Slashdot Mirror
Kerry Concedes Election To Bush
WilliamGeorge points to this MSNBC story "that presidential candidate John Kerry has called George W Bush to concede the election. So it is over, and without a lot of extra fuss and recounts."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
And let us move back to our normal bickering of Linux vs. BSD.
I guess I better learn the rest of that.
paintball
It's a sad sad day for 50% of America.
Sheesh, what am I going to do for entertainment between now and Thanksgiving?
what a shame, kerry would of lead the country in a better direction. it is truly a shame we have to wait another 4 years for some improvement to happen to this country
Not only will we now see four more years of Bush, we'll also see Hillary '08...
Time to buy my own private island.
So we saw this coming, I suppose, and while most of us do not like it, it is finished. This is a testament both to Kerry's character as well as America's democratic process. I wish the candidates the best of luck now that it is over, and I hope that America does not go to hell.
what happened??
Can someone tell me where I can sign-up for the upcoming Civil War?
4 years closer to Wal-Mart Nation... let's go get some NASCAR shit and go off to church!
I'm on top of my game like I'm standin' on Xbox.
in Ohio if those districts were given enough voting machines to get people through the polling places. people waited 9 hours!!!!
not to mention all the democrats that flipped!!! I hope they rot in hell!!!
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
The last thing this nation needs is another drawn out court battle to decide the presidency. Kerry did the honorable thing considering his slim-none chances of pulling Ohio out.
Life will go on. It's a sad day for sure, but life will go on. We are all Americans, first and foremost.
-- jimmycarter
At least kerry didn't drag the democrats through the mud with legal battles, and recounts... best part, no hanging chads this year!
While I am no Bush supporter, I want to congratulate him on his victory. And I sincerely hope that he will take great steps to heal the wounds on this country inflicted by both the events of the past 4 years and a VERY bitter election.
ATTN: 51% of voters
RE: you being gormless, easily duped intellectual dungheaps
Just wanted to establish that whatever fucked-up shit comes down on all of our heads over the next four years...it's all your fault.
I am no longer blaming Bush or Cheney or Karl Rove or anybody else in the NeoCon coven. You can't blame them for being evil, hateful warmongering fuckshits any more than you can blame a gun for shooting bullets. But YOU ASSHOLES let them get away with it for four more years.
A tidal wave of blood coming down on us all from the next terrorist disaster? YOUR FAULT.
Military draft stealing away the lives of an entire generation of young Americans (and then some)? YOUR FAULT.
Perpetual wars in the Middle East making Orwellian nightmares seem like tinkertoys in the sandbox? YOUR FAULT.
A ruined economy and ecology, a Constitution left in tatters, a tyranny of wealthy white "Christians" who are anything but? YOUR FAULT.
The rest of the world abandoning us when we'll need it most (and don't say it won't happen)? YOUR FAULT.
Future decades upon future decades spent living down Bush's legacy and repairing the damage to the country and the world? YOUR FAULT.
Making this planet a less prosperous and peaceful place in which to raise my future child? YOUR FUCKING FAULT, YOU FUCKING FUCKING CUNTING FUCKS.
I hope you're quite pleased. I hope you enjoy the tax cuts and the military dick-waving and the surge of pride you must feel when Bush stands in front of a flag he has never for a moment of his life defended. I wish you all a free copy of "My Pet Goat" and a frosty flagon of the blood if Iraqui innocents. Drink fast, it gets warm so quickly.
Just remember, when you and I are both up against the wall, the last thing you'll see before we're both shot in the head is my finger raised in accusation against you. And it won't be my index finger.
Drop me if you want. Hate me if you want. I don't give a shit. Fuck all 'yall.
is the link to the Draft-Dodging HOWTO.
No more political ads on TV or the Radio! No more taped phone calls! No more litigation to win the presidency?
I suppose that one can only assume that Kerry's campaign knows something of the numbers that we do not... There was still a possibility that the uncounted provisional and absentee ballots could have closed the gap in Ohio.
If mine was one of those votes, I'd be pissed.
It's being widely reported by the AP, CNN, Fox News, CSPAN, ABC News, CBS News and others that John Kerry has already called Pres. Bush to concede defeat. Apparently he'll speak to the nation at 1:00 PM EST.
I personally am glad that Kerry has done this. My opinion of him has gone up and I am glad that he will not try to divide the country further by dragging us through a contested election. Mr. Kerry, thank you for that.
And congratulations to Pres. Bush.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
While it was certainly a hard-fought race, one that was quite heated at times, the people have spoken and I am glad that our country will not be forced to endure weeks of court battles over the results.
Long live the Boy King!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Congratulations to America on electing the morally bankrupt government it truly deserves!
I just hope for all of the American people that Dubya doesn't do anything that will make rest of the world hate you even more.
This is a sad day.
Congratulations.
In the South and Midwest, I'm surrounded by them.
...lets out a resounding "Aw, crap."
It isn't over just yet. There are plenty of Democratic-friendly lawyers that will be happy to file lawsuits in Ohio, with or without Kerry support.
Two words
Welcome, friend!
The only question in my mind is what form will the other two Horsemen take?
At least I don't have to update my .sig
Some silver lining.
Bush Lies On the Record.
I'm glad not to be stuck with seeing Kerry on the news for four years, but I'd have liked to have at least one house in Congress controlled by the opposition. That way, we might be able to get a better check on spending for the next term.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
At least it looks like someone actually won!!! At least this time Bush has some legitimacy (though I'm sure Democrats will still argue this) by winning the popular vote.
The sign stealing Kerry fanatics can finally go home...
I'm typing as fast as I can, but I'm pretty sure this comment is already redundant.
Anonymous Kev
Proudly posting as AC since 1997
(Finally got a dang account in 2004)
From the bottom of our collective hearts:
We're sorry.
I'm sure future historians will mark this day as the offical turning point of the fall and decline of the American empire. We had a good run; good luck to the next guy.
- Despite popular opinion, I am not perfect.
I'm confused, the race is really close (252/254) with at least one major swing state still not finished counting and with the race there still at 50%/49% or so. I thought that if it was a tight race you didn't give up.
*sigh*
http://www.autofrog.com/~chrisp/tv/cnn.jpg
Have to give it to Kerry - he was honourable enough not to try to drag this out. As I hope Bush would have been if it had gone the other way.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
...the productivity of every individual in the country with an internet connection should double versus yesterday
Hunger is the best sauce.
Choose someone in the primaries that is truly electable? Not necessarily a Southerner, but Edwards would have done it for example. Keep sending those Northern Liberals up, keep seeing them fall.
:)
Another trend to note...compare the actual electoral votes in the North versus the South in 2000. As the population moves south and west so do the electoral votes, and so does the power.
The south is rising...again
In related news, Bush made certain to call "No take backs" during Kerry's congratulatory phone call.
-9mm-
I'm hiding right here.
Ok. Everyone who threatened to move if Bush wins, you need to start packing your bags. Put up or shut up!!
Well, Kerry conceded, but could he still win? At the time of this writing, Ohio still hasn't called in, (Bush-254 Kerry-252) so it is still up in the air. What if Ohio called in for Kerry? Would he win? Or is his concession legaly binding? Or does Ohio simply stop counting?
Looks like Kerry took the high road and decided to avoid a long drawn out affair. New Mexico and Iowa don't mean anything at this point, with Ohio representing the presidency.
I've seen reports of anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 provisional votes, plus absentee ballots, plus recounts where necessary, still all hanging in the balance. Its a slim chance, but Kerry could still possibly win it if he pressed ahead with a long, drawn out legal battle. I'm assuming that his concession is a statement that he will not lead the Democrats down that road for the good of the country.
Ohio still has the responsibility of counting those ballots, though.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
I didn't vote for him but I respect Kerry for not further dividing the country with all the recounts and mess of 2000 (yet at least.) It shows me that he truly does have the contries best intersts in mind as opposed to Gore who just wanted to be president.
Didn't Gore concede and the "un-concede" back in 2000 too though?
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
Worst yet, my Redskins lost their final home before the election for nothing!
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
Now maybe Bush can get around to doing some of the things that he thought might not get him re-elected during the first term...lets see. Iran, North Korea, ummm...who else? Also...anybody else see what oil prices are doing?
Here in San Diego the write in candidate for mayor is leading right now. Two well funded guys are being humiliated by a surfer girl. Gnarly.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
Thank God that silly 'election' is over, now I can go back to worrying about the New England Patriots (American) Football team.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
He's got a lot of people he has to kill now.
...want to welcome our new Republican legislative and executive overlords. I look forward to mandatory Sunday School for at least the next 2 years. My parents (Baptists) will be proud.
Seriously, though -- I was torn between Bush and Kerry this election, and I yearned for a viable third-party candidate with which to speak using my vote.
I'll be honest -- I voted for Bush, but I was ready to select some Democratic and Libertarian representatives in state government and Congress. To each his own, I say.
And I'm also ready to say "Thank you" to Kerry for being a semi-decent sport and not going nuts like Gore did in 2000. It's the first time I've felt some genuine respect for the man -- the fact that he conceded before lawyering up scores high marks in my mind. Perhaps a sign that, despite his political ambitions, he was willing to accept a less than desirable outcome early on and avoid having America trounced in legal hubbub for the next several weeks.
My 2 cents.
IronChefMorimoto
I just can not fathom how many people in the States are willing to believe the lies. This is a tragic moment in history, dooming America to four years of decent into a new dark age. It will take a generation or more to repair the damage.
Yay!
"There's no set architecture in Linux. All roads lead to madness" -Microsoft
I think the voters made the right decision yesterday. It was a record turnout, more Americans went to the polls in this election than any election before, and they chose George W. Bush to lead them as their next president.
The reason the Democrats lost this election was that they nominated a complete idiot. Yes, let's face it, Kerry was not fit to be president -- he was a complete demagogue who told the people only what they wanted to hear, and refused to take a stand on anything. If someone like Howard Dean were nominated then I think we'd have a Democrat president right now. Yes, Dean is more liberal than most of America, but people can respect him because he's principled.
Anyway, I'm going to party like it's 1776, because a victory for Bush is a victory for America.
I think that should be:
Liberty and Freedom
1776-1861
R.I.P.
Open Source, verifiable votes.
Make this a priority now.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Terry McAulliff will almost have to be fired as head of the DNC.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
I find it so sad that the people who voted Bush by and large will be dead or retired by the time the economic effects of another 4 years of Bush hits America... ... and yet the younger people who will end up paying back the huge deficit by and large could not even be bothered to vote :(
:(
I just do not understand it, I really don't
...with all of the conspiracy theories, about how the country will self-destruct, the world as we know it will end...
Aren't people tired of predicting the end of the world? Call me crazy, but I think we'll still be around 4 years from now with another successful election taking place.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
One note from looking at the results is that it seems like in vrey few (if any) races were independant votes any kind of factor. I fear that third party candidate vote totals were lower than ever.
So the next time you feel compelled to vote for a major party, consider this - would a vate for Nader or Badnarik really have been wasted given that Kerry did not win anyway? If anyone really wanted to vote for a third party but instead voted for Kerry they essentially wasted thier vote twice over.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As predicted: http://www.sinfest.net/d/20041001.html Not amazing considering: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3973197. stm
and more specifically: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40484000/gif /_40484079_church_attendance_gra203.gif
I do not think that any further comment is necessary.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Liberty and Freedom
1776-2004
Nah. 1776-1932
Scientists discovered a "hellmouth" in washington, DC today. The hellmouth, formerly thought to be a fictional idea, popularized by the Buffy The Vampire Slayer series, is a gateway to hell, which serves as a nexus of evil. Many consider the appearance of the hellmouth to be a symbol of the coming apocalypse.
Despite the alleged "split" in the country.... 1) There were no riots in the street. 2) All candidates who started the election process are still alive today. 3) No cities are on fire and there is no looting 4) We all witnessed a historical election which will set the tone for the next generation and we all traveled to work as if it was a normal day. This is the process that the founding fathers envisioned. In an election where more people voted than ever before we should stop and think what we have accomplished . It is great to be an American
I just want to know when the process became about picking the president the fastest, as opposed to hearing the "voice" of the people? Whatever that voice may be saying.
No. No. I'm pretty sure it's over. Let me check... Yep. It's over!! Better luck next time.
it is official, OHIO is a states of idiots. they were hit the hardest of any state with unemployment and many other problems and they ended up voting for bush because he is a "Moral" man...
oh that and the Democratic precincts had 1 voting machine per polling place.... yeah, that will help keep the Kerry supporters from being heard.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
I could cry.
I'm already in Canada though. =)
The Democrats got their asses handed to them.
After the first term of this President, what does it honestly take to not get re-elected?
The Democratic party must be doing something terribly wrong to not only lose what should have been a gimme in the Presidential race, but to also lose seats in both the Senate *AND* House.
Democrats need to get their act together big time. They better hope they can come up with a better canidate for 2008.
-----
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
Illinois looks kinda central to me. Kerry got their electoral votes.
At 30 and I can say, as a canadian, that I will do everything in my power to make sure that, someday, the USA will see what a mistake they have made.
What a horrible thing that has happened. The sheep of america have been lead into another term of murder and lies.
This is the start of the end of the world. Two LARGE factions of religion fighting for domination of the planet.
I really hope that something happens to get bush out before the 4 years are over.
I give up, you people "F**Ked" up again, I guess USA #1!! means too much down there.
I really do know KungFu
For democracy. Bush/Kerry it doesnt matter. I will remember today as the day democracy died.
http://blackboxvoting.org/
I refuse to believe, with Ohio so close that Kerry has conceeded, especially under the pretext that Deibold was to "Deliver OHIO to president Bush in 2004"
But I'm just a concerned canuck. Did you know these same machines are to be put into use in our country. Take a stand and insist on a paper ballot!
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
So you're not into democracy anymore? What a shock.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Make me a disappointed Canadian. Still, Bravo Kerry for making a good run, and for conceding, rather than dragging your nation though a long, drawn-out debacle.
Given that Bush lost the popular vote last time, and still won (sort of) the presidency, I guess it's rather suiting that the pesident at least has the popular vote this time. Given how contentious that was last time around, this is at least refreshing.
Note to the Republicans: Look at the backlash of public reprisal coming from several areas (youth, entertainers, etc). You have to do better; eventually the public as a whole will wise up to fear-mongering.
Note to Independents: this could be your chance. A lot of people hate Bush. Get your parties into the public spotlight, and either win more seats or at least force the Democrats to actually act like Democrats again.
Note to Democrats: You have four years to find a dynamic, charismatic leader; a true visionary who can unseat the current Bush autocracy by winning the public's hearts. If you keep putting forth less-than-ideal candidates, you will never truly win. You can't rely on enough people voting against the GOP to count on a win.
Note to Steve Jobs: You are dynamic, charistmatic and visionary. See note above.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
you, dear sire, seem to have forgotten to take your pills this morning...
...what happens if those provisional ballots in Phio start to make things tighter?
And yes, I'll ask, since this is the Year of the Sox Series Win.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
yeah, you are right. I can't believe how stupid people are. Remember, though, that Americans who travel abroad tend to be more democratic [little d] then the general population. I travel abroad a lot, and I voted for Kerry in Ohio, so please don't hate me.
yet, strangely enough I feel very distressed.
Fuck, its not my country, and I'm very depressed.
Timang tinggi tinggi
parang sudah asah
alang alang mandi
biar sampai basah
Haha, I love it when you tell someone else they're immature AND pig-headed in the same sentence...
feh. stuff.
It feels like the closing days of the Weimar Republic - you short lived humans are truly stupid.
I voted. I did not vote for either Kerry or Bush. I dislike Bush. However, that, in my mind, is not a reason to vote for Kerry. I found Kerry ran as the "I'm not Bush" candidate. Even his official site was devoid of specifics on Kerry's views.
Both parties have gone away from the basics of what has made their parties strong, and have instead chosen to court small percentages of the populous. And this has gotten worse over the couple decades I have followed politics. Reagan and Clinton have been strong leaders... but otherwise....
Anyhow, my point. I have realized that voting is not the best way to exercise my civic duty. I need to get involved in a couple single-issue organizations, and support them. People complain about PACs, and their influence on politics. I say that PACs are the only way to get the system changed. I also find that when I have invested myself into something that I am less 'disenfrachised'.
If you're one of the folks that is threatening to move out of the US now -- don't let the door smack you on the butt on your way out. Believe it or not, this country has been more divided and more ugly at several points in its history. It took committed citizens to pull the US back together.
Not sure why I'm posting this. But I wanted to share my thoughts!
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I can't find the right word. Annoyed? Depressed? Flustered? None of them carry the meaning for me.
This was not Bush's election to win. This was Kerry's election to lose. And man, did he lose.
When will the democratic party realize that they need to get in the game, play it tough? America doesn't want a smarty pants North Eastener with a fake politican smile a mile wide. America obviously responds to the aw shucks grin, the not too einstein but firmly resolved mindset.
When will we realize that whining about problems won't work when the majority of the population doesn't want to think about problems? They want a bed time story, and someone to turn the light on and off for them.
When will the democrats grow a fucking backbone and nominate a real candidate? I swear this makes me think of the axiom that, at heart, democrats are goths. They love losing, and lamenting about losing.
Kerry's campaign was self destructing a week before it won Iowa. I don't think they ever got a campaign together that worked. There was no clear delivery, no clear ideology, NO RESPONSE to the clear Republican attacks. When Kerry won the primary I was flabbergasted. I figured we probably wouldn't win then, but I held out hope, I stood on street corners, I called people, I campaigned.
A 4 million popular vote for an administration that admits no wrong, that has no coherent diplomatic policy, that has no coherent domestic policy. Why? Because 9/11 changed everything? Because we needed to "kick some ass abroad"? These are the responses I get from Bush voters. They don't even know what the Clear Skies act is. They're not familiar with North Korea. We have to find a way to dumb ourselves down into simple ideology. Easy digestible soundbites. It sounds ridiculous but I see no other way -- 1992 was "The Economy, Stupid", nothing else has worked. People don't want to think about problems, they want to eat McD's and watch Joey.
I'm so... frustrated.
Technically, an election isn't over until the electoral college meets on December 13, 2004 (the Monday after the second Wednesday in December). At which point the electors are not bound to the results of their state as to who to cast their vote towards. Even if Bush won 100% of the popular vote, and Kerry conceeded 1 minute after the first precinct closed, Kerry could still be elected president. Or Nader for that matter.
The United States of America deserves a better president than George W. Bush. I am disappointed in the US that Kerry lost. I am also disappointed that my state (along with 10 others) choose to write discrimination into the state constitution by banning same-sex marriage and civil unions. This puts my domestic partner benefits in jeopardy as well. I am disappointed.
I have never felt so alienated by my government than I have today.
Speak truth to power.
Condy Rice - find a new job
Colin Powell - might stay (I hope not)
Tommy Thompson - see ya
replacements? (shudder)
SCOTUS changes - 2 to 3
chances of successful SCOTUS filibuster with the new Senate - very small
Bush agenda - Social Security reform (small chance of success), health care reform (nothing meaningful), litigation reform (nothing that will pass muster with the courts), more tax cuts (large chance of success)
Iraq - more of the same
War on Terror - becomes next War on Drugs
Bush didn't win, Kerry lost.
Kerry was a TERRIBLE candidate. He took both sides of every issue. He would tell people whatever they wanted to hear. When people can't get a sense of where a candidate stands on anything, the incumbent wins. Really, it's as simple as that. I don't think many people were enthusiastic Bush supporters, but most people couldn't stomach voting for Kerry.
Instead of asking why the American people voted for Bush, ask yourself why the Democrats couldn't come up with a better candidate than Kerry.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
is the link to the Draft-Dodging HOWTO.
The ones who brought up the first draft bill where Democrats, which was opposed by the Republicans and rest of the Democrats alike, so how does Bush winning make it more likely?
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
I know you are, but what am I??
eMelody Web Directory add your site today!
Bush wins the electorial and the popular vote (by a nice big margin).
I just find it suprising that the American people basically just gave their stamp of approval for Bush's actions for the past four years.
(Either candidate would have protected American self-interests and gotten crappy intellegence from CIA/FBI and made bad/good mistakes with the economy. So there isn't alot of difference here.)
I THINK (and I hope I'm wrong), the American people might have given Bush the ok to institute a draft. He's not going to be up for re-election and he is going to want to desperately wrap things up in the next 2-3 years (and use the last 1-2 years to set up his legacy).
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
4 more years of full power to one of the worst right wing mafia ever !
It really is hard to believe that televised lies can take so much control over a whole population .
And all this along with an electoral system that's making everybody laugh to tears, from france to the poorest african country !
Good luck to all, and that includes the rest of the world that will unoubtedly have to suffer from this crooks and their demented buisness.
With that aggravating beauty, Lulu Walls.
My condolences.
The owls are not what they seem
Iraq. They have fewer weapons and more oil.
Something that wasn't covered very well on the news was the number of Gay Marriage measures in different states.
Bush won the vote in many of those states because Christians showed up to vote to ban Gay Marriage.
Very clever on part of the Republican Strategists. It is doubtful that the "Evangellical Christians" would have voted if the anti-gay measures weren't on the ballot.
Evangellical Christians only show up when they can vote a fool into power or restrict personal liberties. I left my home town because of those fascists...
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Been here all the time. However, I am impressed that Kerry and legions of lawyers aren't stampeeding the courts. The country needs to move on...
As a Bush supporter, I must express my gratitude to Kerry for allowing we voters to speak without dragging us all through the courts.
As badly as he wanted it, that concession call must have cost him. I know he was prepared to fight to the last ditch, but decided not to. I respect his integrity.
Now, Mr. Bush, Finish the job we've hired you to do.
In the wrong hands, sanity is a dangerous weapon.
Roll on Clinton (the second comming) 2008.
Beep beep.
Constitution gives us the people to elect the president. Kerry, like Gore, have no right to concede. Ohio is still too close to call, and by conceding, Kerry takes away their right to have votes counted. The difference between the results (even before correcting for Dieboldt errors) is less than number of provisional ballots.
They realize the same thing that most places had been describing since around 1 or 2 am Eastern time. That kerry would have to take 7 out of 8 of the provisional and absentee ballots to get enough of an edge to go into a forced recount (0.25% margin) with any lead at all. Statistically impossible.
I'm not ashamed to be an American, but I'm embarassed for our country.
Its not even that Bush won.
Its that it is official: You can lie, mislead, and divide, and sucessfully win an election.
He's also the first president in many years (perhaps ever?) that won because he openly advocated limiting civil rights of an etnic group, and used it to divide the country.
When you saw people on CNN saying that their primary concern was "moral values", that was just code for "we REALLY don't like gay people."
