why liberals can't accept defeat?

[Steve]

each time Disagreeable is presented with facts to show her thoeries wrong she starts calling names, Lier is her favorite, ,,,but she has many, ...in an effort to understand the extreme liberal I did a little research and it seems she is just one of few, in a group of slowly declining crowd,

it seems they are becoming extinct, dispite extreme efforts to save them, The following article shows some insight in how they can't seem to accept thier pending extinction. (appearantly they aborted thier young, had sex with like types and are unable of sustaining thier kind)...

Democrat leaders claim that they haven't got their message out. Facts don't support that claim.

A Pew Research Center survey of journalists and media executives revealed that there are five times as many Liberals as Conservatives in their profession. And, in the entertainment and academic professions, the ratio is even higher. So, it is safe to say that Liberals control the media, entertainment, and academic professions.

As a result, Liberals have had the luxury of ignoring Conservative America. On the other hand, Conservatives cannot escape the world view of the Liberals. This has led the Liberals to arrogantly believe that everyone thinks like them. The Liberals delight in labeling the opposition as stupid, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, insensitive redneck hicks.

But the same people the Liberals scorn, see the social and economic problems quite differently, and vote accordingly. This inability to understand Conservative values is a major reason Democrats are finding it difficult to accept defeat.

"But rather than face the music of constantly losing elections, liberals seek to discredit President Bush's mandate. Aside from the fact that President Bush won the most votes in the history of the United States, not to mention expanding over his 2000 showing in every state with the exception of Vermont (but including John Kerry's home state of Massachusetts), what will it take to convince them?

Sure, it may not have been a very wide margin, but President Clinton never even achieved 50% of the vote. Instead, he only got 43% in 1992 and 49% in 1996. Did both of these elections stop him from claiming a mandate? The fact that the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress in 1993 didn't stop liberals from approvingly interpret the election as a mandate for an end to gridlock.

John Kerry polled six million more votes than Al Gore, but it wasn't enough. As William Voegeli of the Claremont Institute writes, "But in 2004 they [the Democrats] registered and brought to the polls every prospective voter they might realistically hope to find-and still lost." In 2002, Republicans captured a majority of state legislatures for the first time since 1952. 2003 became the second consecutive year in almost 75 years that there were more registered Republicans than Democrats. In 2004, Mr. Bush became the first Republican president in 104 years to get re-elected with majorities in both houses of Congress-something not even Ronald Reagan enjoyed."

 

[mlsfarms]

You should have had a third choice---"Neither"

 

[Disagreeable]

each time Disagreeable is presented with facts to show her thoeries wrong she starts calling names, Lier is her favorite, ,,,but she has many, ...in an effort to understand the extreme liberal I did a little research and it seems she is just one of few, in a group of slowly declining crowd,

What facts? I linked to Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba's official report. What do you have to show I'm wrong about not enough troops and lack of training? Name calling and hot air.

it seems they are becoming extinct, dispite extreme efforts to save them, The following article shows some insight in how they can't seem to accept thier pending extinction. (appearantly they aborted thier young, had sex with like types and are unable of sustaining thier kind)...

We don't have to do much here in the next year or so; Bush has lead us and the Republican party into a quagmire. When a Republican in Vermont announced he would run for the Senate, he said the first thing he'd do when he got to Washington was to call for George W. Bush's impeachment. A Republican, not a Democrat. John McCain and other Republican leaders in the Senate are setting out standards for interrogration that Bush opposes. McCain hasn't even asked for Democrat support; he knows he has that.

Democrat leaders claim that they haven't got their message out. Facts don't support that claim.

A Pew Research Center survey of journalists and media executives revealed that there are five times as many Liberals as Conservatives in their profession. And, in the entertainment and academic professions, the ratio is even higher. So, it is safe to say that Liberals control the media, entertainment, and academic professions.

As a result, Liberals have had the luxury of ignoring Conservative America. On the other hand, Conservatives cannot escape the world view of the Liberals. This has led the Liberals to arrogantly believe that everyone thinks like them. The Liberals delight in labeling the opposition as stupid, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, insensitive redneck hicks.

But the same people the Liberals scorn, see the social and economic problems quite differently, and vote accordingly. This inability to understand Conservative values is a major reason Democrats are finding it difficult to accept defeat.

"But rather than face the music of constantly losing elections, liberals seek to discredit President Bush's mandate. Aside from the fact that President Bush won the most votes in the history of the United States, not to mention expanding over his 2000 showing in every state with the exception of Vermont (but including John Kerry's home state of Massachusetts), what will it take to convince them?

Sure, it may not have been a very wide margin, but President Clinton never even achieved 50% of the vote. Instead, he only got 43% in 1992 and 49% in 1996. Did both of these elections stop him from claiming a mandate? The fact that the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress in 1993 didn't stop liberals from approvingly interpret the election as a mandate for an end to gridlock.

John Kerry polled six million more votes than Al Gore, but it wasn't enough. As William Voegeli of the Claremont Institute writes, "But in 2004 they [the Democrats] registered and brought to the polls every prospective voter they might realistically hope to find-and still lost." In 2002, Republicans captured a majority of state legislatures for the first time since 1952. 2003 became the second consecutive year in almost 75 years that there were more registered Republicans than Democrats. In 2004, Mr. Bush became the first Republican president in 104 years to get re-elected with majorities in both houses of Congress-something not even Ronald Reagan enjoyed."[/quote]

Since you didn't post a link or a source, I'll assume you made this one up, too. Keep talking to those guys who agree with you, Steve, they're getting to be fewer and fewer.