,357,819.

You won. But I will call bullshit on portrayals of a bigger win as the votes come in if simple math doesn't warrant it.
http://news.yahoo.com/electionresults

The Bat-Gloat-Patrol

Ummmm... yeah, that's some mighty fine gloating, Batman.

So, your guy lost by a rather big margin (compared to the 50/50 split we expected), but he's managed to trim the margin of his failure by a couple of hundred thousand votes. (PS, Batman, give me a cite for when this spread was 4m -- I've always seen it as 3.5m or 3.6m.)

And on that basis-- the gloating.

Well, I'll say one thing: The Batman turns out to be rather more of the glass-is-half-full sort of guy than I'd've expected from the Dark Knight.

Ummmm... yeah, that's some mighty fine gloating, Batman.

Damn. I guess I really need to work on clarity.

I'm not gloating at all. Just patrolling excess gloat. Now I think you need to lighten up ace.

VIEW OF BUSH'S 'MORAL' MAJORITY.

The US election is over and the Christian evangelicals in the US are crowing that they were insrumental in securing another four years for Bush. It is probably surprising to many Europeans, as it is to nearly half of the American voters, how these moral people can so easily dimiss 100,000 Iraqi deaths to favor a President who would advance their social war against homosexuality and abortion rights.
But, for those who know American history, this ability to exercise selective morality is hardly novel. Whenever America has needed land or resources, they have always found the means and forged the excuse for a war that would spread liberty to peoples reluctant to welcome our uninformed forces of freedom. And always they have claimed the sanction of the Almighty in their objectives.
In this, of course, America is no different from former imperial powers. And now, with help of Great Britain, we all have another four years to establish democracy over the second largest oil reserves in the world.

Paul,

blah blah blah. A lot of you guys don't engage in discussion. You have your little prepared speech, replete with bogus factoids, and you just proclaim for a couple hundred words.

Try responding to the actual post, or a point made by a commenter, rather than just bursting in to spam my site with non-sequitor fillibusters.

Thank you.

Hello, Bat. Never did rewrite those questions. Care to take a shot at it, or are you afraid of the answers?

Yes Ace, thankyou for your response. I will take your response as an invatation to leave "your site". Is that the sort of invatation your give to all your guests? If so, I will make sure that British bloggers are aware. Thankyou.

Smack:

Gee, what part of "won't be your monkey" are having trouble understanding?

If your looking for a supplicant - you're out of luck. The questions obviously got under your skin. If it's not important enough for you to answer them without controlling the tone of the debate - then I guess a few more souls won't be saved, eh?

I'm not going to lose any time hanging upside down in the Batcave over it, that's for sure :-)

Paul,

Don't be a dumb-ass, please. He asked you not pop into a thread and blather on a topic unrelated to the post itself, or the comments that follow...

Yeah, Paul. Listen to The Batman. He fights crime. And he's a liberal like you are.

I don't mind dissenting opinions. I like getting liberals here. It makes the site more interesting and, quite frankly, I can use the traffic. I don't like the fact that I'm only drawing from half of my potential audience.

My criticism meant exactly what it said. I wasn't giving you a general fuck off. I was telling you that you guys have this habit of just declaiming and making pronouncements entirely removed from the normal back-and-forth of argumentation or discussion.

And I was inviting you not to fuck off so much as to fuck on, or rather fuck on topic.

Just bursting into a site and saying blah, blah, blah, 100,000 civilians dead is the definition of trolling. You're not responding to what anyone is said, you're just going for a little thumb-in-the-eye provocation.

I don't get angry about thumb-in-the-eye provocation; I sorta do a lot of it. But really, if you're going to take the trouble to post here, maybe read the post you're ostensibly responding to, or a comment made thereto, and try responding to that.

It doesn't take all that much. You can probably still use one of your prepared bumper-sticker slogans if you like; you just have to tweak it a little to make it appear as if you've given the statement a tiny amount of thought.

As for all the lefty British bloggers you'll be warning away:

Well, none of them are linking me as it is. So, you know, who cares. I'll just have to continue suffering in the isolation of the tiny market that is known as America.

If your looking for a supplicant - you're out of luck. The questions obviously got under your skin.

Not at all. Your questions just included silly assumptions that I won't deal with. If you were really serious about intellectual debate, you would reword them.

Ok Ace, I understand your point. However, I must disagree with your observation, reference "being a liberal". I myself am not. But I do have an argument against liberalism. I look forward to your response.