It wasn't really in people's minds until he brought it forward and made it an issue.
"A vote for Kerry is a vote for buttsex in our schools!"
Christ.
It sickens me to think that people who never voted before said "Whoa, nothing else has mattered to me in the last 20 years, but the QUEERS WANT TO GET MARRIED! Jarlene, find me my votin' hat!"
Not that I could've voted or anything.
Now that Bush has been re-elected we can continue on the plan to peace in Iraq which he started last year. De-stabilizing a country by removing a brutal dicator and then leaving the innocents behind to fend for themselves is not a withdrawal plan, it's sadistic. So thankfully with Bush as president we can finish the course and bring stability to the region. It would be good for all of America to be united behind this President. God Bless America!!!
So how long do we have to wait for the new leaked diebold memos? I have a feeling that it still wont end so pretty.
I'm with you, man.
I figure in three to four years Global Warming will be so bad under Bush's environmental policy (is that an oxymoron or what?) that Canada will be about as warm as here in North Carolina. So it might not be so cold, eh hoser?
any canadians here? i need a place to crash for four or so years.
But that was trumped when Kerry covered his ears with his hands and said "la la la la"
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Is there anywhere we can publicly apologize to the rest of the world for our fellow Americans' foolish behavior? I'd sign a mass letter of apology to the world that would have voted Kerry into office with an enormous margin. The clock's ticking: how long until Iran is invaded, the environment completely trashed, our personal liberties destroyed, and our international relations damaged beyond repair?
Snazzier than a Three-Piece Suit: http://kf.rainydaycommunications.net/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/election .main/index.html 5 10-2004Nov2.html g n/04electcnd.html?ei=5094&en=ba992171a995deaf&hp=& ex=1099544400&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage?hp&adxnnlx =1099500521-xBRX+5Tp7qQqEOM/W4qi0w t e2004/president.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/politics/campai
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vo
For his last term bush may have been haunted by doubts that he was never truly the choice of the people.
At least this time he knows he is.
I have to say the MSNBC headline was confusing:
"Kerry calls Bush to concede election" - I interpreted this as "Kerry calls on bush to concede election" mean Kerry asked bush to concede.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Yes, because Kerry was really going to make that much of a difference...
(That's sarcasam, people).
Oh shit, there goes the planet.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The heck?
In a way, even though I was 'cheering' from him, I am glad Kerry didn't win now. A man who is ready to concede and yield -before- even all the preliminary state votes have been counted (according to CNN New Mexico and Iowa results are not in yet), not to mention all the 'secondary' ballots, is too spineless to be a president.
Saying 'Oh well, I tried, but it seems I am losing so why prolong the suffering' is, perhaps, an attitude acceptable in sports or social games, but definitely not in the high-stakes situation like this. If Kerry is willing to give up that easily, despite all the questionable situations during the elections and all the still uncounted votes, he was not worth a single vote, much less 55+ millions he got.
'...computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons...' Popular Mechanics, 03/49'
huzzah!!!!
"How like you to drag your keyboard to a gun fight." - Aaron Bedard (BANE)
Bush has...
Nationally:
- A 3.5 million vote (3%) margin
- An absolute majority (51%), the first since 1988
- The most votes ever received in any presidential election (though that's not necessarily relevant)
in Ohio:
- A 136,000 vote (2%) margin
- An absolute majority (51%)
- 100% precincts reporting
- Election results perfectly mirror exit polls (i.e., no tampering)
- Approximately 140-150,000 provisional ballots outstanding (according to Ohio Secretary of State)
- A statistically insurmountable lead
This time, it's clear.
Though, these campaigns are $300 million operations that have been going for almost two years, and when almost 60 million people vote for you, you have a duty to ensure that every vote counts - I won't fault anyone for that.
However, get ready for the Diebold conspiracy wackos to crawl out of the woodwork, because Diebold's chairman said in his capacity as a Republican party backer that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." Really, really poor taste? Yep. Probably a fucking stupid thing to say when you're CEO of a company that makes electronic voting machines? For the *state* about which you're making those comments, no less? Yep. But don't forget one thing: the exit polls exactly and perfectly describe the 2% Bush margin. That's one thing you'll never see the Diebold conspiracy blogs mention. (In fact, somehow they're now saying that the some of the exit polls *don't* match...which will give further fodder to the Diebold tinfoil hat crowd.) They'll just fantasize about how a 13,000 person company secretly rigged the election, and that somehow, the mainstream media is "hiding" the story because it's in bed with Bush. Ahh, conspiracy theorists. Gotta love 'em.
And I didn't vote for Bush.
Apparently they were already there , not that it mattered.
Even so, its still shameful to be an American at this point in time. I think that most of this was due to the "hates fags", better known as the ban gay marriage doctrine.
Just try to convince me that you hate Britney!
Call me old-fashioned, but don't you normally wait for the votes to be counted before declaring a winner? is it something to do with deciding whose votes to count?
thanks
Seriously, Bush is the worst president in the last 50 years. This is widely accepted and discussed; it's not my simple-minded view. He does things that no one would tolerate in the person running the company they work for, let alone a powerful country, like completely ignoring all the facts presented to him and making calls based on unfounded instinct.
So how the hell did he get elected? A combination of:
1. People, especially people over 50, who blindly vote for "their" party candidate.
2. A bizarre, misguided group who regard Bush as having high morals. I'm as dumbfounded as anyone here, but just watch how often this comes up in analyses.
3. A similarly bizarre, misguided group who seem to think that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and Bush is keeping them from attacking us again.
4. Voting for the status quo is safer than a new guy.
5. Nobody really liked Kerry all that much. The anti-Bush people latched onto him because he's all we had.
This is a good argument for changing how a president is elected. For a good read, see Peter Norvig's Hiring a President.
A sad day indeed.
- Calculate your share of the National Deficit
- Take up assault weapon collecting as a hobby
- Figure out how to best invest your $300 annual Bush tax savings to cover the social security benefits you'll never get
- Become rich, then get all your income from mostly untaxed dividends and capital gains income
- Join the guard and train for a one year tour of duty in Iraq
- Move so that the selective service can't find you
- Take some gay people and a girlfriend (work with me here) to Vegas. Taunt them by getting married and divorced inside of 12 hours.
- Make a sign saying "The Government should stay out of our lives!" and go protest in front of an abortion clinic.
- Pick up bow and arrow making to capitalize on the new corporate tax incentives
- Do something illegal, get arrested, and excercise your right to trial before 4 years of Bush-appointed, Republican confirmed Supreme Court appointees uphold the Patriot Act's elimination of right to trial.
paintball
Just wondering, if by some highly improbable miracle the provisional ballots give Ohio to Kerry does the concession really mean anything?
If you believe in God, may He have mercy on us all.
If you don't believe in God, hide!
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
I hope the rest of the world remembers that nearly half of the voters did not want Bush back in office. This was no affirmation that 'Americans' agree with Bush. This is proof of what strategic campaigning can do, and it is proof that our country is still rabidly divided.
We have shown the rest of the world that
1) we prefere a president who repeatedly lies to us
2) we are a bunch of homophobic racist
3) we fully intend to continue to rape the middle east
4) most americans are stupid fools, who are too ignorant to think for themselves.
5) America is filled with fearfull ignorant idiots.
Im going to look into moving to a different contry, the idea of living where a bunch of morons can cotroll the goverment, sickens me. I am so dissapointed in america and i am ashamed of this country.
We lost Daschle in a dirty fight. That hurts.
DeMint and Coburn are now U.S. Senators. These guys are so conservative they make Ralph Reed blush. Segregation is old and busted; homophobia and codification of evangelical values is the new hotness. Sigh.
The Republicans hold a comfortable majority in both houses of Congress. Bush can reasonably claim a mandate, having won over 50% of the popular vote. Rhenquist is on his way out; I'll be surprised if he's the only one in the next four years.
The world, that place that so few Americans truly apreciate the value of, will not reward us for re-electing Bush. Up 'till now, they've been giving us the benefit of the doubt. No longer.
Our current leadership is united, forceful, and visionary. They do not care much for the tenets of "separation of church and state" and "protection against the tyrrany of the majority". They have little beyond contempt for opposing viewpoints. They hold little stock in the value of science, save when it advances their own policy decisions.
I'm spent. When one's silver-lining scenario relies on Bush driving the country into a brick wall at the bottom of a punji pit, there's not much to be happy about.
I ache too much to fear for us just yet.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
I should have seen this coming. The home-town team was up late against the Evil Empire. The commentators were ready to declare us the victor, and then... NO! We some how managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I don't think that the Curse of the Bambino extends into politics, I think it ended this year so we wouldn't see the inevitable outcome. What's the fun in beating us if we don't have our hopes crushed?
I think the real question is, where did all the bush haters / kerry supporters go that you were only able to pull 48% of the vote?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
This could be a good thing. Maybe another Bush term is just what America and the world needs. It's risky, and it's harsh medicine, but the world will probably get through it and America will most likely be ready for a real change afterwards. This may be better than letting Kerry take over a losing hand, having a lame duck presidency only for the neoconservatives to come back refreshed and invigorated 4 years later. America hasnt reaped what it's sowed yet, and it may be better in the long run for Bush to stay in charge while it does.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Hmm... anyone want to help participate in a national brain drain? Or, we could all just move to the northeast and cecede ;)
The one good piece of news is that from now on, the crap about the winner of the Washington Redskin's game right before the election predicting the winner of the election will be citing an urban legend, rather than a coincidence.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
do not welcome the return of our current overlord! Say goodbye to America folks, time to nail the coffin shut. I wonder if anyone is so pissed right now that they are willing to start an armed revolt? Anyone?? ;)
From the results of the election and exit polls it seems that voters were more motivated by the candidate's stances on "moral" issues and security, rather than foreign policy and the economy.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
why didn't it die in the year 2000 when he was first elected if you feel that way?
Loading Please Wait....
Once again America has elected a nearly illiterate moron. I never thought I would say this, but today, I'm embarrassed to be an America.
Kerry clearly did not want America to spend a month re-tallying votes in Ohio. He conceeded for the good of America!
http://brandonbloom.name
Don't forget that you can now arm yourself, in preperation for the upcoming Civil War, early, now that the assault weapons ban has expired. I suggest stockpiling Kalishnikovs, they are the choice of gurellias, insurgents and popular uprisings worldwide.
You have to actually WANT TO WIN.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
It's all here: Welcome to Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Americans who do not want Republican leadership need a better alternative, perhaps a new party, one that actually stands for something and has a platform that is not based solely on some inverse of the Republican platform. What was the Democrat platform? I still can't tell. Day One of a Kerry presidency would still see the US in Iraq and in debt and in hock to corporations with no change on the horizon.
All those who said they would move to Canada when Bush won, start packing! :) All your vote are belong to us.
" It's a sad sad day for 50% of America."
More like its a sad day for the 50% of the 60% of Americans registered to vote. I'm assuming the other 40% couldn't care less.
but I'l *really* like to know how many /.'ers are in the 18-25 age bracket and are eligible for voting in the US that didn't vote.
According to AP, the turnout from the younth was even worse this time than in 2000, and yet the youth is complaining the loudest about Bush.
pffft, we have bigger bombs.
feh. stuff.
The beer drinkers gained on the wine drinkers.
Of course we can't have recounts. Ohio is all Diebold, and no paper trail. We just have to take their word for it.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Because in order to make up the distance past the margin of error, Kerry needs something like 99% of the remaining votes.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Although I think that Kerry wouldn't have made a bad president, I do think that keeping Bush in office will be more effective in the long run. I'm assuming that his administration has long term plans that need to be pushed through the next for years to be fully effective.
./'ers lean a bit to the left, and may be disappointed by the results, but keep in mind that the real change in this country beings with each individual whos convictions drive them to make this country better by getting involved in their local communities.
I realize that
God Bless America!
I watched the entire election from 6 PM to 2 AM (Central). Kerry was looking good when Pennsylvania got called for Bush, but really, Florida and Ohio started breaking towards Bush fairly early. Unless there's massive voter fraud in both states, Bush wins easily.
Obama (in the Illinois race) won easily; he was always going to win easily. I'm a Illinoisian Democrat (don't mod me down), born and bred, and even I thought the coverage of him was a bit too much. Obama was polling something like 70-30 against Keyes, he was enormously popular.
And what was up with CNN? They didn't call Washington and Oregon for Kerry for hours after all the other networks called it. Foxnews actually got a lot right.
And for future elections, here's a tip for everybody: throw a small party. Order pizza, hot wings, breadsticks, etc, and make sure to invite friends from both parties. The happiness level in the room will always stay constant. Here's my reasoning: In the beginning, both the Democratic and Republican supporters will be expectant, a little pessimistic, all sorts of emotions. That's the baseline. Then, as the night goes on and one candidate is pulling away from each other, the supporters of that candidate will be way more happier, and the supporters of the person losing will be (can anyone guess?) much less so. So they even each other out. And it really helps prevent the supporters of the losing dude from sulking too much.
The rest of the world takes a calculated blind eye on terrorism, knowing that America will probably be the target and/or come to the defense of anyone hit hard.
This is total bullshit. The rest of the world gets hit much more often than we do, and yet they've managed to survive without sacrificing their core beliefs.
Worldwide terror was up in 2003. How many of those attacks were against the USA? 0. Terrorism is a red herring.
Save Me (us), Jebus!
...the country will be ready to stand for the things that made it great. Maybe if the gap between rich and poor keeps expanding, the national deficit balloons even higher, the average wage drops even lower, the trade deficit continues to soar, the air and water go to shit, civil rights are further eroded in the name of 'safety', enough troops die for weapons that don't exist and fake ties to terrorism... maybe then this country will open its eyes and make a change.
Until then, just keep standing on your stump yelling 'Terrorism! Terrorism! Terrorim! Patriot! Patriot! Patriot!' and 51% of America will really believe you're a patriot fighting terrorism. This day is sad.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
What I'd like to see are stats on which precincts with Diebold and other evoting machines went to Bush or Kerry. I'd also like to see which of those precincts changed from Democrat to Republican as compared with the 2000 election.
Speak truth to power.
Good heavens. Surely not... you don't mean... it can't be...
Yes, folks, a growing population plus a record turnout means a large number of votes. Colour me stunned.
Dear Canada,
How do I move to you?
Sincerely,
Greg
in bed.
Statistically, maybe. But it IS possible. If your figures are correct, then all he had to do was take 7 out of 8 of the provisional and absentee ballots, and he could win.
It's NOT impossible. Improbable, maybe, but not impossible.
Please do, that would be like winning twice today.
If you're really looking for excitement, there is always ApacheCon in Las Vegas.
Would he concede with ohio still technically out?
Bush has the lead here, but there are enough provisional ballots left to be counted to swing it. Why the hell would you give up?
No democrat has EVER won the presidency without winning a southern state. A senator from the northeast had NO chance!!
Only a SOUTHERN democrat will EVER win.
Seriously, the youth vote was just as bad this year as it was four years ago..... What do we have to do make it a video game to make you stupid fucks vote? Your lives and the direction the country your going to be in charge of one day doesnt mean jack to you? Im sorry but they should just take away voting for 18 year olds and bring it back to 21 year olds.... if you guys cant use your right to vote, you shouldnt have it.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
i voted for kerry, but I presume that he's the butt of this joke. I thought it was funny, but have no mod points.
-buzz
The situation for Americans wanting a real choice is becoming more bleak with each election. We need new parties.
Actually lesser divide...
I am much closer to being in the same financial league as the Bushes than the Kerry'.
Not that I am anywhere near either!
sprechen sie deutsch?
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
electronic voting
Now, does this mean that he gives up? Or are they still going to count the votes to determine the winner, technically? I mean, it was pretty mature of Kerry to not bicker over the votes....but at the same time, he basically just said "I don't care about the rest of the votes, your votes don't count...."
I'm sending E*Trade a check for $10,000 this morning.
I'm planning on investing it in stocks in the gambling, liquor, and fast food sectors. (And, if I can identify any players, companies that make shit that you bolt or stick onto the cabs of pick-up trucks.)
I figure I can't go wrong with this position in a country full of people deluded enough to re-elect a fool like Bush.
Stefan
announcing they would be pulling their 300 troops (serving in a non-combat transportation role) out of Iraq by March! So my immediate recollection is that at least Hungary and Poland have announced they are getting out. And the coalition gets smaller. Congratulations, President Bush.
Happy goldfish bowl to you.
1. Democrats will finally answer a question they can't stand to ask: What exactly do we stand for? And how do we articulate it in 15 seconds or less? (Disclaimer: I voted Kerry, and would have voted for a bag of doorknobs over Bush. But IMO this was a major failing of the Kerry campaign.)
2. Saudi Arabia will become an Islamic republic. If we go to war again (and who knows the chances of that?), I don't see the house of Saud surviving the backlash.
3. Health care and Social Security will take center stage again with rising deficits. Combined with #2, it'll be the economy again, stupid.
4. Moderate conservatives will opt either for a third party, or even join the Democrats (who have fallen into the role, accidentally, of deficit hawks and gov't spending watchdogs). These may actually be good times to be a fiscal conservative and social liberal, akin to libertarians.
5. Dems take the Senate in 2006 if the Iraq death toll doubles. It's very likely that interest rates will go up (maybe even skyrocket). Greenspan may not be able to keep inflation in check by then.
999. All bets are off. Noone could have predicted 9/11, which still managed to cast a long shadow over voting yesterday.
Add away...
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Nice to read posts from Americans that are glad that their top politicians aren't living up to the nickname of "land of the litigious".
Now if only those politicians could fix things to make that nickname and the less than stellar reputation of the patent office go away.
I, for one, welcome our new american overlords!
Legally, what are the implications of the concession?
What if the vote counting is finished, and Kerry comes out ahead in Electoral votes? Is the concession a legally binding surrender, or what? Could the debate be resumed in the courts at a later time?
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp
A lot seem to be voting machine problems.
Look up "Air France Flight 8969" for more information.
I've spent years in German and they take terrorism very seriously. Their cops patrol with Uzi's.
Dammit, I say the rest of the world should go to the aid of the US people. Clearly, after years of government propaganda and brainwashing they are unable to rid themselves of their terrible, extremist, bungling ruler.
All diplomatic and democratic methods have failed: it is the duty of the governements of the world now to free these downtrodden people by military means.
The European Union has the strongest economy in the world. I guess you haven't evaluated the Euro lately.
Blind eye to terrorism? Do you think terrorism started and ended with 9/11. Where is America as some 50,000+ Sudanese have been murdered in genocide in several months? Saddam can't claim a 1/5th of those numbers in 20 years. Where was America's war on terror when they were funding the Sandonistan Guerrila's or Osama Bin Laden? Or where was America's war on terror when the KKK and the general white population was running wild in America? Where was America when the Native American's were being forcibly removed from their lands (note: the settlers started scalping, and a "redskin" is a reference to scalped skin of an indian). Terror, Terror, don't be hypocritical.
And the very reason why the U.S. will ultimately fall just like every great civilization is they will forget the globe is a mighty big place, and they have neither a monopoly on wisdom nor morailty.
With the election over, all that anger needs to be refocused somewhere. What better place to focus this frustration then to home-in on our favorite punching-bag duo of Gates and Balmer!
But you know, if I was one of the Ohio voters who got challenged into submitting a "provisional" vote yesterday, I would probably be pissed right now.
Let loose the lone gunmen of war!
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Since Bush moved to the far right to firm up his base and get the votes of the religious folks to help win reelection he may move back more towards the center in his second term since he doesn't need them as much anymore.
Maybe he really can become a uniter instead of a divider. Here's to wishful thinking.
Will it be N Korea? China? Canada ( Damn you canuks ).
Stay tuned! Same Bush channel, same Bush time!
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
that it's over this quickly, and that Bush won.
Last I read, the estimate was 175,000 provision votes, with Kerry 125,000 behind in counted votes. So he'd need to win 85% of the provisionals to win the election.
It could be a slim chance, and it looks like they'll still keep counting, but it also does look like Kerry made an accurate call, and in turn sets up some good will for future Democrat elections.
However, I think the White House/Andy Card deserve a few jeers for their earlier statement Bush giving Kerry "the respect of more time to reflect", in essence already bragging that they'd won and trying to diminish Kerry's pending concession.
Such constant 'first post' nature of the Republicans (thus setting the framing for subsequent responses) is, however, one reason they've done so well in terms of media spin. It's a valid tactic, but I still don't like it.
Also, Card predicts 286 electoral for Bush, minimum, and that seems overly optimistic. If it's not accurate, I hope Card is taken to account for those numbers, since disinformation from the White House in the name of politicking is the one condemnation of the current White House that I feel hasn't been properly addressed.
A.
WOW - what a difference a day makes. Yesterday was how un-American it would be to vote for Bush and how he divides the country and now with Bush winning, it's "America is going to HELL" and "I'm moving to Canada." Who is really dividing America? I understand having passion for your beliefs, but now it is time to join together!!! America is great because of its individuals and its morals.
Bush has about a 136k lead in Ohio. Even if there are 200,000 provisional ballots, and you assume they are all counted, Kerry would have to win by about 168k to 32k in order to win Ohio. That also assumes that there are no absentee ballots left, which there are, and as most of those are from the military, they're more likely to be republican votes.
It's over. Kerry, like Gore, ran a crappy campaign and got beat. Another case of Too Little, Too Late.
Maybe next time Democrats will figure out that you gotta take a stand and piss a few people off if you want to be taken seriously.
paintball
Good Morning, Senator! So nice to hear from you!
More WAR
More JOBS LOST OVER SEAS
More LOST HEALTH CARE BENEFITS
More US Inc!
EVEN MORE unbelievably stupid!
Says the shivering Canadian!
Would Kerry have either raised taxes or slashed services as we have been repeatedly warned we need to do to IMMEDIATELY to curb the fiscal crisis? NOPE.
Would Kerry have rolled back corporate rule in this country? NOPE.
Kerry's presidency would have been a sham attempt to reinvent the Clinton era.
The rest of the world takes a calculated blind eye on terrorism...
I'd say that pretty much describes the United States before 9/11/2001, wouldn't you?
I live in US , but im not a citizen.Any foreigner if asked abt America , talks mostly about NY CA MA IL and sometimes Florida and Texas.
Why did democrats win the states that represent growth,technology,diversity
Why do Republicans win mostly in States that people know of them only in America like utah Nebraska Kansas Udaho Oaklahoma..
