Translation: “Oh yeah? A lot of people agree with my narrow worldview, so you’re wrong!”
Besides, duffer clearly said “greater margin.”
He did not say “greater percentage of the popular vote.”
If you have trouble differentiating between these two concepts, i’d be happy to explain it to you.
But your original point wasn’t that GWB got a majority of the vote. You said that he won by a greater margin, which is quite a different thing.
We can’t help it if you keep living up to your moniker.
Yes, duffer. Yes, that is EXACTLY what I meant. My post made no actual point at all, consisting of nothing but self-congratulatory pabulum like Al Franken and Bill O’Reilly spew out daily. Congratulations. You have seen through my smokescreen.
Thank you and goodnight.
That is also an accurate comparison.
Can anyone expalin why the popular vote in 2004 was clear proof of the greatness that is George W. Bush but the popular vote in 2000 was an insignificant datum that had no meaning whatsoever? If Bush is better than Clinton because he got more popular votes than wasn’t Gore better than Bush? Some of us even suspected as much at the time.
And then there’s the whole issue of comparing apples and oranges. Why stop at saying Bush got more votes in 2004 than Clinton got in 1992? Why not point out that Bush got more votes than Lincoln got in 1864 or Washington got in 1789 or Churchill got in 1906? Heck, he got more votes in 2004 than all three men got in that election combined.
You can say that again.
The OP did remind me of the only decent line in My Fellow Americans.
In the 1996 election (as source as before). Clinton got 47,402,357 votes; Dole and Perot together got 47,284,157 votes. Looks like Clinton got at least 50% of the votes to me. (Yeah, just barely, but 50% is 50%.)
Well, I just looked up your Wikipedia link, and, right, Clinton didn’t get 50% of all votes cast.
No, but Brutus asked for the addition of Dole and Perot votes compared to Clinton. So in the measurement scheme that he requested, and of the three candidates who received more than 1% of the vote, Clinton received over 50% of that.
I continue to be amazed at the Bush apologists who think a 2% win counts as a “mandate.” At least they’re not using the term “landslide,” or else my eyes would roll back in my head far enough to see my cerebral cortex.
And as long as we’re going to wave meaningless statistics around, let’s remember that more folks voted for John Kerry than for Ronald Reagan… 
Oh, please. How could any of you actually believe that I was trying to say Bush was like Stalin in any significant way. If anything, the humor of the post was supposed to be in the fact that the thread title would make you think it was some ridiculously hyperbolic liberal criticism of Bush, and it turns out to be a reference to something totally trivial (namely a magazine cover).
Perhaps I confused some of you by following the joke with a mention of the fact that I really don’t like Bush. But I only did this because I had a feeling that some people would think the joke was fairly lame, and I was trying to sort of justify it by saying “Well, seeing Bush on the cover of Time puts me in a bad enough mood that I should be allowed to cheer myself up with lame jokes.” But I don’t think the fact that I said I detested Bush, or that in my opinion he’s done more harm than good, could be considered “potshots” or “insults.” Those were clearly just descriptions of my feelings. And the joke itself wasn’t criticism at all.
Oh, wait, this is in the Pit now, isn’t it? I guess I don’t need to be so damn polite.
Evidently you’re too stupid to tell a joke from an attempt to present a serious position, even when the word “joke” is used explicitly. Are you sure this is the place for you? Seriously, what position do you think I was arguing here? That Bush and Stalin had each been Man of the Year twice? I gave a cite for that. That I don’t like Bush? I didn’t think I needed a cite for that. If you think I was saying that Bush and Stalin having both been Man of the Year twice makes them similar in any non-trivial way, then the joke must have whooshed you completely. The whole point was that it’s a completely trivial comparison.
The only comparison I made was that they’ve both been Time’s Person of the Year twice. How is that uncalled for? Oh, wait, you mean (I presume) that it’s uncalled for to say that the fact they’ve been “Man of the Year” twice makes Bush as bad as Stalin. Gee, then it’s a good thing I never said that , isn’t it? (And in fact, that I made a joke based on the fact that that would obviously be an absurd thing to think.)
Clearly, I’m seriously equating Bush to Stalin. That’s why I used the word JOKE in the OP. Because joking is what we do when we’re being serious. :rolleyes:
Just in case you think those last three sentences were meant to be serious, allow me to clarify:
No, you fucktard! Obviously I am not seriously equating Bush and Stalin. The whole point of the joke was that the title sets you up to think it will be a serious comparison between the two (which only a fucking moron would make), and then the punchline reveals that it is actually a completely trivial comparison. Did you have trouble highlighting the spoiler text, or what?
I wasn’t expecting that everyone would find it funny, but to not even get it, man, that’s just sad.
And congrats to betenoir, Jenaroph, Biggirl, and all the others who actually did get it. It’s nice to know that some people out there are able to read a simple joke and not be completely confused.
All the difference between blue and red.
So, a Russian soldier is standing guard in the Kremlin, winter, 1955. A roughly dressed peasant, an obvious country bumpkin, walks up to him and addresses him in tones of great gravity and formal seriousness…
“I want to talk to The Father of His People, the Glorious Leader, Comrade Stalin”
The soldier glances at this fool with mild contempt.
“Comrade Stalin is dead. Died almost two years ago. Go away.”
The peasant looks somewhat confused, but obeys. Next day he comes back, at almost exactly the same time. But now he is wearing freshly bought clothes, apparently thinking this makes a difference.
“I want to to talk to the Glorious Leader, Comrade Stalin.”
“I told you yesterday, bumpkin. Comrade Stalin does not talk, he does not drink vodka, he does not lead anyone anywhere, Comrade Stalin is dead! Dead! Do you hear!”
The peasant walks off, but lo! and behold! he’s back the next day, almost exactly the same time, but now he is wearing some ribbons and medals won in the Great Patriotic War, as well as his new clothes. Again, in tones of great formality, he addresses the soldier.
“I want to to talk to the Glorious Leader, Comrade Stalin.”
The soldier has lost all patience. He explodes with rage.
“How many times must I tell you! Comrade Stalin is dead! Dead! Dead! Are you mocking me? Unless you give me a good reason why you are doing this, I will have you arrested! Why do you keep asking me after I’ve told you that Stalin is dead!”
“I just so love hearing you say it.”
OK, how was Joseph Stalin like Jimmy Carter?
They were both born in Georgia.
What do George Bush and Joseph Stalin have in common?
They both have mustaches, except for George Bush.
Bush and Stalin have also both governed over a red state.
They’re both carbon-based life forms(*).
(* = Based on preliminary test results for George W. Bush. Results subject to change.)