The lesson of what has just happened in America is that the wider world is drifting away, alienated. Liberals find it difficult to understand why this should be so. For decades the belief has taken hold that, if decent, warm, modern values are carefully explained, then goodness will prevail.
Years ago, summing up the defiant optimism of a generation that was determined to change an ossified older order, Bob Dylan sang: "Something is happening here and you don't know what it is. Do you, Mr Jones?"
Now, weirdly, all that has changed. The Mr Joneses, beleaguered by forces that they do not understand, belong to the liberal elite. Where a previous generation deployed police and tear-gas to protect its position, resistance today is of a gentler, creepier kind.
Those who disagree are shifted out to the margains and ignored. Commentators who break the consensus are forced to apologise. Politicians who let slip inappropriate views are vilified. Anyone who unbalances the equilibrium of decent, middle-of-the-road liberilism is quietly excluded from debate.
Clearly, it will not work. Far from winning new converts, it hardens positions on the outside. In my view, the time has come for liberals to take a less truculent approach towards those who disagree with them, to try persuading rather than mocking and patronising. The alternative is a smug, smiling intolerance that will eventually defeat itself. So to those who wrongly judged me for being liberal, are wrong. I cannot stand liberilism in all its forms.

Thankyou.

Smack, Smack, Smack... Smack

Intellectual debate with someone who believes in the literal truth of the Bible, in this case specifically the book of Leviticus, and who in spite of his claims that it is literally true, wants to tell you what it means is oxymoronic, and well... just stoopid. It's either literally true, or its not.

I will not rephrase the questions for you. If you want to take that as a victory - more power to you. Have fun discussing it over donuts after church tomorrow morning :-)

As Barbara Bush said to Al Franken: I am through with you.

It's either literally true, or its not.

Never said it wasn't. That's what was so odd about your questions. They seemed to assume that I was trying to oppose literalism. I wasn't.

Not one to judge, however, there's no response. If you have the intellectuall ability to compete with me, which I thought perhaps you could. Then why are we not debating?

Paul,

You got me, buddy. You win.

You seem to be saying, maybe a bit wordily, that liberals need to change and be better at persuading. I don't really have any "debate" to offer. Obviously they should.

Ace, thankyou for your response and your honesty. I'm sorry for articulating myself "a bit wordily". In England we are encouraged in our education system to express ourselves this way, having clarity and being economical when writing. It must be an English 'thing'.

Does anyone have a view on Arafat's death?

In England we are encouraged in our education system to express ourselves this way, having clarity and being economical when writing.

"Economical" means using fewer words, Paul.

Oooo, nice burn, Ace.

And Paul, how many times are you going to cut-and-paste that same comment?
You posted it previously in Ace's blog, and also on Wizbang just a couple days ago.
Must be an English thing.

Yes 'lauraw'. I thought you needed a little help with moving your pathetic attemps at debating on.
Introducing talking points such as my last post; LIBERAL ELITE, would perhaps have a positive effect on the likes of yourself. However, as you seem to have the intellectual capacity of an atom, I'm not surprised by your jumping on 'Aces' band-wagon. His excuse (Ace) is that it is his site. What's yours? If you feel you can compete with me on any number of subjects, then I look forward to it. Just remember before you attemp debating, it is always good to think about what you want to say, then always support your statements with FACTS. No generalisations or sweeping-statements thank's. If you like quoting from books, then makesure you engage with the text!

Whoa! An atom, you say? Golly. Looks like I found your little red button and stood on it.

But its my fault- I really shouldn't have gotten jerky with you this morning. I was irritable and tired and should never surf the web that way. My apologies.

I've made a big pot of chicken soup and feel much better now. Have a great day, Paul, and a beer on me.

--Figuratively. Don't be asking me to send you money for a pint.

lauraw, I would consider that 'chickens' should go up on the 'pecking' order. I'm happy you feel better, with the aid of chicken.

About that money for a pint??????? LOL.

Paul is not a troll. Trolls leave a steaming pile and run away. Instead, he's a pig, and he wants you to get down in the dirt and wrestle with him so you'll end up as muddy and filthy as he is.

'raoul'....LOL

Even The Batman thinks Paul is a jackass troll.

Glad you made it clear you were not on the side of liberal/progressive ideology.

Sod off, you great bloody wanker. :-P

Hey hey, not so fast, the Batman. He very well could be one of your mates.
I strongly suspect that Paul is what Dittoheads refer to as a 'seminar caller.'

Lauraw,

Don't like his style. He's no mate o' mine.

BTW, speaking of pints... got a new beer that I'm test driving this afternoon: Lagunitas Brown Shugga' (Sweet Release). Not very refined, but 'Brown Shugga, how come you taste so good?' - suppose it could have something to do with the 9.9% alc. content :-)