What is with these Americans?
help us all if everyone stated following America's example. I don't think that circumventing the UN, warmongering and killing people is a productive way to run this world. That said, America has spoken and the majority of them want George W. Bush for another four years. Unfortunately, we've only got ourselves to blame - especially those in the not so progressive states in the midwest that decided not to vote but now elect to whinge about it. Apathy on a large scale does effect the result of elections. The longest journey begins with a single step, in four years time, I hope you all exercise your democratic right to vote.
Why did the main stream media not call Ohio for Bush but did call WI, PA, and NH for Kerry. Consider:
OH:
Not Called.
Bush Kerry
2,794,346 | 2,658,125
0.51 0.4852
Adv Bush 2.4% and 136,221 votes.
PA:
Called Kerry.
Bush Kerry
2,746,856 | 2,868,674
0.4868 0.50834
Adv Kerry 2.1% and 121,818 votes.
WI:
Called Kerry.
Bush Kerry
1,474,210 | 1,487,880
0.4930 0.4976
Adv Kerry 0.4% and 13,670 votes.
NH:
Called Kerry.
Bush Kerry
330,848 | 330,848
0.4899 0.503
Adv Kerry 1.358% and 9,171 votes.
If this doesn't show liberal media bias, I don't know what does.. FNC and NBC did call it for Bush so maybe they have the least bias. Does anyone see any reason why CNN/ABC/CBS would call PA, NH, and WI in favor of Kerry but refrain from calling Ohio?
I can't imagine Dick Cheney trying to ride on the coattails of GWB, so who will be the Republican candidate? And is the Democratic Party going to start grooming Hillary for a run like everyone was talking about a while ago? Is John Kerry going to go into seclusion and grow a beard? Lots of things to think about.
I was very open minded about candidates. But then the Democrats stuffed Dean down a mineshaft and decided to go with Kerry.
I think what is amazing is not how close the election was, but how many votes Kerry got given that the primary reason most people seemed to vote for him was out of hatred. See what voting for hatred gets you?
Next time Democrats give me a viable candidate if you want me to vote for them. Note that even absorbing all of the Libertarian votes would have helped him any.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So this upholds the 'halloween mask' theory...invalidates the Carter clause and the Redskin theory...and reaffirms my hope that maybe, just maybe, there are some left in politics that have a little grace and civility left in their tired, old bones. I applaude Kerry for conceding rather than contesting Ohio.
"How like you to drag your keyboard to a gun fight." - Aaron Bedard (BANE)
We don't hide
Oh, the hipocrisy my little AC friend.
http://marryanamerican.ca/
here's to hoping that the shrub leaves canada alone.
-Leigh
So that battle between socialism (nationwide health care, expanded government welfare, progressive income taxes) and facism (patriot act, patriot act II?) will be faught again another day. Each side doing what's "best for america", meanwhile eroding our liberties away.
:)
And somewhere... my man michael badnarik is crying
T'is a sad day for me indeed. Support instant runoff voting! This 2 party crap has got to go.
alright, now flame away. But I had to get that off my chest.
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
That can be prevented by Kerry starting off the conversation with a "No no takebacks" gambit. Bush then can make a "Sleaze Call Beats All" which negates "no no X" gambits, but opens up the possibility of Kerry giving Bush "Two for flinching" and "Stealing Shotgun" even if it was clearly called for before, as long as both his cheeks are in the chair before Bush's. Otherwise, a third party such as Chaney can call "Reload!" and claim Shotgun for himself.
Scary thought.
I had a 100 euro on Kerry (@6-5!)
...
While I'm pissed at losing some cash, I'm more pissed off that
"chimp head" has another four years to screw up the world.
I do not think that you Americans fully understand what the consequences this result will have!
That's the end of my rant, I'm off now to drown my sorrows in the pub
__
Sigs are like arse-holes, everybody has one
> Bush won more votes than any other President in our Nation's history.
I think Kerry has also won more votes than any other Presidential candidate in history... except for Bush.
The American people have spoken, and spoken loudly, but not with one voice.
That's a good thing, though... debate and difference of opinion are what make capitalism work.
A.
Seriously, I'll have my CS degree soon and would like to git while the gittin's good. What is the best way to approach emmigration to Canada?
At least there's a silver lining in this, Hillary in '08!
Time time to invade Canada and make it the 52nd state. (The UK is the 51st state.)
So the people who believe a president has major influence over the economy are those worthy of having an "opinino", whatever that is, and those who refuse to vote for a greasy weasel are the "extremely stupid".
Right......
Comments should be like skirts. Short enough to keep your attention, but long enough to cover the subject
Well, it looks like I'll be moving from the US overseas. I'm not too happy about Bush winning.
I'm thinking of the UK, NZ, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Amsterdam, etc as places to move to. I actually have other Tabs up right now looking for how Visas work in each of those countries. Any advice?
Oh yea, and Canada is also a possibilty.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Now our best hope is to pray that GWB [...] doesn't alienate the entire world in the next 4 years.
In fact i hope he does exactly that. I'm really fed up with the USA proclaiming themselves as self-elected world-leader, their unilateral politics and their export of run-away capitalism where war is just another way of doing business.
The bigotry of anti-abortionists that cheer Bush on to continue waging wars in which millions of civillians are killed (aparently it's ok to kill a pregnant mother if she happens to live in the wrong country) makes me puke.
In fact i doubt if Kerry would've done much better. To me he came over the perfedt opportunist. In that case we're better off with Bush anyway: at least the world already knows what an idiot he is.
Sorry for the rant, it's just how i feel about the whole affair. So at least Bush will make sure that a lot more people all over the world will feel the same.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Restored
Shattered
Too Close to Call
You probably shouldn't click this.
It's not the exit polls that they're using. Both candidates need less than 20 electoral votes to win. Ohio has 20. Bush is going to win Ohio, it's a near mathmatical certainty based on the COUNTED BALLOTS. Bush wins the election.
Additionally, Bush has a SIGNIFICANT edge in the popular vote.
Democracy doesn't mean the best man wins, it just means the majority is responsible for who they pick.
paintball
For the last four years, I have been able to get up in the morning by telling myself that the 2000 election was stolen through dirty tricks and that most voters didn't understand the issues, and thus that Americans are NOT knuckle-dragging, anti-intellectual, theocratic, warmongering, superstitious, bigoted, arrogant, foolhardy, small-minded, antigrammatical Neandretals, but were in fact simply misled, swindled, and outright cheated into voting for a hard-right ideologue in the clothing of a "uniter, not a divider".
However, as the precinct counts come in, it is clear that Bush has won this election by a huge landslide; the Republican Party by an even larger margin. The American people cannot be fooled about what the man in the White House stands for after four years of his rule; thus, the only sane conclusion is that they support him and his appalling policies wholeheartedly.
Today, I am afraid of my fellow citizens and ashamed to be an American.
I used to vote for who would bring the country to revolution the fastest... i.e. who will implode and piss off the world to the point that we start seeing sanctions against us by the rest of the world and where we can't travel freely.
I stopped that.. but now am seeing that maybe some others have picked this route as valid.
Kerry though an 'okay' candidate (admittedly, much better spoken/educated than Bush) would have just been a roadblock to any progress in either direction because of the house/senate etc..
This way, at least Bush will start up a draft, screw people over on civil liberties, tear up the constitution in front of Dan Rather on live television and swing the pedulum so far back that the democrats could put Hillary on the ballot and win in a landslide.
I suppose that is progress, in kind of a sad way.
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
"We can now say with some assurance that there is virtually nothing in the world of politics - not organizing, not message development, not long-term planning, not discipline - at which Republicans are not more skillful than Democrats."
Has the Democratic Party become obsolete? It sure looks like it from this end.
Perhaps. William Saletan of Slate writes in Simple but Effective - Why you keep losing to this idiot.:
"Sigh. I really didn't want to have to write this."
and examines how Bush could possibly win.
What kills me is the fact that I'll be almost 40 before I see another president in the White House.
I'm not even American, but I felt (and still feel) sick to my stomach when I saw the election results.
I can only imagine how some of you, who actually voted, are feeling.
We had the perfect opportunity to fix the mistakes as they were presented to us, but apparently people are short-sighted and impressionable.
Because we allowed people to let this decision happen, I feel this country deserves anything and everything it gets throughout the next 4 years.
Just don't expect me to support this country in the time of need - you can fight your own battles.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
I will say that it is a more-than-slight slap in the face against most Bush supporters in that it is implicitly suggesting that there are two types of Bush supporters. There are those who support the President because they are "simple" (i.e. not intelligent) like he is and there are those who support Bush because they know that he isn't really running the show and they support his handlers.
Yeah. Despite Bush campaign's totally predictable "Just concede already so if you do happen to prevail we can say No Takebacks" speech, Kerry was obviously waiting to see what the numbers of provisional ballots in Ohio were, and if weren't enough of them to concede.
In the best of all worlds Kerry would have taken Electoral and Bush the popular vote, so that a) we would finally be rid of that overrated imbecile b) we would have sweet payback for Gore 2000's popular vote win and electoral loss and c) we could FINALLY have a meaningful dialogue on replacing the electoral college, after both sides had been burned. Bush losing the popular vote and tieing the electoral votes would have been good also.
But, that's not how it went, although it was very close electorally. Of course the popular vote really doesn't matter for this election, because people KNOW it doesn't matter in a lot of states and thus don't bother to vote. Had the turnout in California been bigger, for instance, we might have seen Kerry lead the popular vote.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
not to mention all the democrats that flipped!!! I hope they rot in hell!!!
It's thinking just like that that really turned off a lot of potential voteers from the Democrats. The message was entirely too much about hatred.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Look on the bright side..
:o)
You still might get some use out of that bunker you had built for Y2K.
I'm using California as an example since I live here. But when a country is as ideologically divided as it is now, isn't it better for the regions with different beliefs to break off from the stifling repression of the central authority? I say this with the caveat that actions like the previous Civil War were necessary due to necessity of stopping the injustice of slavery. Other than issues such as that, however, isn't it best for a large geographic region at odds with a stifling ruling power to determine its own destiny?
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
Now that GW has been re-elected and we can now blame America as a nation for it, I am wondering how the Republican Guard is going to propagate fear. Are Americans really going to swallow another 4 years of yellow alerts and Dick Cheney's evil laugh? On the other hand, they already swallowed 3 years and asked for seconds.
I can't believe Kerry conceded this early, with the electoral vote so close, and damn the popular vote, Bush lost it last time. What if the Electoral College tips the balance back?
And what about the election machines? No Dem lawyers to challenge the integrity of the vote due to the closed-box election machines? Will we never know if this was an electronically stolen election? I think it's gonna be done by a stealthy hacker team who swipe one of each type of election machine, taking them to an undisclosed secure lab, dissecting them until the truth is known, then they'll release a report declaring the findings.
I'll say it loud: Bush is dangerous for security. He has triggered the creating of many more new terrorists. World peace will go downhill from here. Expect abortion to be challenged thanks to imminent Supreme Court replacements.
And those tax cuts? Just a bribe to get a second term: We're all paying that back plus interest for the next couple decades, thank you very much. The Bush economy will obviously not lift that boat far enough to make it float. I know and have met many who voted for Bush purely on the basis of the rebate they received. They make a lot of angry hand-waving gestures when confronted with the fiscal reality that those tax cuts came out of money borrowed against debt - future tax revenues.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
Why don't you just start a website and call it Send-a-Liberal-to-Canada.com and take donations. My guess is you could start chartering buses by the end of the week.
With the amount of massive foreign debt we are currently holding, coupled with the public's unwillingness to deal with this issue at all in any capacity, means massive fiscal crises are almost certain. The fact that economists cannot even determine if it will be inflationary or deflationary shows you how random this scenario is. We're in uncharted fiscal waters kids...the US is the center of the world economy and also the world's largest debtor.
I have a very different perspective here in the US. There seemed to be very few voters who truly wanted Kerry as president. The majority of those who voted for Kerry were really voting "not Bush".
The rest of the world does not take a "blind eye to terrorism". Contrary to what you may believe, people in Britain, Ireland, Spain and many other nations have been dealing with violent radical groups for decades. You seem to suggest that failing to blunder blindly into knee-jerk reactions against such groups is somehow cowardly.
The reason that most of the world outside the US is concerned by the re-election of Bush is that he seems to conduct his "war on terror" in a short-sighted manner, regardless on what the ramifications will be for future generations. The reason that anti-American ideologies are rife in Islamic states is largely due to US foreign policy in the past. It is disturbing to even hypothesise what kind of problems will result from four more years of Bush's terrorist pogrom.
...a rich, white Bonesman won the election. What a surprise! Good thing there were two to choose from. Gotta have that freedom of choice, you know. With the wonderful two-party system we have, we get to pick either six of one, or half-a-dozen of the other. Thank God our votes mean something!
I am not responsible for failure to detect sarcasm in the above post. Consult your local smartass immediately if you have any questions.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Funny how that works, isn't it?
And when he conceded he disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Ohio voters by telling them he didn't care about their votes. I'm sure the Democrats will lose Ohio in 2008 as well.
I thought we were supposed to count votes in a democracy? If Kerry was going to concede, he could have done it months ago and saved me some time.
mbbac
I'd like one Bush voter, just one, to do two things.
One, demonstrate that he has actually paid attention to the news and to what Bush has actually said and done. Anyone who isn't aware that Bush has acknowledged that there was no link between 911 and Saddam, and that there was no active or planned atomic/biological/chemical warfare program in Iraq, is ineligable for this poll.
Two, explain why they voted for Bush in rational, practical terms. What they believe Bush will do during the next four years that might actually improve the international or domestic situation. Perhaps some specific promise that they believe he has the will and ability to carry out. Keep the first part of your answer in mind here, if you believe he's going to follow through, can you point to similar promises he made in 2000 that he's followed through on?
Since Bush has only won one election, does that mean he gets to run again in 2008?
It's a joke, party tools, spare me your flames...
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
No but apparently 51% of us have. Remember, 49% of us didn't vote for him and do not support him or his policies.
Omeganon
What depresses me the most about this is when GWB was elected, we didn't know what he was going to do. Now, with this election the American people have said "I agree with what you've done and would like more."
I'm an American in London and used to be able to tell Europeans that I hope most of the American people don't approve of Bush and wouldn't have voted him in if they knew what he was going to do. Now I see that I am wrong and I despair.
The reason we lost is because we have not justified and defined a real leftist agenda. The Rightwing, on the other hand, has spent 30 years or more defining and justifying the RIghtwing agenda. We all "know" that low taxes are good for "The Economy" and we all "know" that productivity should be ever high and we all "know" that low labor costs are good and we all "know" that welfare states are bad and we all "know" that government managed healthcare is a disaster, etc etc etc. And why do we "know" all these things? Because the rightwing propaganda machine has been pushing them down our throats via the teevee, radio and newspapers for the last 30 years.
THe rightwing propaganda machine starts with nonprofit foundations and think tanks that pay for studies and write articles based on those studies. Of course, because there is no criminal penalty for cooked, bogus studies, and no money to check these studies and news articles that are based on these studies, the rightwing propaganda machine is able to dominate the media agenda. THey have the money. THey are funded into the billions by billionaires and global corporations.
THe news articles based on these studies are propagated to media outlets (tv radio papers) where they reach the public.
The rightwing propaganda machine also does many other things, such as fund up and coming rightwing media talent, e.g., giving grants to promising rightwing radio talk show hosts, authors and reporters, consultants etc.
Also, because the rightwing propaganda machine has so much money to give, most high profile media figures, reporters, etc, know that after they quit working at their current job with the networks, newspaper, etc, if they are ideologically "suitable, they can get lots of fat consultancy gigs with the rightwing propaganda machine, as long as they do not piss them off.
So the rightwing propaganda machine is like a huge planet in a solar system, or maybe even like the sun itself.
If liberals want to change America, they need to fund a LEFTwing propaganda machine. It costs money. Unfortunately, the entities with the money want to keep their money. So they are not about to fund a LEFTwing propaganda machine. So it is up to us.
Once we do get a a LEFTwing propaganda machine, we need to make sure it pushes OUR agenda, and it needs to get down to the nitty gritty of the issues. We need to make the case to the American people that high taxation is where it is at. And it really is. All we have to do is show people that high tax welfare states are a great place to live. Look at countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, France, etc. Do you see a lot of citizens coming over here from there to live permanently? No! Yes, some of them (the cream of the crop) came over here doing the IT boom to make more money, but they know they have a good deal there.
We need to make the case that America is a partnership and we are getting ripped off by the richest Americans.
Crank up a LEFTwing propaganda machine. Start generating facts and figures. Start with healthcare. Show Americans exactly what is going on with nationalized universal healthcare in places like Canada, Sweden, Denmark, France etc.
Show how West Europe and their unions and restricted trade benefits the people. Hell, in Sweden it is quite difficult to expand a business. But there are reasons for that. Show Ameiricans that having corporations get their fingers into every pie disempowers the average person.
Teach America the game theory of politics.
To change America, we need to define our issues and an agenda. The problem is that we have simply moved along to the right with the GOP, keeping ever so slightly to the left of the GOP. No wonder white suburban and rural middle class Americans do not trust the Democrats. They seem to simply see the Left as a tool of the minorities for ripping them off for the welfare checks of the urban minorities.
But to do all this we need a LEFTwing propaganda machine. But we have to pay for it.
----All about Leftism
eat shiat and bark at the moon
All this election has proven, is that Americans are as easily persuaded by false rhetoric as any others. I am ashamed of my country, and embarassed at the lack of foresight and worldliness over half of my countrymen have expressed. To the world: Sorry.
It's not as simple as that, hoser.
Through it all, we're still Americans. (Well... The American readers, anyway.) The system of electing our president for the next four years worked like it should. That is something that both sides can be proud of.
For the "foreigners" readng this post: This is how American politics goes sometimes. There are winners, there are losers. If you don't like the way our elections turned out (based on the posts I've seen in the recent past, I think that's an understatement), too bad. I'm not going to apologize to anyone about the way our system works. The American people chose who their president would be for the next four years, and that's that.
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
> Despite the alleged "split" in the country.... There were no riots in the street.
Come on now, the election results only came out this morning. Who could possibly have had time to organize a riot? Give them a few days...
here you go!
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Oh SHIT!
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
So we saw this coming, I suppose, and while most of us do not like it, it is finished. This is a testament both to Kerry's character as well as America's democratic process. I wish the candidates the best of luck now that it is over, and I hope that America does not go to hell.
This is yet another case where I wish America was on the popular vote system rather than the electoral vote system. Bush clearly won the popular vote by a factor of 3,529,724. While I didn't vote for Bush based on these numbers I could move on. But the Bush lead in Ohio is 136,221, a margin lower than the amount of votes still left uncounted. I can not in good conscience say that Bush won our election so long as provisional and absentee votes are yet uncounted, to do so would be un-American.
This is a testament to the American democratic process, a process that serves to divide a nation rather than unite it.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
you're not any safer.
your deficit isn't any lower.
you're not creating new jobs.
your government isn't any smaller than before.
and you'll probably never _elect_ anyone ever again.
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
If lunar colonization were the result of the people of the world fleeing the second W. presidential term, it might be worth it.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
ALL HAIL CANADA!
The IL Republican party imploded after the last election cycle. The state is usually pretty evenly split (Dem's in Chicago, Reps in the middle, and socially conservative Dem's in the south). There's a fight brewing between the moderate Rep.s, and the hard right Rep.s in IL. The only Rep. that got elected to a state wide office in 2002 was a moderate Rep. The far right wing of the party got Alan Keyes to run for the US Senate over the objections of the moderate wing of the party after Jack Ryan was forced to quit (what's really wrong with wanting other people to see you have sex with Jerri Ryan aka 7of9?). I think that the Alan Keyes race was sort of a proxy fight for the Rep. party. The moderates didn't put up much of a fight over Keyes. Now that he's gotten trounced by Obama, the moderates can say 'see what happens when you nominate a far right candidate?' I expect the Rep. party to shake everything out by 2006. The current Dem. govenor is unpopluar with his own party. So, if the moderate Rep.s win their fight, I expect a Rep. Gov. will get elected in 06, and the state to be in play for 08... unless the national Dems nominate Cliton in 08. Then I predict a Regan/Mondale landslide for the national Rep. party.
A treat to eat, in a puppet that's neat!
I've seen this thread grow into civil war threats, fleeing the country, burning courthouses, etc.
I am here to help you guys.
There are MANY places on the net where you can purchase plane tickets and look for jobs and real estate elsewhere.
May I advise, if you're fed up with your country, either try to help it the right way, or if it bugs you THAT much: LEAVE!
The majority has spoken. You knew that this was the setup before the election and Bush won. Even the minority leader (D) was ousted in place of a Republican!
Go ahead and mod me down.
Get paid to code OSS
Age group of 18-29 again represented only 17% of the vote after large amounts of money, time, and hype was expended on getting the vote out. Congratulations Kids! Once again your apathy shines through.
One good thing for the coutry as a whole is that the popular vote matched up with who won - that should help eliminate a whole category of people proclaiming the winner was not really the winner and make the results less embittering to some.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
One way or the other, I am sure we are just happy it is over, no 5 weeks of law suites. I did vote for Bush but I do believe Kerry did the horrible thing in conceding; instead putting what gore put us though in 2000. I hold now ill will to Senator Kerry and I wish him luck in what he does in the future.
You fucking idiots. Love and kisses, The rest of the world
fortune -o
"F - l - o - r - i - d - a"
You could've hired me.
so, who wants bets on how long it will take osama to attack us? i got bets on 2-3 weeks. anyone else want in?
A sad day specially for those of us outside the US; however bad bush might be in domestic affairs, it's his handling of international politics that's most worrisome (" I don't like that country, let's blow them to smithereens and have the american people pay for it in money and blood"). Sad indeed.
Let us all pray for God to bless America.
I think the real question is, where did all the bush haters / kerry supporters go that you were only able to pull 48% of the vote? The're just louder so they sound like a greater number. People who arent as upset with the current state arent as likely to be vocal.
Crap shit fuck damn it all to hell.
Now we have a Senate, House, and Presidency all in control by the GOP. 11 states have banned gay marriage. Alaska threw all reason out the window and didn't legalize marijuana (which includes hemp, an amazing industrial plant). I must say, these next four years (and definitely the next two) are going to suck... big time.
I apologize world, but my vote against W wasn't enough.
I didn't say the rest of the world doesn't see it at home nor did I accuse anyone of being cowardly. However, anyone else's efforts to curb it haven't exactly worked well. The train wreck before Spain's election is a very prime example of such. I really believe the rest of the world needs to work with the US a bit more on this issue. I know our actions haven't been completely right, but I also don't think we're completely wrong either.
The idea behind taking out governments like those in Iraq and Afghanistan is to give the country a chance at electing its own leadership. Democratic goverments do show better economic growth, personal income, and education than those that are not democratic. This has been studied in many economic journals. I'm optimistic about the futures of the two countries I mentioned. It's rough going there now, but I happen to believe they will turn it around. Change is never easy, and never instantaneous.
I'm curious, though. Everyone is all over my terrorism comment, but nobody can refute my statement on economies?
... but both won't be accepted in "American Heartland" (Kitchen | Plantation vs. White House). Btw.: Why has Washington D.C. 90% pro Kerry votes? Everybody there should love the President!
European comment, but I still live in the U.S. (Florida!!!).
Does anyone think I would have a realistic shot if I went to the nearest Canadian embassy and applied for political asylum?
No, really.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Despite all the money and effort to bring out the 18-29 yo vote, only 17% of them turned out to do so. Why can they not be inspired to do their civic duty while a large group of evangelical lemmings did theirs??? If Karl Rove (that shill) could conjure up a strategy to make that group come out in droves by emphasizing on issues important to them (ie cultural issues), then someone else ought to go and figure out what is important to them.
I remember listing to a recent story about a youth voter registration drive on NPR and one college girl described the process as akin to her parents nagging her to do something. Some of these people don't realize they CAN make a difference. The mistake is that a candidate didn't float any credible balloons of issues younger voters feel they can make a difference on.
(I guess many of my fellow citizens want to vote for someone who is just like them... *sigh*)
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
It's all Diebold's fault
Check out the California Governor's office sometime.
Bush won more votes than any other President in our Nation's history. The American people have spoken, and spoken loudly.
Yea, right. You realize, of course, that Kerry won the second-most votes in our Nation's history.
It is stunning that Republicans will come up with the stupidest spin on this when they won. Usually the losers say the stupid things. I expect the Democrats will say something stupid soon, but you have won the contest!
I voted for Kodos/Turd Sandwich.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
The last thing this nation needs is another drawn out court battle to decide the presidency. Kerry did the honorable thing considering his slim-none chances of pulling Ohio out.
Life will go on. It's a sad day for sure, but life will go on. We are all Americans, first and foremost.
The last thing the world (including america) needs is another 4 yrs of Bush. Kerry appears to have lost fair and square, so is sencible to concede early (ish).
Life will go on. It's a sad day for humanity, sure, but life will go on. (It will probably be more violent,polluted and corperate, but it will go on, except for those that are killed by an aggressive foriegn policy.)
We are all Humans, first and foremost. Any ethnic, religous or regional allegiance must always come second.
My spelling isn't bad, I'm evolving the language
The rest of the world can't seem to manage its own economy (see europe, and basically anywhere else that isn't the US, China, or South Korea).
:)
Is a $0.5 trillion defict proper management of an economy? How about the mass exodus of tech jobs to India?
The rest of the world takes a calculated blind eye on terrorism, knowing that America will probably be the target
You mean the rest of the world that suffers from daily suicide bombings? It's been what, 3 years now since the last attack on American soil?
and/or come to the defense of anyone hit hard.
And whether they like it or not.
The rest of the world doesn't set much of an example for everyone else to follow.
It is the stubborn American idea of setting such an example that is the source of most the world's resentment of it. Sovereign nations other than America are every bit as competent and capable of managing themselves properly. Shockingly, that even involves doing things differently than America.
Foreign nations are quite justified in feeling insulted when americans tell them there own policies are wrong. When America plans it's foreign policy around changing the policies of other nations, it's small wonder those nations are resentfull.
"God bless President Bush, and God bless America."
The American voters have brought shame on their once-great country. You can kiss our collective ass.
Bush is the first incumbent president since World War II to be reelected with an approval rating of under 50%.
Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) to see a net loss of jobs while in office. Hoover lost his reelection bid, Bush didn't.
Most polls in the days leading up to the election had Kerry narrowly winning on a state-by-state basis and most exit polls said the same.
Normally, I'd just say, "What do you know, conventional wisdom and the polls got it wrong." However, with what happened in Florida last time, coupled with the controversies surrounding the voting machines, my first thought is, "Was this election fair?"
Without the paper trails, we'll never know.
your sig should be ammended to include or a product of ones last name, and a large portion of luck.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
.. from the US.
Honestly..
Can't be any worse than Regan, whose wife told him what to do, even during press conferences- microphones repeatedly would "accidentally" pick up her whispering to him what to say, probably because the press was so horrified but knew they've be kicked out of the WH press core if they told anyone about it.
How did Nancy Regan make her decisions? Naturally, her astrologer.
People say Regan was the greatest president ever- he was absolutely nothing of the sort. The idiot couldn't even speak in public without his wife, much less make a decision without her and her fucking astrologer. It's no wonder he drove the country into the ground and it makes me want to throw up when I hear anyone recount him as a great leader.
Please help metamoderate.
> You got Bush, in democratic elections
Yes, we got Bush in democratic elections. I have no problem with that. He got more votes than Kerry. I DO have a problem with being in a country where that would happen. The lunacy of living in a country where slightly more than half the population believes a complete idiot bent on making America the next Empire is fit to run things. I thank God that I am over the age of the coming draft, and that I've already done my service (8 years, Force Recon... yes, I've killed (many) random strangers so we can enjoy the "freedom" we have). I'm scared for the youth of this nation.
You forgot North Korea
I voted mostly Libertarian for all races I could (not that any won, but still). I agree that we have to get a lot more third party candidates aprinkled all through the system and working up to higher positions before they can become president.
But it's not unthinkable a major groundswell of support in a presidental election could happen, and that in turn would mean a lot of recognition that would boost local candidates. I think there was for instance a brief period of support for third parties after Perot, and if that could have been sustained it could really have pushed independant candidates forward.
I just really wonder how many third party votes were lost to people trying to defeat Bush. It could have been enough (as others have noted) to make it much easier for third parties to get on the ballot next time. This time around they really got shafted.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hi-Tech states lost. Look on map.
Damn...
... but the prospect of four more years of his politics does not bother me half as much as the possibility that he might die in an accident and we would end up with .... ughhhhh.... Dick Cheney as president in his place. Even a sack of potates would be a more inspiring president than Cheney.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Because of the news that voters picked "moral values" as a main reason they voted, an issue that overwhelmingly favored Bush:
I, for one, welcome our new fundamentalist christian overlords.
(Ha, ha, only serious.)
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
So was Walden O'Dell, the diebold CEO, successful in his boast of carrying Ohio for bush?
t m /conspiracy mode off
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.h
Steven V>
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
Dear DNC,
Please take the results of this election as a strong hint, and please go meditate in a corner somewhere until you have the following revelation:
Although you and the members of your party are strongly attracted to smarmy candidates who love the camera and the sound of their own voice, you must realize that much of the country detests this kind of person. People do not like being talked down to, and our country is not desperately seeking the next JFK.
You failed to capitalize on the fact that many moderate-conservative people were disappointed with Bush's performance over the last 4 years. You failed to recognize the opportunity to bring these people into your camp, which would have been quite a feat considering many of the people in your camp are hippies that do not bathe. Instead, you nominated another rich, pre-manufactured, pompous character that non-Democrats just didn't want to deal with. You forced a lot of people to hold their nose and vote for Bush because John Kerry represents everything that sucks about the Democratic Party.
I hope you all learned something. See ya in 2008.
Love,
Retrospecter
OK. If US people want this president one more time, I've nothing to say but "Good luck".
And now for four more years of the usual thought substituting buzzwords:
'we are a nation of immigrants' (...and > 90% European derived until a few decades ago).
'diversity is our strength' (war is peace, freedom is slavery, etc)
'"heal the divide" via reparations, affirmative action, reverse discrimination' (ad nauseam)
'hate crime laws must be enforced' (...how about 'bad crime laws'? same jingoism)
'it's time for europeans/christians/males/etc to "pay back"' (...for being alive)
'nationalism must be abolished, we are a global village now' ('cause nationalism is only good for the master race, err "chosen tribe" in US taxpayer-funded Israel. Goyim cannot be trusted to look after their own interests)
From the outside - specifically Australia (we have our own shame named Howard, of course) - this is not just a shame, it's terrifying. The most common word phrase I've heard in the last hour has been "oh shit, bush won."
:-(
It's bad enough for the rest of the world, but Howard will take this as validation of his own beliefs and policies and tie us even more firmly to the runaway train that is US foreign policy.
I'd be scared for the stupidity involved if I wasn't so miserable about the whole thing. Howard winning over here was quite bad enough
Hitting the bong over the next 4 years will definately help us forget about the 7 trillion dollar deficit. It might be 14 trillion in 4 years, but who cares Jeb?!
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
There are less provisonal ballots official issued by the state than the margin of victory.
The real issue is this, why if elections are so important why do we not require a picture ID to prove who you claim to be?
It seems fine to ask for identification when getting a loan, buying property, registering a car, and many other activities yet the most important is one where some seem to want to introduce fraudulent behavior.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
why the heck was the parent modded flamebait??? it's true, Kerry is the better man for having the cojones to concede rather than seeing America dragged through the same circus that happened last time... could you see Bush conceding if things were in exactly the reverse position and we were only waiting for the absentee and provisional ballots to be counted??? no chance, Bush would never concede...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Hillary Clinton is thoroughly hated by a large portion of the country and would be an extremely divisive candidate. And to top it off she's not especially personable. Though popular with insiders she would be a big mistake.
Barak Obama the Golden Boy has real potential but needs to prove himself in office. I don't think four years is enough.
Honestly I can't think of any really obvious candidate with a good shot. The democrats need another appealing moderate. How I wish an independent candidate with real potential will arise.
A second question is who will run in 2008 for the republicans? It ain't gonna be Cheney, that's for sure. I wouldn't put it past them to try to run Bush again, or another Bush. McCain is out. They could butcher the Constitution and all common sense and then try to run Schwartzenegger, who at least seems to be moderate in CA.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
So, now we have a President / Commander in Chief during wartime. He has a Republican House and Senate and does not have to worry about pleasing the American people because he cannot run again.
If I were George W Bush I would activate ALL military reservists, enact the draft, and send mass troops to Iraq to disarm their entire nation and impose martial law. Oh, and by the way build the Marine base right over there. Set the price of oil about $5 a barrel and start loading up the tankers.
I doubt he will be SO harsh, there is a reason I am not a presidential candidate. But, I wouldn't be surprised if the gloves come off and he actually wields the force required to conquer Iraq.
God bless America!
Nick Powers
http://www.nickpowers.info/
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
Their base has shifted from middle class and working Americans to urban Americans and the "elite" high income earners and entertainers - and that's their problem.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
For those Americans who need to start learning it, I am posting the lyrics here to Oh Canada:
The Canadian Anthem
"O Canada"
O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North, strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
Refrain
O Canada, glorious and free!
We stand on guard, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
O Canada! Where pines and maples grow.
Great prairies spread and lordly rivers flow.
How dear to us thy broad domain,
From East to Western Sea,
Thou land of hope for all who toil!
Thou True North, strong and free!
Refrain
O Canada, glorious and free!
We stand on guard, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
O Canada! Beneath thy shining skies
May stalwart sons and gentle maidens rise,
To keep thee steadfast through the years
From East to Western Sea,
Our own beloved native land!
Our True North, strong and free!
Refrain
O Canada, glorious and free!
We stand on guard, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
Ruler supreme, who hearest humble prayer,
Hold our dominion within thy loving care;
Help us to find, O God, in thee
A lasting, rich reward,
As waiting for the Better Day,
We ever stand on guard.
Refrain
O Canada, glorious and free!
We stand on guard, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Here's the HOWTO:
Just vote Republican.
Remember, it wasn't the Republicans who brought up the draft, it was the Democrats.
It was Democratic congressmen Charley Rangel and Fritz Hollings who introduced the bill to reinstate the draft. Fortunately, the Republican-controlled House killed it and it was DOA.
Republicans know that an all-volunteer military is far, FAR preferable to conscription. It's the Democrats who are obsessed with draft-talk.
Schwarzenegger has never run in a fair election. Even if you ignore this fact, most of his standpoints on policy aren't even close to Bush's. Conservatism and Liberalism in California are both qualitatively distinct from their East-coast and Southern counterparts and it is because of this cultural difference that I think we'd be better off on our own.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
...but I find it a little surprising that there is no mention of a concession over at JohnKerry.com. There is also no denial of a concession, so maybe it's just lazy Kerry people figuring that their work is done now.
As one friend pointed out. . , "At least Arnie made good movies. Reagan's most popular film had the Gipper playing against a freekin' primate."
Arnie in office could happen. Easily. Hell, the populace voted for Bush, didn't they? (Or at least that's how the networks tell it.)
So we can look forward to having the world hacked down by Bush the Psycho and then ushered to its end by a freekin' Terminator. How painfully ironic is that? (In that dumbed-down American style of irony which the Apocalypse Cultists in the bible belt might be able to grasp.) What is it about living near water and mountains which raises awareness while being surrounded by lots of flat has the power to retard people into shucking-dung heaps? Something about perspective? Can it be that simple?
--Anyway, Arnie as Prez could happen unless of course Bush decides to crown himself god-emperor for life. Though, such a move might undermine the illusion of democracy. Couldn't have that! The people might actually DO something then! (Not bloody likely.)
I knew this was going to be a shitty day, but Bush? BUSH?!?! What the hell is wrong with everybody out there? (Not including two thirds of Slashdotters. --I'm happy that readers of this forum went largely Kerry in the Slashpoll. Lesser of two evils, sure, but lesser is something at this point).
And people talk about the Democratic campaign being a poor show. Whatever. I'd have voted for an actual donkey at this point.
-FL
With the current state of America, it's not very surprising that Bush won out. There seems to be a popular sentiment (in the U.S., not on Slashdot) that appearing "strong to the world" and having "strong faith and character" are the most important issues...it's really amazing that Bush was able to pull off the whole character and faith thing. What a sham. Jesus preached love and peace for our fellow humans; Christians are to be peaceable and leave vengance and judgement to God (look up Romans 12:18-19 if you want to see it in black and white). I'm not saying that Kerry was any better, but at least he didn't have the Texas cowboy mentality that Bush seems to throw around. As far as appearing strong to the world, it seems that most Americans still don't get this one either. The biggest reason why people in the middle east (and around the world) dislike the U.S. in general is that they continue to act like the "American Way" is the best way and any other way is wrong and their responsibility to change. Terrorism will continue to thrive as long as the U.S. continues to act as a global bully. Until this country can start thinking of themselves as global citizens and not think of the world as potential U.S. territory America won't be safe from radicals on the other side of the fence.
As far as the Democratic party, I think the writing is on the wall for them. They have clearly failed to adapt and evolve in the new millenium and against the Republican propaganda machine. I'm not a fan of a "two party system", but there needs to be some kind of strong alternative to the conservative extremism that is taking over America. This is my own opinion, but I would be willing to bet that sometime in the next 10-20 years (hopefully less) either the Democratic party will comepletely redefine themselves or a new party will finally be able to break through and replace the Democrats as the other major party alongside the Republicans. You read it here first...
I know odds are slim, but the notion entertains me...
What happens if vote-count turns in Kerry's favor in the end? Kerry backed down, BUSH doesn't win... I say we get 4 years of anarchy!! At least it'll be better than alternatives. Either of them.
'...computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons...' Popular Mechanics, 03/49'
when fucking over the common man...might even use a sex toy or two!
Why do you think a tie in the electoral votes would have been good? Bush would have just gotten in anyway due to who would be voting on the tie-break.
THIS ACCOUNT IS OFFICIALLY RETIRED/RETARDED.
I for one welcome our new err.. old oppressive overlord!
..
He was the strongerest of the two candidates, and deserving of victory..
God help us.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
While I find him unbelieveably deplorable, you've got to hand it to Karl Rove and the Bush campaign.
I thought there was no way that this country would re-elect a president who had the worst attack on this country ever happen on his watch, presided over a terrible economy, mismanaged a war that was waged for questionable reasons to begin with and was soundly defeated in three consecutive debates with his opponent.
I think the answer was, make this election about God. Take the extremely divisive social issues in this country (stem cell research, abortion, gay rights) and make the election about them rather than the economy. While outwardly, the Bush campaign was all about the War on Terror, I think he owes his victory to the social issues. He's made no secret about his faith, and while that is somewhat noble, it also overshadowed his record for lots of people.
Coming out of mass two Sundays ago, I found an Ohio Right to Life flyer in my windshield telling me how Bush fairs on four "Pro-Life" issues compared to Kerry. While abortion issues were the top two, the third was "Faith Based Initiatives" and the fourth was a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. While neither of these are pro-life issues, they were included on a Right to Life flyer, while another true pro-life issue, the death penalty (not to mention just and unjust wars) was conspicuously absent.
If there is one thing this election has proven, it is that Americans no longer desire a separation of church and state. And that frightens me more as a Catholic.
Who wouldn't want to live in a country that a religion is forced on you, they can seach your homes without warrent or reason, tap your phone lines without warrent, bans gay marriage, is totally right wing, has no socialized medicine, attacks everything in sight, and runs up a huge deficit, while giving tax cuts to the richest?
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Some states require the electors to refelect the vote of the people but most don't. One Republican elector did say before the election that he was voting for Kerry either way due to Bushes record. It's not enough to sway the election but he will loose one vote. If you want to see rioting in the streets see what happens if the college went against a four million popular vote margin. There would have been just cause in the last election. This time around it would be a disaster.
here's the fix.
this will solve all the problems, the deficit, the idiots from texas, the war, the president won't be president anymore, etc.
Sell Texas back to Mexico.
think about it... it fixes everything.
Runnin' On Empty
Does anyone have any suggestions regarding where someone tired of living in a Christian theocracy might move to?
When the war between the fundamentalist Muslims and the fundamentalist Christians escalates into WW III, I'd rather be watching from the sidelines in a country that has advanced beyond superstitions.
Dear the USA,
I think I speak for surprisingly many here in the world when I say:
YOU MANIACS. YOU BLEW IT UP. DAMN YOU. GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
...the counting in Ohio shows that Kerry actually won?
How binding is this concession?
We have enough bleeding heart, tax-and-spend, big government socialist fools up here already! We've had over 12 years of Liberal rule and things are a mess. Health care costs continue to spiral upwards with no accountability as to how the money is spent. Wait times for CAT scans and MRI's are measured in MONTHS, not days or weeks. They spent over a billion dollars on a gun registry that was supposed to cost 2 million. It works out to over $1000 per rifle registered. The interest we pay yearly on our Federal debt consumes 40% of our income taxes. This is debt that has been on the books for over 30 years now with no sign of it being repaid any time soon! Meanwhile the Liberal government funnelled hundreds of millions of dollars to advertising firms that were friendly to the Liberal Party. It makes me sick how wasteful this government is with our tax dollars. And during all of this they've done nothing to help the poor, the homeless, or the environment. So piss off! We don't want you!
I wasn't done hacking the Diebold voting machine
To Bush supporters:
Every exercise of power by your leader(s) in Washington D.C. is an opportunity for greater imposition of socialist tyrrany in the future. You will have to leave the country or fight because there won't be any State within the United States that can protect your rights.
Seastead this.
I don't think a candidate for re-election would've stood a chance in committing what are, I'm starting to think, necessary atrocities. I'm thinking the war we've seen in iraq (thus far) has been nothing more than groundwork for a larger and startlingly brilliant campaign.
For a moment, let's say that's all wrong and this isn't "the plan." Things get worse rather than better, and there will be no arguments in 2008 of "Well if he'd had 4 more years."
Let's say someone else had won, kerry or not, and now has the job of cleaning up. Let's say the guy needs more than 4 years to perform all the repair to our international credibility, relationships, etc. How does that person get re-elected?
This decision may end up causing more damage to america and the nations in the middle-east, but I wonder if it's not better to allow the process to finish before trying to roll it back (or, in the case of a real victory over terrorism) building fresh in new places.
Maybe I'm feeding a troll, maybe I should've posted anonymously, but I don't think it's worth the loss of political currency, right now, to be blamed for what will be a failed cleanup after W's presidency.
One last note. George W. Bush didn't outwit anyone. His campaign manager did, perhaps, or Kerry has defeated himself.
::jafomatic
(nothing to see here, move along)
This way to the egress...
That's it. They lied. My vote didn't count. I had a mail-in ballot and they've declared the presidency before any of the mail-in ballots have been recieved. None of them counted. None of those votes matter. You don't matter.
And Kerry called in already to concede. Bullshit. You know what I want to see? I want to see someone dig up evidence that Kerry is in Bush's pocket. I want to see that he was the wrong bastard anyway. I want to see children screaming in the streets that they aren't going to have pencils or paper in school next year. I want to see a burst in the number of teenage girls getting pregnant, all because Bush is going to destroy Planned Parenthood's Take Charge program. I want to see those girls marching, chanting that their children aren't going to have a future. I want to see college students protesting that they won't recieve social-security ever. I want to see where the next bomb is going to be dropped. I want to see the faces of people who are waving Bush/Cheney '04 banners after their children don't have a place in America. Wait, those are all wealthy people holding those banners. They can do whatever they want--and your vote didn't count!
nohup rm -rf /
I feel really disappointed by this election. As a nation, we've just validated all the (bad) decisions that Bush has made for us in the last 4 years. We've validated the Iraq invasion, etc.
Looks like it's time to get another apology t-shirt: "I'm sorry my president's an idiot. I didn't vote for him."
I voted for Kodos.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
After all, Kerry never lies (Cambodia, anyone?). Bush is all lies. Must...bash...Bush. Cannot simply admit being wrong.
Mod up accordingly, please.
Well, I think this website might be popular today.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
But as for the whole election it think Bart Simpson said it best..
"I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. "
Sure a vote for an independant would not have gotten them into the presidency - same as Kerry.
However what a healthier percentage of votes for the third parties would have done is get them easier access to money in the future, and easier access to have candidates on the ballots.
So you can see that the third parties had a lot to gain by people voting for them, while the Democrats get nothing from the slight boost people gave them that really wanted third party candidates.
So people did nothing for the Democrats and helped screw over third parties even further by going with Kerry.
I am really wondering if this was the lowest numbers of votes for thrd parties in history, a major set back for Green and Libertarian alike if so.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Kiss our collective ass, from whence the sun shines. You keep sitting on yours while we battle the darkness. Hugs and snuggles, Uncle Sam.
--- Ban humanity.
four more years of hilarious Daily Shows.
for the next 4 years, invest money in energy companies that will rape consumers. collect profits in 4 years and donate to democratic candidate.
also, plenty of the bush votes came from christians who vote for him because... he's a tool of god or something dumb. if these people are that dumb, why not sucker some money out of them. sell some "jesus is cool" buttons or something. use this to fund evangelical atheism tours across the country to talk sense into them.
back-alley abortion clinics can be lucrative too.
Isn't this the problem? Liberals (for whatever reason) that come from conservative environments concentrate in certain areas which has the effect of deluting their representation based on the electoral college system. Those that like the conservate environment move back to those areas, so you basically have a conservative minority dictating policy for a less conservative majority. Even though the electoral college was close, the number of states that went for Bush was way more than half. Those unoccopied states still get a minimum of 3 electors, which gives a small state voter more power than a large state dweller.
Most liberals are that aren't born in liberal areas are educated and like multicultural environments. They have to leave conservative areas (rural areas) to get jobs and culture (try finding a job that requires a graduate degree in a city where you can get Thai or Indian food in Montana). Very few are willing to sacrifice their quality of life to affect national politics by living in a sparce state.
As a side note, I just posted in my journal (see sig for link) about this topic... Please drop by and let me know what you think...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Let's all us Americans out here ask the question, "are these guys really the best we have to offer?" I don't think so. I think it is a shame that it takes 100's of millions to run for President. What are the actual chances that someone who really does care will ever get out in front of the american people? zero.
I realize that when you boil it down, this is what the founding fathers actually intended. I am not sure they could have imagined the skewed disparity between the "have" and "have nots" that we have in our country today.
I think it sucks that we are forced to vote based on defense and military action but that is the world we live in. All non-americans seem to think that we want to be shipping our military around the world. The US has such potential to do great things for everyone, it is just depressing we have to focus on defending ourselves.
I would have gladly voted for the Democratic candidate if I could have seen someone other than a wife trying to get her husband something he wanted. Bush himself is not the greatest President or candidate.
Bottom line, you have to have money to even THINK about being president. In the case of this year, it's just a lesser of two evils vote. Unfortunately, I voted based on whether the man could do whatever was necessary in case something terrible would happen and just didn't think JK could have done it.
-----
Granted, it might alienate some people, but while I would have liked Kerry to win, I am happy he conceded - just because I think it would have been wrong to have Kerry win the presidency with a minority in the popular vote - yes, Bush ruled with a minority, but two wrongs don't make a right.
For me, as a foreigner living outside the US, this will simply mean, that I'll stay out of the US for at least another legislative period - as long as those paranoid suckers are in office, I wouldn't even want to enter the US as a tourist.
The only thing I am concerned about right now, is what the new cabinet will look like. If Colin Powell really drops out of the cabinet (and isn't replaced by someone with an equal amount of internationally accepted integrity), the government will lose a lot of its standing to the outside world. I'd give more about what he said, than all the crap that Bush, Rice and especially Rumsfeld "emitted"...
At the beginning of his administration, President George W. Bush asserted that he was a unifier, not a divider.
I think that George Bush is one of the most influential politicians in history; he's been successful not only in polarizing America but also the whole world.
Never before has the rest of the world paid such close attention to the American presidential election.
--This SIG was sold and put on a bumper sticker.
I was looking forward to the recount-induced riots and looting...
:(
I had my eye on this awesome 17" flatscreen display down at Staples
4 More Years!
4 more years of lucrative no-bid contracts;
4 more years of underfunded, biased, racist, corrupt educational systems that reward nice suburban schools and gut already strained urban schools, to the benefit of Bush's friends who run testing and test preperation companies;
4 more years of stop-loss in the military;
4 more years of american AND iraqi casualties;
4 more years of job loss;
4 more years of a mounting federal defecit;
4 more years of a shrinking middle class, thanks to upper-bracket tax cuts;
4 more years of the axis of evil;
4 more years of imperiling the country by breeding thousands of people all over the globe who are convinced the only way they can survive is through our death;
4 more years of convincing the world that "we know best";
4 more years of the PATRIOT ACT and John Ashcroft;
4 more years of appointing ultra-conservative Supreme Court judges, who while decrying "activist judges", change the whole country into the Bible Belt and force their way into women's wombs by overturning Roe V. Wade;
4 less years of stem cell research that could revolutionize medicine, because it's immoral to use embryos, even as thousands of embryos are thrown away all over the country as we speak at In Vitro Fertilization clinics.
4 More Years!
I still don't get why liberal means pussy, yet conservative doesn't mean poorly educated white trash.
Well, if you look at demographics it seems Bush did better with people that earn 50,000+, and Kerry did better with people that earn less...
So how does your assumption hold true?
If the Democrats continue to ignore demographics and instead fundamentially believe misconceptions like the one you put forth then they will keep loosing.
Instead they should try and think about what led so many middle class, non white-trash people to vote for Bush and try to put forth a candidate that those people would vate to vote for, instead of a simple Anti-Bush.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
My Democratic uncle's poem to my dad, a Republican:
The election is over,
The results are now known,
The will of the people
has clearly been shown.
Let's forget the quarrels
and show by our deeds,
and give our new leader
the help that he needs.
We'll all work together,
May all bitterness pass,
I'll hug your elephant
and you'll kiss my ass.
Was Bush the Giant Douche Bag, or the Turd Sandwich?
Go Cows!
The problem with 3rd parties is this: They do not share the overlapping platforms equally with the other 2 major parties.
If you vote Republican, your goal is not just to get a Republican into office (unless you're an idiot), you're voting based on the platforms that you and Republicans stand for, and you want the Republican sides of those platforms to be acted upon.
If a given platform (such as privacy rights) was shared by both Libertarians and Democrats, and this platform thus had a majority of the mindshare, the platform would still lose because the votes would be split between the two parties and the OTHER party would win, along with its less popular take on the given platform.
So basically (and paradoxically), the LESS popular sides of platforms will have a high tendency to win as long as the more popular sides are split between 2 or more candidates. Thus, a 2-party system is the ideal equilibrium, whether you like it or not, because it gets more of the popular positions of platforms acted upon over time, and that's what I think the ultimate goal of all this election crap is. That's how society moves forward, as opposed to backward. And thus, most intelligent Democrats hate the presence of Nader, Badnarik, etc., not because they disagree with their views, but because their views tend to coincide more with the Democratic attitudes on things, and thus split the vote.
With the way Bush runs this country, I am predicting a civil war/revolution in the next 30-50 years. I'm just curious, who else is predicting this? And who will join the resistance/insergency when/if this does happen? I know I will be one of the first to take up arms. The government is out of control.
...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
I can't wait to see Forest, errrrr... I mean Edwards in '08. Not implying that he's stupid, because he wouldn't have made millions using junk science to take advantage of palsied children and their familes and raised medical costs for everyone in the country if he was stupid, but listening to him speak is going to get real old!!!
Watch more of our civil right disappear
Oh no! You mean there's only one left?
I knew things were bad, but wow!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What's really depressing is that this is _exactly_ the same as Australia, except Australia was even more pronounced.
... what was his name again? ... Mark Latham was so wet and lacking in personality, spine, and credibility. Even I only voted for him (well, my preferences went to his party before Howard's party) because I felt it was critically important to get Howard out.
Howard won by a large margin. To a large extent, this was because
Latham ignored the economic issue, and Howard gutted him on it. Latham was focusing on real issues, though rather poorly, as Howard cut him to pieces with scaremongering. It works. Howard made it simple, black and white, and scary - so he won.
I fucking hate people.
Uh, hello. How was this modded anything but the flamebait expletive-laced troll that it is? A bunch of pissed off moderators today, maybe?
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
Thank you Mr. Dibold, Thank you Mr. Rove, and thank you whomever it was that discreated the Americas [sic]public shcool [sic] and standeric [sic] testing.
On this aspicous day I would like also to spare a word for the Democrats who realized how much safer they'd be under my handlers benificent rule; and also to the cuban-americans in Florida who somehow managed to misconestimated [sic] my promise to oust Castro; and that word is "sucker" eh, I mean "thanks" suckers.
Now to the issues of poverty in America, I promise you, with all my heart, that those who do not receive the jail time they deserve will lead our efforts to _liberate_ the political issues and persons my handlers find to be expedient at any given time.
I promise you my full inattention [sic] span and that no poor child will be left behind in our effort to draft a new way of life for the people of the wolrd. Our leadership will burn brightly in the streets and bodies of our friends around the world and that No Nation Shall Rise Above My Vision for America.
====
Seriously, to the rest of the world... I am sorry that two-thirds of the population of my home country is too apathetic to vote, and that some sixty million of the people who can, are to afriad of "evil faggots sneaking into their institutions and destroying their children's chance to marry" (or whatever, it doesn't make sense from here either) or are so fearful or gullable that they beleive that Iraq attacked America.
Be warned, stupidity is catching.
Please expect either some festering environmental policy or a "friendly interventionalist action" to pour forth from our Country into yours any time.
For those who don't know, I have "good reason to beleive" that "unofficially" word has leaked down that America will begin Nuclear Testing (as in "boom! oh... pretty!") in the near future. Nothing has been said, mind you, but look how well Bush carried Los Alamos (and no, that isn't my only source for that, but it is just a rumor)...
Just consider, Bush cannot be "reelected" so he'll be a off his "good behavior" as a (classic) second-term president.
I'd ask if some nice Canadian computer company were looking for experienced programmers, but this isn't a problem that can be usefully fled, and besides, for all I know Bush may declare Canda a target for the next crusade. He clearly doesn't understand things like the descrimination of fact from desire, or the stupidity of pissing off a neighboring country. Fortunately Cuba is right next to Brother Jeb and Bush has already promised an attack there, so maybe Castro can solve the "Bush Dinasty" problem.
So no change in the foreign policy: No (enfranchised) Blood for (cheap) Oil; use the children of poor and "those godless sand-people" [but I dont mean you Bin Laden, you're a family friend] to keep it $52 (USD) per barrel.
Really Europe, Africa, and our "alies". Get a clue. You are in an unhealthy relationship. We get drunk on "family values", beat our [pick a word], belittle our children [US possessions] and have no respect for our selves beyond a post-adolecent fascination with our "prowess".
Why in the world would you think we mean it _this_ time when we say we won't hit? You loan us money, you let us into your house.
Stop being a bunch of enablers, can't you see we are sick and need help?
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi...
====
And it's not a crusade, it's a liberation of the holy land...
The right to life begins at conception and ends at birth...
Nuke a unborn gay babby whale for Jeasus.
Ok Daddy?
Amen.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
The real problem is that the Democrats are not a Liberal party. Take a look at this political spectrum.
IMHO, the Democratic party should be somewhere near today's Green Party, and the Green Party should be somewhere near my personal philosophy, which is way in the lower left corner.
It's also disturbing that the Republicrats are in the same quandrant as Hitler, but reassuring that the Greens are in the same quadrant as Gandhi and the Dalai Lama.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
The saddest thing about Bush winning... is that the Redskins footbal game myth has been debunked
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
True. Very True. THIS IS Democracy in action. I heard a saying somewhere: People's will is God's will.
I bow once again to democracy and the power of people...
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
All people die...
The sobering unfortunate reality is that people are dying earlier than need be and living a life of lower-quality than need be.
But in truth, I'd rather be living in Iraq than most of Africa.
There is a tragedy we need to address...
At ~11AM EST, November 3, 2004, the /. effect slashdotted Slashdot.org.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
According to Aljazerra, Al Qaeda/Bin Ladin wanted Bush. They want desperately to destroy our businesses by getting other nations to quit trading with us, have us bankrupt ourselves and get us to strip our citizens of our rights.
So far, they are winning that in a BIG way.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The American voters, like the proverbial battered wife have decided to stand by their man...
"He took our jobs away and gave us lower paying ones in exchange. He sent our kids to die in a senseless war based on a lie. He's maxed-out the credit card. He's trashing the environment and the constitution. Our friends are wondering what's happened to us....
But he's our president and we just love how he doesn't change his mind!"
Yes, it's only in America, with all that "fuzzy math" being argued about...
On the other hand, rather than running away to Canada (my first thought...) this has actually caused me to have real thoughts about becoming active in politics, at least at the local level. I'm no longer content to let others make a mess of things; I want to do my share. Then at least I can blame myself.
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
Actually, the U.S.A. isn't a democracy. It's a Federalist Republic. The popular vote was never intended to elect the President. In fact, the framers of the Constitution designed it such that the popular vote wouldn't elect the President. We are a representative democracy where what we're actually voting for on Nov. 2 is memebers of the Electoral College who will, in theory, vote for the candidate that we put down on our ballots. Technically they are not bound to vote either way, but that's just the way the system has developed.
;-)
Those crazy guys back in the day didn't trust in the transient will of the populous or "tyranny of the majority." Do you?
-------------------------------------------
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.
-- Dr. Seuss
Well, the view from here in the UK is this.
Kerry vs Bush, or anyone else, is just a competition between two talking heads, they don't matter.
Let's be honest, Bush as a human being is as thick as shit, he couldn't run a branch of blockbuster, much less a country.
So, despite the fact that American elections are esentially personality contest in the style of a television pop star junk thing, what you actually get is not just the puppet, but the puppeteers.
Bush getting re-elected is essentially a big hearty slap on the back and multi-million dollar tax free bonus to the Straussian Neo-Con puppeteers.
Expect them to see this as carte blanche.
Everyone one else on the planet OUTSIDE the USA is now expecting these bastards to start pushing for...
a/ military intervention in Iran
b/ continued support for Isreal in terrorising Palestine and it's other neighbours.
c/ Military intervention in equatorial Africa (oil again, surprise surprise)
d/ possible military intervention in North Korea
The American people have managed to effectively declare christian and economic (oil and military might inc nuclear capability) jihad on the rest of the planet.
If any of you think this is going to make life within the borders of the United States SAFER then you're out of your fucking gourds.
I fully expect a "sum of all fears" scenario and deployment of biologically engineered pesticides in your belts against your wheat and corn growers within the next couple of years.
As it stands today my fee for any job that involved working in the USA or indeed anywhere else for an American company would be US$ 100,000 up front for every flight and US $50,000 per week to be within any major US city and US$ 10,000 per week to work for any american company, IN ADDITION to any salary and benefits offered as standard.
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
my friend who's living in florida told me yesterday there were about 50,000 votes missing in Florida, a state which is governed by another Bushling..
Ohio counts is still not done and so are other states' provisional votes..
I read a comment here that says conceding doesnt necessarily means giving up, I hope that's the case. I strongly support Kerry but if he gives up that fast, I wouldnt want him to win either..
In a very likely case Bush officially wins this circus act, I can already see what will happen:
-Bush's American arrogance will show even more and eventually tick, not just annoy, the rest of the world
-FOUR MORE YEARS of job loss, troops sent out to die, and other crap that has been happening..
on a side note, shouldnt what Bush was campaigning about have been done at the end of his first term? And people just buy into what he's saying because they "CONNECT" with his personality..
*sigh*
To all who said Kerry would win because of a football game, I laugh at you.
/. much less read my post...but still if you ever do Moore...I LAUGH AT YOU!!! BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!)
To all who said Kerry would win because the planets aligned, I laugh harder at you.
Michael Moore, the American people are not as stupid as you think. Just cause you got the gulible French to believe your lies, doesnt mean America will....
(granted, I am sure that as un-intelligent as Moore is, he probably never visits
I've got several military sources, that will go unidentified, whom I attend college with. If you don't think a draft is coming, think again. Look for a draft in March-May of 2005. Here is the latest ruleset for us college students. http://www.sss.gov/viet.htm "Under the current draft law, a college student can have his induction postponed only until the end of the current semester. A senior can be postponed until the end of the academic year."
Help me, help you. - Jerry McGuire
I'm not saying this has happened, just that if it did, you might never know about it.
And there have been people hauled in on some pretty outlandish charges
Hold up now. The statement that 49% of Americans who voted hate W is a bit much.
Or is it?
Me, I voted Democrat in '92, '96 and '00. But the fucking virulent hate without much rational thought or reason is why I voted Republican this year.
I couldn't take the nonsense...the hate that was coming from some Liberals.
Yesterday we had a conversation in a meeting and someone admitted to voting Bush, a lady went off, yelling Someone looked over in horror and yelled "how could you? He has raped and murdered millions in Iraq!"
I said, "George W. Bush personally has raped and murdered people in Iraq?"
"Yes he has!"
"Personally? Like he went over and raped and murdered people?"
"Yes he has! Millions!"
Back to the word "hate", do you really think that every single person who voted for Kerry "hate" George W. Bush? I doubt it.
"Hate is the generic word, and implies that one is inflamed with extreme dislike. We abhor what is deeply repugnant to our sensibilities or feelings. We detest what contradicts so utterly our principles and moral sentiments that we feel bound to lift up our voice against it. What we abominate does equal violence to our moral and religious sentiments. What we loathe is offensive to our own nature, and excites unmingled disgust."
Because I'm still asking myself why the Republicans couldn't come up with a better candidate than Bush.
The reason why Democrats couldn't come up with a better candidate is because: (pick one or more)
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
As if that's not what Michael Moore, George Soros, the Hollywood l33ts, etc haven't been doing??? One thing this election proves is that the drone of the "poor, poor party of the peepul" can come up with the dough when they want to.
insightful. even if you disagree, this is a strong point that is rarely brought up on slashdot.
so, what about us? How many "electoral" votes do we count for? Or is it just a fun exercise to make us *think* we count for anything?
I agree with everything you have in the parent except for your last sentence. Democracy is exactly about majority rule; what you have described (reaching a compromise that maximizes societal welfare) is a Republic, which the United States is supposed to be according to our Constitution.
> Kerry got more votes (55 million) than any other president in history too.
Ahh! Except for one very recent president.
While I am not super pleased the GW won, I am more concerned that the republican extended their majority in the house of representitives.
Checks and balences was our only hope if this where to happen, and it looks like we are going to get GW's ( Halibarten (SP?)) agenda without much resistance.
I think having a party dominate both the Executive and Legislative branches of government ( REGARDLESS ) of party is an inherantly dangerous thing ( although given the "hawkish" nature of the current administration it may be more so in this instance ).
Question:
*When are the British elections?
*What are the chances of a Anti-US government(PM ) getting elected?
*What would be the consequences of the first REALLY anti us gov. in brit. in the last century?
*Have the bonds from Churchill to Roosevelt been completely undone?
*Will these bring greater unitiy to the EU? At the US's expense?
*What is the average wing velocity of an unladed swallow?
a man, a plan, a canal, panama
Song on the End of the World
On the day the world ends
A bee circles a clover,
A Fisherman mends a glimmering net.
Happy porpoises jump in the sea,
By the rainspout young sparrows are playing
And the snake is gold-skinned as it it should always be.
On the day the world ends
Women walk through fields under their umbrellas
A drunkard grows sleepy at the edge of a lawn,
Vegetable peddlers shout in the street
And a yellow-sailed boat comes nearer the island,
The voice of a violin lasts in the air
And leads into a starry night.
And those who expected lightning and thunder
Are disappointed.
And those who expected signs and archangels' trumps
Do not believe it is happening now.
As long as the sun and the moon are above,
As long as the bumblebee visits a rose
As long as rosy infants are born
No one believes it is happening now.
Only a white-haired old man, who would be a prophet,
Yet is not a prophet, for he's much too busy,
Repeats while he binds his tomatoes:
No other end of the world there will be,
No other end of the world there will be.
The thing to watch for 2008 is positioning within the Bush administration. Either they will get an 'heir apparent' into some visibal and powerful position within a year, or they know that they won't want to be in power between 2008 and 2012, as in the deficits finally driving the US Government into default in that timeframe.
Personally, I expect Cheney to resign in the next year, "for health reasons," and to see the new Republican Choice move in as Vice President. Either that, or some other properly-aged and electable (For instance, Hasturt probably isn't.) Republican put into a prominence.
If that doesn't happen, I wouldn't touch the Office with a 10 foot pole. (Actually, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, anyway.) Expect disaster.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we just found our new head of the DNC!
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
And no president of the US has been nor will be a dictator, so long as there is congress and a supreme court. Or, for that matter, so long as he's re-elected by both a majority of the popular vote and a majority of the electoral college.
But thanks for the entertainment - there's nothing funnier than a pissed off liberal.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
My advice to the Democrats:
Let the Republicans do whatever they want. Don't fight them on any issue. Let them pass any legislation they want, appoint any judges they want, spend any money they want, cut any taxes they want. Let them have free reign of the government. They want a chance to prove their system works? Give it to them. In fact, whenever they ask you to support them on an issue, go willingly, go gladly and give them everything they want.
In 4, 8 or 12 years, let's see how things turn out. If it's really that bad, then the Democrats will easily be able to regain control of everything. If things are going well, then we'll know for certain that the conservative agenda works and we will have a clear mandate for the future.
It's time for the democrats to fall back and watch for a while. It may be a lot to suffer, but I think it's the only way for us to get past the divisiveness. If the Democrats continue to fight the Republicans, they will continue to get blamed for the lack of progress in this country and continue to be labeled as whiners and obstructionists. By not making challenges, then they can't be blamed for mistakes, and if there are costly mistakes, it will be easy to turn the country in a different direction and start again. For the liberal America, this is your trial by fire.
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
We're sorry.
OK, well fine, mod the hell out of me. But, I for one am not a bit sorry, in fact, I think the world should be sorry to the USA. For not giving anything more than lip service about our need to secure our liberties in the aftermath of real harm, and turning our legitimate concerns into stories about greed, oil, and personal vandetta on Saddam and accusing us of being the war mongers while blowing off the actions of 100s other countries that are 10x more hostile and 100's of times less sincere.
I'd love to dote on the problems of the USA too, but the reality is that many a arrogant foriegn attitude sorta forced my hand and I immagine those of many other Americans too.
I wander if the real problem is that most the europeans and intellectuals in the world who give a shit about freedoms and liberty enough to struggle for them moved to the USA a long time ago. I also think, many US residents are old enough to renember the cold war, where we were dumped on just as badly, if not worse, yet we were so right in so many ways inspite of all the bullshit. It was only in the aftermath that everybody shut up.
It seems to me that some people just can't face that the USA isn't more wealthy because we're more greedy - we are more wealthy because on average we really do have more freedoms. And others really are just plain more envious and jealous even if they refuse to call it that.
The funny thing about all these people who are threatening to move abroad is that they probably won't be given visas! Relocating to different parts of the US is relatively easy. Perhaps this is what makes it deceptive. Crossing borders is much much harder - I can hardly see the US signing up to mobility concepts like those that exist within the EU.
Well, I had two friends who were participating in peaceful protests with permits who were arrested for it last year. They were inconveniently embarassing to more important people apparently.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
It's a well-documented fact the Diebold CEO promised to deliver Ohio to the President:
. ht m
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08
That fact that he kept his promise in this matter shouldn't be newsworthy; I'm surprised they even bothered keeping the polls open last night.
Tannenbaum is reporting that the exit polls and the actual vote results are quite different there, as well. Big surprise. Of course, there is no proof that the fix was in, because Diebold machines don't leave a paper trail.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A119 71-2004Jun3.html
In his most extensive remarks on the future of the American military, Sen. John F. Kerry said here Thursday that he would expand the active-duty Army by 40,000 soldiers, including a doubling of U.S. Special Forces...
Personally, I feel that a Draft is highly unlikely.
However, with Kerry saying he wanted 40,000 MORE troops, he was in no place to suggest that if Bush would HAVE to implement a draft, that Kerry would NOT have to add 40000 troops.
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
Can we have a revote? Maybe everyone who voted Bush beause they just figured he'd win anyway, and all the people who didn't get off their asses and vote will vote.
Short list I've seen for '08 Republican is...
Frist, McCain, Giuliani, Hagel, Pataki.
Maybe Sanford of South Carolina or Pawlenty of Minnesota.
I think a Giuliani/Rice ticket would be unstoppable.
Unfortunately, the entities with the money want to keep their money.
Tip: If your plan requires people to "not want to keep their money", it's probably not going to work.
"Education" is the word for what you think must be done. And I'll agree, there seems to be an awful lack of it.
I for one welcome our new puppet emperor.
Sorry, it seemd obligatory.
IBM has been defeated by SCO in court, Darl McBride appointed CEO of IBM.
Linus Torvalds has just accepted the position of CTO for Microsoft.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
For those of you who are new voters, we have one of these election things ever year.
:)
I also hope you realize that in Ohio, we choose people for jury duity by looking at the ranks of registered voters.
Should we start brushing up on our Mandarin?
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
You took a quote out of context.
What I actually said was:
If anyone really wanted to vote for a third party but instead voted for Kerry
People that really wanted Kerry and voted for him did NOT waste a vote. People that really wanted Nader or Badnarik but voted for Kerry DID waste a vote. The first way of course is that they did not give Kerry a victory anyway. But the far worse thing is that the very low vote count for the third parties hurts them in future elections. So by turning away from the candidate you really wanted you have have them more then you helped anyone else.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I wouldn't give the right-wing-nut-festering-thugs the satisfaction! I'm sticking around *and* getting more involved! I was motivated a few months back by a bumper sticker reading, "United We Recline" to get off my whiny butt and start trying to make a difference rather than just bitching and moaning and waiting for someone to *do something.* Now: get off *your* whiny posterior cushioning devices and put a bit of effort into the next 4 years so that we don't have to face this crap again. We'll have a lot of ground to make up by then, as if the $trillions aren't enough...
-Honestly, stupidity should be painful.
But I'm guessing me might disagree on what to do now. My idea was to buy time on a little light bulb AM station somewhere and air the voice of the independent radio show. Spend the next four years hacking everything the Republicans do, spouting conspiracy theories, stating absolute garbage as established fact and screening calls to make it sound like everyone agrees with me. Pretend to be an overall Bush supporter, then mention every piece of dirt that has plausible deniability.
I'd spend the next four years hacking back at them in the media like they did for eight years of Clinton's term.
Politics is a dirty game and it's time to start fighting dirty.
I'm guessing that may not be what you have in mind, but we've got nothing to lose going negative at this point. Light the flame throwers! You want division, we'll give you division and angry, unrelenting defensiveness until you're stuffed with it. We'll take our cues from Karl Rove's playbook and make winning a living hell.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
We have no major news media outlet that is free from the spin masters of the administration. How can anyone expect an uninformed electorate to actually make an intelligent choice in the voting booth if they are so woefully under informed by those who's mission it is to inform? Forget ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN AND Fox. I will no longer watch ANY news until they learn how to ask the really tough questions and hold our elected officials accountable for their actions. More War Bigger Deficits less health care more tax breaks for the rich and the draft is really just around the corner, regardless of what they all said to get elected. Unless your white, straight, and a christian, your days are numbered in America. I've never been an "US" in my life... always a "Them", so I'm expecting only the absolute WORSE over the next four years.
Don't you really mean, "Our way or Guantanamo Bay!"
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
So now that he's got an honest to goodness "mandate"...
What are the chances he's even going to try to be a uniter?
INsigNIFICANT
Re: Its that it is official: You can lie, mislead, and divide, and sucessfully win an election.
Oh, well, of course, everything looks bad if you remember it! -Homer
It takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen. -Homer
The results of this election reveal that most Americans still understand the truth about the state of the world today, despite what the mass media would like them to think. If the remainder of the populace (i.e. the Democrats) would stop and think about the reality of the situation, then all of the hysterical reactions to the outcome of this election could come to a stop.
Most Americans see the truth about the "War On Terror": coalition forces gave al-Qaeda the thrashing of their lives in Afghanistan -- and in only about 30 days, not the 10 year protracted USSR-style Afghanistan fiasco that some had predicted. Al-Qaeda still remains severely crippled from this shellacking in 2001.
Most Americans see the truth about the situation in Iraq: coalition forces continue to be overwhelmingly successful and are achieving their objectives at a steady pace, with unprecedentedly low casualties. To have achieved such a high level of success, with casualties in the low 1,000's is simply amazing. The truth is that in 2003 no one, not Republican or Democrat, could have hoped for such a positive outcome.
Most Americans see the truth about the economy at home: unemployment is now lower than it ever was under the Clinton administration. Homeownership is now at an all-time high. The country has now seen a net gain in jobs. The previous recession and loss of jobs began under the Clinton administration, not under the Bush administration. The Bush administration's economic policies successfully reversed the economic slide that the Clinton administration left behind, despite the difficulties imposed by the 9/11 attacks. This too is unprecedted and something for all Americans to be proud of.
I don't understand the media's motivation for attempting to decieve the American population with regard to these three major issues, but it is refreshing to see that the majority of American's are not buying into it.
The Republicans are doing a commendable job steering this country down the right path, and, with the outcome of this election, it is now apparent that most Americans recognize this fact. As soon as Iraq is set completely free and begins to rebuild and prosper, the rest of the world will see just how wrong they were about the Bush Administration.
God bless America!
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
Welcome, would you like some pretzel to choke on?
See: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=127860&cid=10
I made the following prediction:
Much like the 'curse' was lifted from the RedSox, this year the redskins presidential election parallel will be broken.
So what will be the next Redskin presidential parallel... The Redskins will predict the presidential election except if the redsox win?
Due to the rampant voter fraud (Disenfranchised? Try stupid) in 2000 in Florida and other states many people such as myself decided to vote for the first time to ensure our interests were represented and not swamped by fraudulent votes. There were enough first time American voters this time to trump all the voter bussing, non citizen voting, and double voting.
So about the Redskins...
I'm in Nevada, where the powers that be decided we needed EVMs.
I was trepidatious about the whole thing, but was pleasantly surprised. My EVM allowed me to vote three times for Badnarik and twice for Bush.
Share and enjoy.
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
you must be a conservative, no emotional tirades about moving to canada, no epocalyptic predictions of the french turning their nose up at us, no groping for ways to deny reality..
I have to say, although I am not a fan of President Bush, I do not have the same emotional urge to make Senator Kerry out to be a communist infiltrator and flame on about how horrid of a person he is.
I really would like to debate how to solve problems and I am more disturbed by the divisiveness and the cultural war going on then wether Pres. Bush or Sen. Kerry won. They both had their strengths and weaknesses and neither was going to address the problems in our way of debating issues.
As a European, I welcome a Bush win. It will bring about, more than any other factor, an even tighter European integration, which means more euros for me.
:E
Well, the way I see it another fours years of Republican rule will probobly devestate the US, financially and socially, to such an extent that the republican party will be unelectable for years to come.
It's either that or even more Americans becoming intolerent, religious, tax free and/or just plain rude. Not that the French are more tactful mind.
"America Rules! Except the south." - Peter Griffin
May the Maths Be with you!
In the rest of the world we don't view the USA as solely one man, we know that there are about 300M of different people there. We also sorta worked out that Bush jr is not Bush sr and that G.W. Bush is more or less advised by neo-conservatives like Wolfowitz who do not have the wide scope view of people like H. Kissinger.
In other words, we don't blame America as if it was one island with one inhabitant. We just can't believe the foreign policy of one man and his rabid advisers who plow the world on the hunt for just an other man who the wanted ennemy. G.W. Bush doesn't seem to be consistent in more than some of his speeches, it's sort of clear that he is not the one wearing the pants in his team. At least that is how he is portrayed here in Europe.
So are we to take that onto the next american tourist that comes by to ask for directions? Not at all, unless you want her/him to go back home and vote even more extreme-Right next time, thinking foreigners are all beyond hope.
My strategy is the same one I have seem when I used to live in the US. Be nice, be kind... you always surprise people that way. I have always been impressed by how civil, nice and kind your Joe American is as compared to us and our attitude. So I'm not going to judge a whole people because of one opportunist in the Washington D.C. beltway. I lived there for years, it's full of other people like him.
Now that Kerry has lost, will he be a good patriot and tell Bush what his detailed solution for IRAQ is? After all it would be for the good of the country.
Look, I just made you read my signature.
Congrats, Bush supporters. You side won, and won relatively definitively compared with 2000. You also picked up some house seats and a Senate seat (two if you count Zell Miller as a Dem). It's your day, and despite my personal views I honestly hope that the US electorate made the right decision.
To my fellow dems, well, here we are. Take a couple of days to lick your wounds and feel shitty -- it's always tough to lose, especially when it's a close one. But no matter what, and especially no matter how much crap you take in the next couple of days, don't lose faith. There are two things I've learned about politics: (a) there's always another election and (b) things are never as bad as they seem.
In retrospect, I believe it was to our detriment that we didn't lose the popular vote in 2000 because it gave us and excuse to not stop, admit defeat and regroup -- instead, we figured we could just steamroll to the next election and win. Well, now we know better.
Back in 1992, the GOP suffered the same sort of defeat we're facing now (actually, a worse defeat). They did the right thing with it, though, and in '94 they came back and were able to be highly successful by presenting a new look and new promise.
I know. I was a Republican back then. I was at a victory party for a GOP house member named Scott Klug whose campaign I'd worked on when the wind shifted. You could *feel* it happening -- it was the dawn of a new day for a party that had strayed away from its roots during Bush I.
Well folks, this is our 1992. Even now, the GOP is drifting away from its core ideas of fiscal responsibility and keeping its nose out of people's business. It's our opportunity to retake the soul of our party and demand a new look and better people, and they're out there right now -- Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, Barak Obama in Illinois and dozens of other good Americans around the country ready to be the new face of our party. It'll happen, but it can't happen without our determination and our hard work.
I won't give up, and neither should you. At the risk of sounding cheesy, we'll pull this off for the same reason the GOP did a decade ago because of a fundemental commonality we share with them: We're Americans. We don't give up, we don't quit, we don't go quietly.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I used a Diebold electronic voting machine yesterday, as I'm sure many of you did. With all of the /. stories about the problems with these machines I would not have been too surprised if something crazy happened, like Mickey Mouse winning the election. At the moment though it doesn't look like any serious hacking of these machines occurred. I do kind of wonder if someone snuck in a couple votes for either of the primary presidential candidates though. What do you think? :-)
Are you so blinded by hatred at the results that you cannot read?
would a vate for Nader or Badnarik really have been wasted given that Kerry did not win anyway?
Soooo, suddenly Kerry really didn't want to win anyway, eh? Bush won only because Kerry "gave up", eh?
Where did I say Kerry did not WANT to win? All I said is that he DIDN'T win - which Kerry himself said! I would say he's probably right looking at the returns from Ohio and factoring in the probabilties around what the uncounted votes would be like (are ALL of them going to be fore Kerry? Get real).
Obviously Kerry wanted to win. But he is as smart as people give him credit for and can see the probably of winning at this point, and he had the good grace to not drag the country through the mud for ages. For that he deserves a lot of credit, just like Gore deserves credit for ending the fight when he did.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Your votes count in the US State that you registered in.
But somehow, I doubt you are American. Could you really be that ignorant?
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Technically you're wrong. America is not a nation of idiots, it is a nation of Morons. A nation of idiots would have voted for Kerry.
-- A disgruntled Libertarian
Regarding the water part... Actually that would be a good idea in some way. We from canada are quite worried about some projects of draining water from our lands to supply United States... I mean i dont care sharing a bit since those are common resources... But building a canal to drain water from hudson bay to your land seems a bit too much... That is not to mention some plans to dig st-Lawrence river to allow ships to navigate to the great lakes... Plan that would just make those chemicals that were put into the water by industries (many of them americans...) and that now sleeps under a dirt layer back in the water making any fishing in st-Lawrence river and golf inpracticable... not to mention killing the tourism industrie since all beach would become dangerous... So if you could please become independent and make a buffer between the United-States and us we would be very happy... Because the above senario are really under study by your governement and army and it scares us a little... First come the black gold... then the White one...(water)
Ok, still waiting for an answer on this. I don't know anyone who knows the answer to this:
Is Kerry's concession legally binding? Or could he still be elected on the rare event that the votes in Ohio come out ahead?
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
...they want their statue back.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Oh, let's see... just go back nearly 45 YEARS!!
Alot of things have changed since then. West Virginia was the Ohio/Florida in those days and Kennedy had to promise the state a new interstate (I-79) and countless things to the United Mine Workers.
And I won't even go into the crooked shit he pulled.
We have to find a way to dumb ourselves down into simple ideology. Easy digestible soundbites. It sounds ridiculous but I see no other way -- 1992 was "The Economy, Stupid", nothing else has worked. People don't want to think about problems, they want to eat McD's and watch Joey.
And the Republicans hope you keep thinking this way, because it shows that you really don't understand why John Kerry lost this election.
You are so fixated on the presidential race that you are losing track of the fact that Republicans made significant gains in the Senate and House of Representatives as well. Tom Daschle lost. He was targeted, and his constituents booted him out. That's his reward for 4 years of obstructionism. Why?
You are so fixated on the presidential race you are ignoring that in every one of 11 states where there was a ballot initiative prohibiting gay marriage, it passed, in many cases by overwhelming majorities. Why?
Why don't people like you get it?
The Democratic party doesn't need to "dumb down". You can drop your geek pomposity. Your analysis indicates that you aren't any more "clueful" than the people who voted for someone other than Sen. Kerry.
There was a huge voter turnout. The media focus on the Democrat 527s missed the point that huge numbers of evangelicals and blue-collar people turned out to vote. They didn't always vote Republican, but many of them did. What you should be asking is, why?
Check those ballot initiatives. Look at the overall picture, and it becomes clear.
People didn't vote for George Bush because of his handling of the economy. They didn't vote for him solely because of war rhetoric.
They voted for him also because they didn't want a social liberal who has consistently voted for gun control, or who avoided a vote on an amendment to the consitution on gay marriage, to be president. They didn't vote for Sen. Kerry because he was a social liberal. They didn't vote for Sen. Kerry because Michael Moore was for him. They didn't vote for Sen. Kerry because they didn't like his behavior in the Vietnam era. They didn't like him because he was all-too-obviously the candidate of foreign powers.
If there was a "Dukakis in a tank" moment in this election, it was when John Kerry put on brand-new camos and went goose-hunting after the NRA came out for Bush. Many Kerry supporters missed the significance of this. The Kerry campaign people knew that the NRA had just split the union vote.
If the Democrats want to be successful again, they certainly can be. They could trounce the Republicans. But to do so, they would have to make changes that I suspect wouldn't make you very happy.
A Democrat who is opposed to homosexual marriage, who supports gun rights, who is socially conservative, can win. A Democrat who steps away from NAFTA and the WTO (unlike John Kerry or Bill Clinton), can win.
In other words, an old-fashioned Democrat who is socially conservative, mildly protectionist, and who supports a modest social safety net that won't break the bank but provides assurance of real bread n' butter security with regards to health care, can win, would win, and would do so handily. A Democrat who isn't afraid to knock heads overseas, and doesn't act like he cares more about whether the French like him than whether he is representing American interests, can win.
I doubt you would support such a person. You would much rather spit invective and pretend that everyone who thinks differently than you do is more stupid than you. Maybe you would vote for Nader or vote Green before you would vote for the kind of Democrat I'm talking about.
But if the Democrats as a party want to win, they need more Sen. Millers, not more Sen. Kerrys, running for national office.
I hope for the world it doesn't do anything to piss us off even more.
For the last few years, all i've been hearing in europe over here from the U.S. Leaders was following this theme:
GI: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
GOE: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
If you want to know who wrote this, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Goering and tell it's not happening again. Please!
LLAP & LG
Rene
Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
Say something REALLY starts going wrong, such that a majority of Americans wake up and smell the coffee... is there a provision in your governing system for a non-confidence vote, or otherwise some means by which to force a new president or an immediate election?
-b
myselfmusic
and if the majority wants something, in a true democracy they would get it, since that is the defin,ition of democracy.
And that my dear man is the flaw with democracy. If the plebs can be led down a path that is immoral, racist, isolationist and imperialistic by one charismatic leader and his religion, then that's fine because *drum roll*
That's democracy kids...
I have a question for all the people in this counry who are against gay marriage:
Exactly how does a gay couple getting married affect you negatively?
Please be specific.
By the same logic 4.5 Million Bush voters were "not heard" in California, for instance.
However, It would seem to be more fair, and closer to direct popular vote, if all the states had proportional allotment of their electoral votes. (I think a couple do.) Under this scheme the Bush win would probably have been about the same, but with fewer complaints.
I suspect you can use Congress (including the Senate) as a pretty good proxy for what the proportional vote allocations would be, and the Bush/Kerry ratio would be pretty close to 285/245 (with a few of the 535 missing - independents and too close to call) - surprisingly like what the electoral vote will probably look like.
I think far fewer electors from the "red" states would go to Kerry than electors from the "blue" states would go for Bush. A quick look at just CA,OR,WA, NY, and PA show that about 54 of those 125 electoral votes would go to Bush.
At the end of the day, I suspect the entrenched two-party system likes things just the way they are.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
"RE: you being gormless, easily duped intellectual dungheaps"
//voted Badnarik, and wasn't really even happy with him
While the rest of your post is quite true... that the responsibility of whatever comes of the Bush administration in the next four years rests with those voters who kept Bush in office, that starting line really irks me. And no, I didn't vote for Bush.
One thing that really bothers me about elections is when one side ridicules the other side's intellectual capacity - in essence, "you don't agree with me, therefore you must be stupid." This is not arguing the issues on their own merits; rather, it is an ad hominim attack. I thought we were all sick of "dirty politics" like this... I guess not.
Get any group of intelligent people together to discuss an issue and you will find that while you may get "consensus" you will almost never get unanimity. Have you stopped to consider that the reason people disagree with you might not be because they're stupid and you're smart, but because they are smarter then you? Or perhaps because they are in possession of more facts than you are and are therefore better-equipped to make a decision?
Of course you haven't. After all, each of us has the intellectual snobbery to believe that we are always the smartest and best-qualified to make decisions... and of course we'll refuse to admit even the possibility that we could be wrong (interesting to hear this from an obvious Kerry supporter when in my estimation, Bush has been the one with problems accepting that another way of looking at the world might even exist).
Furthermore, it's pretty doggone unlikely that any party - even one of the "non-majors" - mirrors your ideology exactly. And unlike the major parties would like us to believe, issues are seldom black and white (though there are no shortage of elegant, simple, and completely wrong solutions they propose). Life and reality is nuanced, with billions of shades of gray and (more importantly), swirls and eddys of color that make walking in black or white all but impossible.
I can't find a link now, but I remember noting something interesting in the exit polls last night... they broke down voting tendencies by education, and as many will probably expect, those with less than a high school education voted overwhelmingly for Bush.
As education increased the percentage voting for Bush decreased... until you hit "post-graduate work" and degrees... while people with a Bachelor's degree had the smallest percentage of Bush voters, people with Master's or Doctorate degrees had an even higher percentage of Bush voters than the "did not finish high school" crowd! I thought that was an interesting trend... that the *most* educated voters actually favored Bush over Kerry. Does this shatter your assumption that "the dumber you are, the more likely you are to vote Bush?" (Leaving aside the obvious point that education != intelligence) Is it an anomolay? Just food for thought.
Be upset with the way the country is heading if you must (I am), but calling into question the intellectual capacity of those who don't agree with you solely BECAUSE they don't agree with you makes you look pretty non-credible to me.
There's a big percentage of us that are sure Bush is fucking up this country, and that those 58 millions that voted for him are just morons. But they happen to have the right to vote and have elected the idiot again and we have to live with that. If you raise against them they would do the same if your smarty pants candidate wins, and the chaos perpetuates itself. now, if you don't believe in the system, why did you vote in the first place?
Carlos J. Hernandez
5) No (known) terrorist activity in the States as was previously feared to happen close to or on election day.
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
Why did Kerry lose? Why did Democratic pary lose more of its share in the senate?
The White house and the Republicans were smart and farsighted enough to realize that by galvanizing the religious, the evangelical community, it stands to gain the most. And they did. As much as Democrats gained by getting the youths out to vote (even then it wasnt a total success as less than 1 in 10 voter was between 18-24), Republicans reaped the rewards of getting Rural america to vote. Thus, being slanted towards the left that I am, I believe Poor people, uneducated, mostly white as well as blue collar americans decided to stay the course with their president. Reasons are quite a few. And has a lot to do with how the Republican's stayed the course, kept their message clear and did not waver, did not admit any mistakes (though they were made all over).
But most of all, Bush won four more years, because they were able to equate Democratic party and Kerry with a Sinful party, a party that is elitist, that looks down upon their religion and cares more about the environment than their jobs. All of which the white house and the Bush administration were eager enough to portray Kerry and his cohorts as least interested in the commmon man and his values. People who voted for Bush, atleast a significant portion, voted overwhelmingly for his virtues (though there are seemingly none) and the values they believed he will uphold.
Republicans also were smart enough to include the Ban for Same Sex marriage on the ballot, thereby once again drawing a parallel between morality and the Presidency. As Republican party seemed more and more the party that cared about religious values, about people's jobs, about tax cuts(though for wealthy), and about the nation's security, The Democratic party seems more and more elitist, belonging to the yuppies, caring more about tree huggers than about the loggers and their jobs, caring more about gays and their rights than about "preserving the sanctity of marriage" and ultimately wavering all over the place with their message and their views on foriegn policy. Kerry also couldnt put forth a consistent and coherent plan on Iraq. I almost wish he had said: "We will pull out of Iraq in six months, regardless of what the cost, to save more american lives, and we will let a Global coalition sort out the mistakes of the previous administration", that could have been a start. But he didnt and as time wore on, there wasnt much of a difference between Bush and Kerry on the war on terror and the war in Iraq and the differences they did have were on moral grounds, on values, on tax cuts, on environmental rights, that majority of Rural america dont give a hoot for.
It will be interesting and we will all be watching the road ahead with trepidation. There is a possibility that the current administration, takes the permission to rule fairly for the next four years, as a god given right and squander it, infact, its not a possibility, it is certain. This President had a chance to unite the country 3 years ago, but he didnt. I dont think he will start now. We will have 4 more years of the same, but more over, we will look back on this day and wonder why we voted to give him 4 more years.
Rapid Nirvana
all i can say is, good luck Americans. hope the next four year changes you, and that you keep fighting the (mostly) bad parts of this administration.
I am at a loss here. The last year, in which i've become a lot more politicly informed, i've found incredible that someone like Bush can get elected. Or thar Kerry is the best de DOP can muster. on hindsight, it even seems he didn't really try to win.
i hope Europe pulls together and goes in a much more liberal and socialist stance, otherwise... the world is screwed...
Obligatoy expletive: how the fuck can this guy win? WE'RE SO SCREWED! 4 more years of this and we could very well end up in a new Dark Age... FUCK!
I really hope we get to vote again in 4 years.
I see an oncoming threat of growing terror because our country approved the Bush administration for a 2nd time.
I think the probability of a terrorist attack has risen now, especially after Osama's latest video. Obviously Bush being president a 2nd time makes other countries mad.
Our world can not take much more terror and war before it breaks out into an apocalpyse. A 2nd attack on the united states will ensure the draft being brought back. With the country more divided than ever, a civil war will bring friends and families against each other all because there is extreme hatred towards the other in terms of political ideology.
To those whose religion caused them to choose Bush, they should think twice about the teachings of their religions and compare them to what Bush has done.
To those whose business caused them to choose Bush, they should think twice about the money they take in and ask if it is truly more important than doing what is right.
To those whose friends and families caused them to choose Bush, they should think twice about the sole purpose of casting a vote that matters from a single individual. Beware the stupidity of people in large groups.
To those whose would raise a sword against the people who attacked us. We shall die by the sword if we fight by the sword. Evil begets evil, and we can not keep the cycle of evil alive by treating our enemies with violence and destruction.
I pray for all of us in the United States of America, our day of judgement will come and all of us will have to answer each and every hard question in front of the big man upstairs when the time comes. At least I know I will have peace. The big question is, will you?
First, being 62, I really don't have the time for a gradual improvement. I'm not even sure that's in the offing. Bush offered an unimaginable list of negatives: war and all its attendant horrors, debt-and-spend financial irresponsibility, a broken economy, squandering the world sympathy after 9/11 with a loss of any world friendship. Simply no positive factor. Oh, yes, unless you consider "moral issues". It appears religion has truly become the opiate of the people. How can one help via charity any of those too ignorant, too lead by demagoguery, to at least act in their own interests? How is it moral to create a horrid war leading to your children committing the Abu Grabe atrocities? How can I feel sympathy for mothers of dead children when they favored the war themselves? How can I feel sympathy for vets who vote for decreasing their own benefits? It appears that I am not an american. I do not believe in democracy. It simply does not work. The "demos" simply are incapable of charting a reasonable course into the future. Let them have their comfortable morality. And let them sink further into desperate lack of social infrastructure, into unaffordable medical care, into homelessness. They have brought all this upon themselves. So what would Jesus have done? Would he have voted for war? For ignoring the poor? For pandering to the rich? Maybe Jesus is not moral. It'll be interesting to see what positive spin Michael Moore will be able to put on this. His "50 50 50" split argument appears to have failed: the missing 50% did not make even a dent.
John Kerry
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Why am I even writing about the US elections since I'm french ? (of course I'm french, why do you think I have this outrageous accent ? ;-)).
Just to tell you american guys that we're sad. Everyone around me is sad about this election. Of course you got the right to pick whatever looney you want (it's a free country (remember, hitler was ELECTED))...
Electing bush in the internet age is like saying what IBM's CEO said in the 50s, something like "the world will only need less than 10 computers".
We live in a world of exchange, of trade, diplomacy. There ain't no more cowboys with em' big guns you know. I'm not being aggressive in any way, just sad and scared for the future. The future of the rest of the world.
You know that the US is the only country in the world where people asked me where france was ? Or if we had apples, or electricity ? (I was an exchange student in the subburbs of Boston, so I had quite some time to meet *real* americans. Bush americans)...
anyway, let's not lose hope, for whatever it's worth...
for conceding gracefully. Love or hate the results, one sine qua non of democracy is the willingness of a group to accept defeat and to peacefully try again later.
"All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
I think the next 4 years of American History is going to be very interesting. I don't expect a civil war but I do truly wonder what's next.
And surely, if he does not want to see interracial marriage become an accepted practice, surely it is the right thing to do. Right? Right? How is it different?
People used to justify stomping on the civil rights of black people just like they currently are doing to gay people. It's bigotry, plain and simple. All you're doing is calling your bigotry a "moral value" to make it sound upstanding. People used to to racial separatism a moral value.
Your kids are not going to turn gay just because they see gay people. Would you have turned gay? I don't know about you, but it wouldn't have mattered how many gay men I saw kiss, boobies would still have given me a woody.
People are so afraid of turning gay - makes me wonder if they're *already* gay.
I think a fellow commenter said it best yesterday:
What the fuck? What the fucking fuck fuck!?
Oh, I'm sorry... did I snicker?
Hillary is too millitant, too far-left, and carries too much baggage to win. You think conservatives were mobilized in THIS election? Just wait until we start seeing Bill and Hillary out on the stump again. The Clintons are VERY polarizing.
Personally, I think it'd be great to see a woman win the White House. I think Elizabeth Dole has a much better chance than Hillary Clinton.
It is truly a sad day for those who support the Jeffersonian ideal of democracy when a regime that supports torture, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17230 and ignores due process of law is supported by so many Americans.
By the way, I am an American who served for nearly six years as an officer in the USAF.
Damn, I wish I had bought myself one.
This is not my sandwich.
we (liberals that is) need to reframe popular thinking.
p hant/
read Don't Think of an Elephant by George Lakoff (http://http//www.chelseagreen.com/2004/items/ele
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
It's those very issues that won the election for Bush.
The vast majority of Americans are some Christian derivative. Nothing wrong with that.
These Christian folks have some strong-held beliefs. Nothing wrong with that.
But what tangible affect on the day-today lives of those Christians do those issues really have? None. None at all. They're not gonna get an abortion, nor will they marry a same-sex partner.
So... does having a president in office supporting those views really change much? Not a whit.
Never mind his obvious lying and the smear campaign during the election. Never mind the dubious war we're waging, the jobs fleeing over seas, or the the US's growing debt. Nevr mind that Molly Morman's kids can be sent to war next week, so long as we have a president strong on "morals" who might get R. v. W. overturned by the supreme court and amend our most important rights-protecting document to exclude a segment of the population.
So let's recap: War good. Fags bad. Huge deficit good. Personal choice in medical care (abortion) bad.
As much as I liked him as a President, I think Clinton is the reason we're in this mess (that whole scandal thing). People hold party faith like they hold religious faith -- without any thought or intelligence put into it. They go with the flow, 'cause it's the easiest thing to do.
For fuck's sake. Kerry was no shining star, but we had 4 years of Bush. I'd pick an unknown for the next 4 years. I can't praise Dems for thinking Kerry was the right choise, but I can fault 'Pubs for not knowing Bush was the wrong one. Why go with Bush again? Oh yeah, he hates fags.
We deserve to get attacked again. We really do. We're such sheep.
Method of processing duck feet
How many Marines do you think there are that think that military force is the wrong way to solve problems?
The Marines absolutely have to believe they're doing the right thing. That absolute, unwavering belief is part of what keeps them alive.
The thing is, Marines are generally not political scientists. They're not experts on foreign relations, and they don't know the nuances of the different branches of Islam. They're the pointy end of the stick, and they're damn good at being that.
The problem is, the person weilding that pointy stick has to use that stick effectively. They're supposed to be the ones who *do* know about diplomacy, who *do* know about the history of the region, the culture, and everything else. Loyal marines should *not* be wasted on something that is not going to make the country or the world safer.
What many of the "liberals" think is that not only is it awful that US soldiers are being killed, the bad part is that it is making both the country and the world a less safe place. It's the job of the Marines to do what the Commander in Chief says to do, including dying. Its the job of the voters to choose a Commander in Chief who won't send them to die unless it's absolutely necessary.
If you disagree, and think that their deaths are necessary to help save the world, why not enlist. It's something that far more of the current democrat politicians have done than republicans. Maybe that should tell you something.
Here, and in other places, I keep hearing the word "liberal" used as a put-down. Some how insinuating that being a "liberal" is bad. My question to all of you is... Why?
Definition of Liberal
I'm actually quite proud to be a liberal. Seems to be a more accepting, forward thinking type of person.
Every time I was able to hear Kerry say more than one complete sentence, I liked what I heard.
There are just two problems:
First, our news organizations deal in nothing other than sound bites. I believe I heard Kerry actually speak, only 4 times - at the Convention and at the debates.
Second, the Bush administration managed to put more words in Kerry's mouth than he did. They continuously put up straw-Kerrys and knocked them down. I suspect the nation based its impression of Kerry more on Republican information than on Democratic.
Indeed, some of us were gathered last Saturday, and one person said, "I liked Kerry during the debates, but as time goes on I like him less and less." Between the style of media coverage and relentless character assasination campaigning, that's what happens.
And indeed, Bob Dole said on Larry King (I think) that Clinton had used this strategy against him in 1996, and the Republicans were going to do it to Kerry this year. This campaign was run by the same Karl Rove that smeared McCain in the 2000 primaries with the black-love-child inuendo and patriotism smears.
Why don't you ask why the Republicans can't field a better candidate than Bush. When placed on his own, in front of the camera, for a sustained period in the debates, he didn't do very well. The reality is that Bush is a better campaigner than he is a President.
So criticize Kerry for being a poor campaigner - I'm not sure what it would have taken to be effective against Karl Rove. I'm not sure *anyone* could have done anything better. Keep in mind that for all of his effectiveness, Dean was taken down by an improperly done microphone feed. (Actually, his campaign finances were all wrong too, but that hadn't hit, yet.)
But I do believe Kerry would have been a good President, particularly for these times. He couldn't have led us far astray, because Congress would have checked him. At the same time, he would have checked Congress' more overzealous excesses.
The only possiblity for checks and balances in the new adminstration will be if the moderate Republicans rebel against the Religious Right. (Who appear to be holding the purse-strings.)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
At least we now have a chance of seeing Clinton 2008.
-Colin
Next time, please take a look at the Election Map and pick one of the red states to attack. Electing Bush again was their idea, not ours.
Sincerely,
A Citizen of a Blue State
P.S.: Don't bother to tell me that the Pentagon is in a red state - it's practically part of DC, which is blue.
> Until one person, one single person, on /. is arrested on some trumped up charges, shut the fuck up with the Nazi analogies.
Because obviously /. is the entire US. And obviously it doesn't matter if OTHER people are arrested and detained indefinitely on trumped-up charges, just so long as they aren't _us_.
"First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew."
IMHO; I think we (U.S.) are going to hell. The voters that chose Bush deserve what they are going to get from their leader. More fear mongering and war. -Yeah, mod me down. What can be worse?
Why is it that most the posts I see on here are assuming that the majority are morons and only the liberals know what is best for the country. I guess you need to get it out of your system, rant away. I think most of you forget about all the other facets of the country's Gov't that shapes our future. It is not one man. I think as an american people we need to stop whining so much and actually do something about the economy and the events around us. We love to talk but we hate to do anything ourselves. Let someone else do it and bitch about how we could have done it better. Great mentality. How about we do something different for a change. Support the Gov't, work on reforms as a people. If you dont like something, DO something to change it, start a petition, talk to your representatives. Just stop whining....
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
With the votes not fully counted in Ohio (and elsewhere) this election is not yet over. Kerry conceding and Bush giving victory speeches is just a lot of hot air. If all the ballots in Ohio (and elsewhere) show Kerry the electoral winner I fully expect Bush to step down and Kerry to step up. If that does not happen a great injustice will be done to democracy.
It seems that Kerry tried to ride the anti-Bush sentiment into the White House and it didn't work.
Instead of conceding he should do this:
1.) Tell all Kerry electors to cast their Prez vote for John McCain and Colin Powell for VP.
2.) Try to get Bush Electors to change their vote to McCain/Powell. This plan would need 17 Bush electors to defect. Since the defection would only be Bush to McCain, it is possible there are 17 Republican electors who would do so (to "unify the country.")
Now either McCain is elected President, or more likely:
Bush 269 EV
McCain 200 EV
Kerry 52 EV (because not all Kerry electors would change votes, in fear states that consider it a crime)
and the election is thrown into the House. All the dem state delegations would vote McCain, and probably a few Repub state delegations would go for McCain too.
Although Kerry can't win the Presidency anymore, if he was smart, they would try to make sure a republican they could live with (like McCain) could end up in the White House.
Too bad Kerry and the Dems are dumb.
I've never been so ashamed that you're an American.
3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
in our CI class, our entire grade took a online test where you would fill out what you had priority wise and what candidate agreed with you the most. i am not joking when i say that the vast majority of the class, regardless of if they said they were D or R had at least a 80% agreement rate with cobb and the green party. im not saying that the green party is the only way to go, to be honest i never really looked into them, but if our governemt is bipartisan , lots of people will always be pissed. the fact that there not even given the chance to be in a debate is simply wrong. they shouldn't need a certain percent of the vote, simply being in 3rd place should get them in. there is no reason at all that we should continue ruining our nation by chosing from 2, when a group that comprimises would be more liked by the masses. some people here are saying that bush is basically in because of his religious stances etc and there right. for many INCLUDING myself, bush's morals (in regards to religion) are what i vote for, but in all of the other aspects, he is a monkey. we shouldn't have to be forced into picking 2 opposites.
We need a whole new system of elections. And while I do not know exactly how it works right now, I have a very good idea.
For Congressional Districts, redistrcting can cause problems making it unfair. One idea is try to make the Congressional District along the boarders of the counties as best as possible. Or have a statewide STV election.
As for abolishing the Electoral College, I don't know. I do know that we need to prevent election fraud, whether it's rigged electronic voting, missing ballots, unsent absentee ballots, provisional ballots being ignored, etc.
Third parties need to be included in debates. Also, free airtime to all parties for the Presidential race.
Maybe it's time we elect the President and VP separately? Perhaps it would be better if by some chance, we get a Democratic President and Republican VP. Maybe that could help with the balance of power, cause the other one might prevent some corruption.
Perhaps the even year General election after the Presidential election (2006, 2010, 2012, etc), a recall vote be required. The idea of this is if a President gets a 50+% recall vote, perhaps he or she shouldn't serve out the rest of the term.
....you have my pity. I hope your country survives another four years of these neocon thugs.
The electoral college assures that each candidate will visit every state, not just the ones needed to win. If we did it by popular vote, a Democrat would win nearly every time because CA, NY, and a couple of other states have the most population.
As a Texan, let me tell you what I see and hear every election:
"Candidate X went to Ohio." "More ads spent in Ohio, Virginia, etc."
Hell, Bush visited the midwest more than he did his "home state"! (I'm excluding vacations... er... "working" vactions).
I have a friend in Virginia who got up and close to candidates. Do I get that chance? Hell, no!
Ask Alaska and Hawaii how often they see candidates. Don't be ignorant.
I tell ya' what would help - get rid of these freakin' "winner take all". Only 2/3rd's of Texas voted Republican, yet Bush takes it all?
Oh, yeah, never mind. I live in a retard state.
Feloneous
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
http://www.zycha.com/HeyTerrorists.jpg
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Guess what? I am going to keep exercising that right to bitch, whine, and hope that Air Force One developes a nice flamable fuel leak over the next four years.
Then I'm going to go back out and vote all over again. Ah, the cycle of politics.
good post. i especially agree with your last comment.
Just after I heard Kerry had conceded XMMS randomly played R.E.M.s "Its the end of the world as we know it".
If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Frist who? Hagel what? I vaguely recall Pataki. And the others?
But Giuliani could win in a heartbeat. He's moderate, diplomatic, well liked, tough, and a proven effective leader with the ability to find common ground instead of just using his base. The exact opposite of George W. Bush. He cleaned up New York and performed admirably on 9/11. I would vote for him over a democrat, unless that democrat could match him in kind, and as I said I can't think of anyone really inspiring on the democratic side.
I'm not sure what the point of Rice is. No personality and probably wouldn't help capture the black vote. Bill Clinton had way more soul than her.
Actually, Guiliani could run as an independent and win with a majority, though he would gut one party in the process and take a big chunk out of the other (and of course allay fears of being a spoiler by polling as a winner from the start). I wouldn't mind seeing that at all. His only weak point was allegedly unfair treatment of blacks during the early part of his tenure as New York mayor, so a black Veep would be a good addition...
Now that I think of it, Obama may not have the experience for president but provided he handles himself well in office for the next three years he would be a HUGE asset as a vice presidential candidate, which would put him squarely in line for president later...
God... Giuliani/Obama '08... I get goose bumps just thinking about it...
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
why a majority of the American population voted in a fully incompetent president with a miserable track record? Are Americans all masochists? Do they fail to see that when the rest of the world hates their elected leader, the rest of the world will hate them? Do they not care? Are they all of the "fuck you" attitude? Is that what it really means to be American?
Meh.
However this is the first Presidentail election since 1988 where the Electoral votes aligned with the popular votes.
Please tell us all who won the popular vote in 92 and 96.
I'm surprised that Kerry conceded so quickly. Projecting the trends, it was likely that Bush would win. However, I think Kerry had every right to wait until the Ohio absentee and provisional ballots were counted, they may have given him the Ohio electoral vote. Bush would still have the popular majority, but that's not what elects the president in the USA.
Anyway, a salute to Kerry for being a gentleman. It's good to get this behind us.
If God had meant for man to see the sunrise, He would have scheduled it later in the day.
to Dr. Koolade
The reality based faction has its points. We suck at winning elections, but we're not delusional.
Who's the demagogue? Who ran a gay-baiting campaign to bring the fundies out of the woodwork? And then quietly said civil unions were o.k.?
The reason the Swift Boat liars came out was because Kerry took a principled stand to end the horror in Vietnam. He was right. In his testimony and his stance.
We know Bush isn't fit to be president - he was asleep at the switch when we got hit on 9/11, his compulsive secrecy undermines the Republic, he invaded the WRONG FUCKING COUNTRY and did it ineptly. Yet "things are going great in Iraq." If they were going great WE WOULD BE WITHDRAWING BY NOW.
No, the reason we Dems lost is because elections are beauty contests. Most Bush supporters have very little idea what he stands for. Polls show most of them believe he supports the Kyoto limits on greenhouse gases, is concerned about the deficit, would increase taxes on the wealthiest, wants healthcare coverage for all americans, etc. Most of them believe WMDs were FOUND in Iraq, and that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
They went for the Bush brand, and found some reasons after the fact for doing so. Just like people buy cars.
This is an important point. I'm not actually upset that Bush won -- I don't like either of them -- but the fact that we can't know if Diebold actually fixed the Ohio election is a point that needs to be raised far and wide.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"A man who will not die for something is not fit to live." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Thank you oh great Anonymous Coward for your words of wisdom. As a former Marine I'm obviously not worthy to share this forum with giant minds like you.
Pardon my formatting earlier.
You're almost certainly right that the third party share is unusually low, but I don't think low third party turnouts are bad in our current predicament:
Until we have ranked-choice voting, there's zero realistic chance of a third party doing *anything but* spoiling, and the low percentages are a good indicator of people's recognizance of that sad fact. Bush was really, really bad, and even a centrist would (I thought) be an obviously massive improvement. Kerry had a realistic *chance* to help that. Anyway, that's irrelevant:
I want ranked choice as much as anyone and more than most, and I'd love to see the Green/Libertarian platforms (which have a surprising amount of *real* fiscal conservatism in'em) have their day -- but they will only do so in that context. In our current two party setup, you vote for the closest-to-center candidate who is still on your side, because the most people will see him as acceptable.
Ranked choice voting eliminates the necessity of that compromise, because acceptability is implicit in your rankings. It's a beautiful concept, and has been implemented here in San Francisco quite successfully in this very election.
I don't for a second think that a thoroughly chaotic 30-party system like turns up in young democracies is in any way better than our two. In that situation, the complexities of the deals parties have to cut in order to get votes are too much for even a diligent and informed voter to parse. Volatility in those systems is *absurd*.
Maximizing public utility is all about gathering information on acceptability -- which RCV accomplishes.
If you want to be able to vote for the Green/Lib candidate and *really* help the world, start raising hell for ranked choice.
With all the trouble that'd been made over the security of electronic voting machines, and the problems reported here and elsewhere regarding them and their use, I'm more than a little surprised that there's been no conversation regarding this that's been modded up.
Personally, I would LOVE to see some sort of a table with all the precincts that used electronic voting and what their results were, so that they could be examined for bias in either direction. Has anyone done this? Or is anyone willing to do this and share with the group?
That green slime had it coming.
Wow. What a sad, sad bunch of whining losers.
My family (wife and three kids) supported Bush this year. Not because he's the magic bullet which will fix America's problems, but because he's much less dangerous than Kerry. Last night at dinner, the kids were watching the early returns, and were worried that Kerry might win. I told them, "Kerry might win. If he does, he's going to be our president for four years, and we'll do our best to support him. Everything will be all right."
Kerry was a very, very poor candidate. He was, as it turns out, unelectable. The Democrats were given the "Perfect Storm" election:
--A sitting president engaged in an unpopular war, with no clear extraction date
--An incumbent who can't reliably speak the English language
--Job loss statistics pointing to millions of lost jobs
--Massive healthcare cost inflation
--A swing from huge budget surpluses to huge deficits
--A "charged-up" base who felt that the 2000 election had been stolen
--Hundreds of millions of $ in 527 support
The Democratic party should have had no trouble presenting a candidate who would have been able to crush the incumbent. Instead, they chose Kerry.
I understand you're mad at the results. I think it's time to look inwardly, and reform the Democratic Party. Learn from this mistake. Show the American people that you're not run by left-wing nutjobs, and field an electable candidate, and I can't see how you lose in 2008.
Unless you try to nominate Hillary.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
HOWTO: Draft Dodge
Move to Canada.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
If you keep advocating legalisation of gay marriage, God will most certainly want nothing to do with you.
You talk to him do you?
'cause you see, I've got some complaints.
What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/%7Egcharter/iq.txt
"There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."--Howard Zinn
It was pretty much Rural and small town population VS Urban population, where do you think the majority of the democratic votes come from in the Southern states, and the republican votes come from in the midwestern states? Theres just more and more division now between the mostly urban coasts and the mostly spread out middle and south. The urban populations generally aren't as religous, don't have the history of the rural states and lives focus on their jobs, family, money and being entertained, then religion. The people who live in more rural and spread out states, their lives are generally focused on Family, religion, jobs, money and being entertained. Does anyone have any statistics on who voted on each side based on income? And yes I am generalizing, but I believe the above to be true for the most part.
RightWing Propaganda Machine, hehe that's rich. The "LEFTwing" has Hollywood and the supposedly unbased media. Remeber Michael Moore and his crockumentaries? We do.
... no parties? Seriously, what's the purpose of a political party? The natural progression is to a "Property Party" in today's world. Political parties only exist to push a narrow agenda. Take away political parties and you get people who have to think and care about what their actual constituency thinks and what others may need, not what the constituency of the "party" thinks and pushes on them.
Political parties only exist because of the social "need" for groups and the pure laziness of the common person in the political process. Why think and balance needs and wants when you can just find the party that's closest to the way you think?
-Jellisky
I sent this letter to my family and friends. Enjoy...
:) But usually when I feel strong
-----
I had to get this off my chest, because it is important to me. You're
certainly not obligated to respond.
enough about something I have to share. This is one of those times.
Those of you who I've engaged in political discussion in the past
probably know that I'm a Libertarian in core ideology, and in
practicality, a moderate who leans toward conservative (especially in
fiscal matters.) I voted for Dole in 96, McCain in the 2000 primary,
Harry Browne (Libertarian) in the 2000 election... though I was not
sad to see Bush defeat Gore.
It may surprise you to learn that I voted for John Kerry yesterday.
While I understand the whole thing about him being liberal yankee
senator with a history of flip flops, I think that there was a good
deal of spin on the parts of both the major parties in this election.
For instance, Bush's flipflops were never addressed; in 2000 Bush
campaigned and sold himself as a moderate in world affairs and
domestic issues, I think we have found that this has not been the
case. Bush specifically stated that he did not agree with sending
American troops into foreign countries to do "nation building." While
he did not have the foresight of what would happen in 2001, and there
is no question Afghanistan NEEDED our "nation building," look at what
a mess Iraq has become. If that is not a flip-flop, what is? Or if
you consider it someone making a better decision based on new
information, then why is Kerry as flip-flopper for doing the same
thing? Given Kerry's record of public service, he's AT LEAST as
qualified as Bush to run the country, and frankly, I think we could
have used the change.
What I want to get to in this message is why I think four more years
of Bush has the potential to be a very bad thing.
FACT: Bush has won the election. Forget what CNN is telling you about Ohio.
Even if the Ohio provisional ballots were something irrational like
80% for Kerry, Bush would still win, he has 140,000 vote advantage.
The Secretary of State has told his campaign that is it statistically
impossibly for Kerry to win Ohio.
I am not happy with this outcome because we now have a more Republican
Congress, a VERY conservative Republican executive branch, and a
delicate balance of ideology in the Supreme Court. There is no
incentive for the partisan interests in charge to attract any kind of
coalition or create any sense of compromise on anything.
I am of the opinion that this is a bad thing. It's bad for the country
and her people, at least 54 million of which believe another guy
should be president.
As near as I can tell, Bush won fair and square. (If he didn't, we'll
never know-- tinfoil hat time! *smirk*) Yay, democracy works. I just
don't think a lot of people have considered the big picture of how our
country stands in the world or even how our country looks to our
moderate and liberal domestic neighbors, who now have basically no
representative interests for their legitimate concerns. Bush gave 'em
tax cuts and got rid of Saddam, and that's good enough.
What about my friends who are without manufacturing jobs, many right
here in Ohio? What about a half-trillion dollar deficit? (That is not
fiscal responsibility!) What about the long and lingering war in
Iraq, where my brother is likely to return in the near future? What
about the continuing debate on the vice president's corporate
interests? And the Attorney General's moral interests? (Had I known
John Ashcroft would be selected Attorney General, I would have voted
for Gore four years ago. This is a guy who not only lost a Senate
race to a dead man, he also said things regarding Congress such as "I
think all we should legislate is morality." Last week, he calls for a
"War on Piracy," ostensibly to protect corp
I moved from the United States to Finland a month and a half ago due to the political situation in the USA. I was born in the USA and so were my parents, I'm not a returning former citizen to Finland or any such thing.
I'm posting in response to RealAlaskan's request for information about someone who had actually done the move. If people want to be angry at the content of my post, or troll, or whatever, that's on them. I imagine there are people who will read this who actually want to know.
Question part #1: why?
# It was depressing to wake up every morning knowing that my tax money and support of the American economy was being used to effect morally unconscionable things such as killing people for no good reason. Furthermore, from the moment I realized this was happening, it was my responsibility to stop letting others use my money and resources this way.
# I've learned that I've been lied to both about America itself, and America's role in the world, for my entire life through the television, school, and the work-sleep-die culture that persists there, and I'm angry about it.
# It was frustrating to be forced to see, every day, so many of the people around me (and a few of them otherwise very intelligent) living in a quasi-reality that is based upon these lies, their indoctrination being so complete that it was impossible to communicate what I'd learned to them.
# There are better places to live, and I believe I am now in one of them.
# Most importantly, I became convinced that I and the other people in America who came to understand the problems and recognize the lies were powerless to fix the situation, in spite of the fairy tale image that is put forth in our culture about the nature of American democracy allowing individual heroes to rise up and save the day.
Question part #2: how is it working out?
So far it is working out fine. Part of that is in the details of how I was able to move. I'm a self-employed internet consultant and I have three years worth of business licenses to prove it, and Finland appears to like self employed people. In order to live here legally, I had to get a residence permit from the Finnish government, and in order to do that, I had to first get what is known as a "favorable" work permit opinion from them, which meant basically that I had to show that I could support myself here, either through having found a job that I was legally qualified for, or being self employed. Thorough documentation of my self-employment got me the 'favorable' decision on my work permit opinion, and everything else fell into place. Total money sent to Finland to get both things out of the way: $164 and couple passport-type photographs, and the application process took 6 months from beginning to end. The stuff is valid for 1 year, and I have to reapply each year until I can get citizenship.
To get citizenship here, you have to live here legally for 5 years, and be able to speak one of the primary languages (Swedish or Finnish) when you apply. We'll see how that goes, as that is my plan for the future. Finnish is a very hard language to learn, btw, but within 5 years I hope to be able to get good enough.
So I now live in the Helsinki area and continue to work for my American customers. So far it is working out fine. My rent for this 2 bedroom apartment is around 480 euro/month and it is a decent sized apartment. One does not need a car to do most things around here. Each road of any size has a huge sidewalk the size of a lane of road, and this is for both bicycle riders and pedestrians. City-maintained bike+pedestrian paths also cut through every imagineable area one could presume one might fit, and the ones that cut through the woods are used as ski trails when it snows. The area is an interesting combination of urban + suburb, there are woods everywhere but at the same time, it is a real city. This place is a jogger's dream come true, and people of all ages ride bicycles all over the place. Even old people ride bikes.
P
One last note. George W. Bush didn't outwit anyone. His campaign manager did, perhaps, or Kerry has defeated himself.
A couple of comments on just that line. Wouldn't you say that Bush's campaign manager outwitted Kerry's campaign manager?
OR
Since Bush hired his campaign manager, who beat Kerry's campaign manager who he hired, Bush therefore hired the better campaign manager. Therefore since he hired the better manager, he made the smarter move and thus "outwitted" his opponent?
OR
Kerry defeated himself. Couldn't Bush have defeated himself just as easily? If Bush and Kerry can equally defeat themselves, yet Kerry in the end defeated himself more, wouldn't that mean that Bush "outwitted" him by defeating himself less, and allowing Kerry to defeat himself more?
Dr. Strangelove -- "I can be just as sorry if not sorrier than you can, Dmitri."
Not trying to troll, but I thought your last comment was interesting
Yeah, I voted for Bush. No, I didn't want to, but my personal policy is to vote for things rather than against them. All I heard from the Kerry camp was a litany of 'we're not Bush' and that's not good enough.
Not happy with the outcome? Welcome to the club. I was sick to the point of physical nausea when an amoral, greasy politician like Clinton was able to get re-elected. Suck it up and live with it, and do what you can to undo it in later elections.
You sound like you're a half-step from throwing Molotov cocktails at police stations and kidnapping newspaper heiresses. Knock it off and start working to make things better instead of trying to set the national whine record. I'd love to be able to choose between the Rebellion and the Empire, but life is tragically not that black and white. Painting people and groups and evil or pure of heart simply means you haven't taken a hard enough look at either point of view.
Like it or not, the people have spoken and they came down decisively on the side of the Bush crowd. I don't hate him, you, or anyone else. We're all brothers on the same side. If you haven't yet realized that the issue isn't me against you, but us against them, then you haven't been paying attention.
Finally, let me respond on your level on one issue: Integrity begins at home, motherfucker, and don't you dare call out others to take responsibility when you come out with a sniveling, whining, wailing rant and post as AC, you hypocritical, nonsensical, snot-nosed cunt.
I'll tell you what the 'effect' is! It's pissing me off!
Spread the word!
http://www.boycottamerica.org
Meh.
Ok think you right. Then I am correcting my post. All I wrote is applied to people who voted in Bush. Thanx for correction be-fan and sorry for the others who didnt vote in Bush
If the trends of the last few years keep up, I expect the Canadian Dollar to over-value the American sometime in the next 4 years.
Dammit.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Your greatest fear has already been realized. Progressives lost, Bush will get to appoint his radical conservative judges to the Supreme Court, his wealthy supporters will continue to rape the country (while they invest their own money in what they know to be the future: other countries). Its done.
The idiots that supported Bush won't know what hit them. Fifty years from now when the U.S. is an ex-superpower they can all wonder just what happened, and maybe then they'll realize that they were sold out to make a buck. The wealthy families will all have shifted their wealth elsewhere by then.
I'm no idiot.. I'm not sticking around to watch this happen. Face it, America is no longer carrying the banner of freedom. I started making plans for this contingency a while back, and I'm all ready to go as soon as mid-January.
I fought the good fight, donated a heck of a lot of time and money to getting Bush out of office... and lost. This was the war. The damage that Bush will continue to do over the next four years WILL NOT BE UNDOABLE BY THE NEXT DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT.
Spend some time in Europe (if you haven't already) and you'll realize just how backwards America is becoming. Don't be foolish and fight a losing battle here.
Hell, the democrats are already figuring that they have to do some "soul searching", and they'll probably be far less progressive in the future, just so they'll have a chance of winning. So even supporting the democrats won't mean supporting the progressive values you believe in.
As far as I'm concerned, we can play this out like in Atlas Shrugged: all the intelligent productive people can leave, and all the idiots that are left over can wonder why they're suddenly up to their necks in crap.
and obviously they welcome their corporate overlords. Let's hope that wakes up the "other" sleeping giant called "The Rest of the World". It appears Diebold kept their promise. The underground just got deeper. It looks like soon we will have two distict societies on this planet which will be in perpetual war. Sure make me wish there was a god to rescue us.
What?
Good points. Glad to see a real liberal here (in the true sense of the word).
Another way of stating the outcome.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
while i will concede that more people want bush to be president than kerry, i will not concede that bush would be a better leader. i also believe that many of the people who want bush to be president are not seeing the truth ( The separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters) and many more are single issue voters who voted for him because of his stance on (for example) gay rights and could care less if the rest of his policies bring the courty to its knees over the next four years.
And, for the record, I'm happy to see so many religious Americans support Bush's family values: lies, greed, and discrimination. After all, who has time to help the poor, heal the sick, or protect God's creation? We have corporations and millionaires to look after! These are the values I hope to instill in my children someday.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
This was said to be the most important election of our lives. Does anybody still feel that way, considering the outcome?
Let's think with a clear head here. Most Americans, the ones that voted for Kerry included, have no idea what's going on in the world. You can try to figure out why that is (media is f-d up, people being taught to lead selfish materialistic lives from the day they are born, etc.), but that's irrelevant to this discussion. The popular vote was for Bush, and that's who won. So, at least in this election, you could say that the will of the majority was expressed. I am not concerned with why more than half of the people who voted did so for Bush. They did, and he won.
Change is not as simple as having P. Diddy start a campaign. Real change is very hard. Near impossible. You have to educate people, in such a way that they seek out information. You do not teach people what they should think. You teach them to think, and show them what methods are available for gathering information. What they think afterwards is up to them. This is not even close to being a reality in the USA. Most people are simply concerned with their well-being and materialistic things - I want an iPod, I want a bigger truck, I want this, I want that. I want. It is very easy to control such people, because they are short-sighted and distracted. And Kerry would not have made any difference whatsoever in this respect. The imperialistic foreign policy America puts forth would have been relatively the same, albeit probably with a much less arrogant and aggressive façade.
The rest of the world pretty much lives in ignorance too, much like the people of the US. As long as you don't add insult to injury, like Bush likes to do, they have their own local problems to focus on. Granted, their problems are a bit different from yours and mine - we're worried about what Apple will legally allow you to download to your iPod, while some of them are worried about where their next meal will come from. In the end, none of it matters, although you do need food for basic life support.
Killing people, however, is unacceptable. And probably the biggest tragedy of all this is that most of the people who voted for Bush don't realize what they support because of the distorted view of the war. Make no mistake, Kerry was no great leader - far from it. But a) my personal opinion is that he is at least barely more intelligent than Bush and, more importantly, b) I think a few more lives would have been spared around the globe were he president.
Please note that lives are lives, and it is morally wrong to make a distinction between innocent foreigners and innocent Americans when it comes to dieing. Yet this is accepted as common practice in this country.
Must-not-watch TV!
What I have a hard time swallowing is that I live in a country where more than half the population is willfully ignorant, politically obstinate, religiously prejudiced, and embarrassingly gullible.
You know what gets me? How Democrats can't seem to shut up about how smart they are. Really. Every single political thread I've seen lately has had some kind of attack on the intelligence of Bush voters, with the implicit or explicit praising of anti-Bush voters.
Tell me, if you guys are so damn smart, then why are you out the presidency, why are you out more senate seats, and why are you out a few more house seats too?
(Note: Americans are dumb is not an acceptable answer.)
When you lose this big, and this consistently, there is something wrong with your side.
You need to think long and hard about what that is. I have my own ideas, of course.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
I only scored 46 points on the skilled worker test. I lost a lot of points because I am self taught even though I have almost 30 years experience.
In a recent survey, it was found that equal numbers of airplanes and boats were sold during the same period. This proves that they are infact the same item. If there was a clear difference, it would be easy for ad execs to deliver that message about the item, and if people agreed, they would support it by buying a larger quantity.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
There once was a fellow named Kerry
who couldn't sway those that were wary
With less votes than he needed,
the race he conceded,
and W ate, drank, and made merry
You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
>> If you keep advocating legalisation of gay
marriage,
>> God will most certainly want nothing to do with you.
>
> You talk to him do you?
I don't have to. He certainly has made his point throughout the Bible, and I can't think of a more convincing proof of God's opinion than destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for homosexuality, among other equally disguisting things. Of course, being an atheist, I only read about it out of curiosity. My views on sodomy have nothing to do with God.
#5. People who you don't understand
All I know is that I want nothing -- nothing -- to do with any of the red states.
Hold up just a second. You have to realize that not ALL of a particular state is 'red'. I'm in IL, which went to Kerry. However, I'm in the lower part of the state, St Clair county. Right across the river from here is St Louis, MO, which is part of a "red" state. However, look at the voter breakdown. St Louis was ALSO for Kerry. My particular region is pretty heavy in Democratic support.
What I'm getting at is, don't hate a whole state because its vote went to Bush. Remember that parts of those states voted the other way, but just weren't big enough to carry the state. If you want to hate the red states fine, as long as we get to annex St Louis.
NOTE: I really like St Louis and don't want them lumped in with the rest of MO.
C Pungent
to re-define what America is, you might not be very happy to know that is not what you though it was,
hacked elections and diebold. Your sister is correct.
We can have umpteen Rock-the-Vote,Vote_and_I_will_bear_you_a_child, Vote_and_I_will_sleep_with_you, Vote_Or_Die measures for the next election or we can impose this rule.
On the day of Election:
(a) MTV and the other Teen Channels would not air anything other than patriotic music plus Beethoven.
(b) Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo would introduce a trigger to their consoles which will power them down on the day of the election and stay that way for 24 hours
(c) Instant Messenger software will stop working
(d) Any celebrity who has graced atleast a corner of the 3rd page of any teen magazine will be made to report to a pre-assigned voting booth for better youth turn outs.
(e) Bitchslap the celebrity till they agree to have orgies with young voters once they vote
(f) For the rural areas, pass around ammo and matches to burn candidate effigies.
Rapid Nirvana
I'd like to believe that Bush's politics will somehow change (commentators speculating about that), but I'm also realistic enough to realize that the quasi-cleptocratic regime will probably continue just like before and stands a good chance of totally annoying and scaring-off the rest of the world, removing the last bit of credibility the USA still had in some places around the world, while also ruining the budget. With cynism, one could argue that the current administration is trying to shove all money that is available now, together with any money they can borrough on to political friends and old allies just so that should one day another administration come into power, it wouldn't be able to spend it on welfare and social causes....
I don't want to say the so called "war on terrorism" cannot be won - but it looks doubtful if it can be done with the means (and dare I say: attidtude?) of the current (and next) administration - and the consequences of a failure of this undertaking are really horrible.
If we're lucky (we=the world), we're only in basically the same situation 4 years from now. *If* the shit hits the fan in the middle-east, people even as far as Ohio or Texas will be more-or-less directly impacted by those events.
Not to mention us in Europe,
So, what ?
Maybe the only thing that results from this election is that the world will go belly-up just 4 years earlier than anticipated.
Small change in God's plan.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Before the election I was disgusted by Bush, but now I'm disgusted by our entire country. I can only hope that he'll break things so badly that people out in the midwest/south will be forced to start thinking.
[javac] 100 errors
I'm in the middle politically and my take on it is that the polarization is on the Left, not the Right or the Middle.
For instance, looking at the way the Nation or Salon refer to the President with with far more disgust and "hateful" speech than how say the National Review talks about Kerry.
And I see it in the Real World. Ask someone why they are voting for Bush and a Bush supporter will go, 'well, I don't agree with this, but I do agree with this and that and the other thing, so that's why."
Ask a Kerry supporter on the street why they are voting for Kerry and 3 out of 5 times you'll get a "Bush Lied! Bush Murdered! Bush Dodged the Draft!"
Like, Salon's headline at the moment - "Winning on fear itself, the GOP is ready to take the country even farther right."
Compared to National Review - "President Bush's win last night was a ratification of the good sense of the American public."
If the margin of victory is > than the uncounted votes then victory is assured, because any other result is mathematically eliminated. At that point, it is safe to concede.
Ohio: 100% of Precincts Reporting
Bush: 51% @ 2,794,346 votes
Kerry: 48% @ 2,658,125 votes
Margin: 136,221 votes
Provisional Votes: approx. 175,000
Provisional % for Kerry to win: approx. 78%
Req. Increase over Statewide % for Kerry to win: 30%
Odds of that happening: slim to none
All factual evidence at this time is pointing that Kerry has lost Ohio.
Incidentally,
National Margin for John F Kennedy's 1960 election: 303,768 votes
National Margin for George Bush's 2004 election: 3,535,203 votes
I live in Cincinnati and we don't even have electronic voting machines. Just the same old paper ballot. I talked to friends in 4 different counties and not one of them had electronic voting machines. Nothing to see here.
Not that I voted for him, but I believe Bush won Ohio fair and square. And I am glad that the Nation and Ohio will not have to deal with a long, protracted court battles over provisional ballots.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
So you're not a democracy, but you are a representative democracy? Make your mind up...
First the Red Sox win the Series, now this.
I'm from Boston, and I was thinking a very similar thing last night, only it was more along the lines of "Well, if the Red Sox could do it..."
That there is no god.
Or there is. And he enjoys torturing us.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
I've said it before, the popular vote means nothing in an electoral contest, because people KNOW it means nothing and vote accordingly. The voter turnout is severely depressed in "safe" states, and inflated in swing states.
If the popular vote did mean something, the numbers would be very different, especially the total voter turnout. People's votes really WOULD count everywhere.
The popular vote really is the way to go. I should point out another ethical argument for it is that it would give US Citizens not living in states the right to vote for the first time, like Puerto Rico or Guam.
While it's theoretically possible Kerry could still win Ohio, he'd have to get 160,000 out of those 175,000 provisional ballots. That's over 90%. Very unlikely. Plus there's still absentee ballots, which tend to go republican due to the military influence (although who knows about army votes this year). Conceding is the proper thing at this point. If by some chance it doesn't go Bush's way, at least we can point and laugh at his illegitimacy again, and at most have people clamoring for Kerry to claim his rightful place and (unlike Gore) he won't have the sore loser stigma.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
The good news in all of this is that if Kerry had won, he would have been blamed for just about everything that goes wrong after January 19th. Problems in Iraq, soaring deficit, social security crisis. And there are investigations that had been pending the election that could be very uncomfortable for Bush. Personally, I think the mistakes he has made are impeachable, but you can't impeach him if he's out of office.
Of course Congress could let him get away with anything, but only time will tell.
What this election says to the world, especially Europe is a big "FUCK YOU" from America.
We will attack countries when they are a threat to us, or our self interests outweigh the possible losses.
We will continue to be the economic and military superpower of the world, and no you can not stop us
We don't need the corrupt UN, we are even getting to the point where we don't want it
We have seen the population statistics in Europe, and we will not embrace your culture of death. We want a culture of strong moral values, where things such as homosexuality and abortion are tolerated but not encouraged.
We see clearly now the bias that exists in the Media, Hollywood and the colleges and we reject their ideology of socialism and death.
We still believe America is the land of rugged independance rather than a nanny state.
We will never bow to internation pressure, or terrorists to select out president. If you think there is something you can do about it, try it. Otherwise GO FUCK YOURSELVES.
I had a good laugh when I read this.
:-D
Clinton lied about having a blow job, and all americans said how they were really ashamed of their supreme head lying. Clinton was nearly impeached for lying while in office(!!!) - for getting a blow job with mutual consent.
And here we have another guy who lied about WMDs (nuclear weapons etc)... bombed a country into oblivion, got its thousands of innocent citizens killed - and no one even whimpered about it!!! Damn he even got re-elected !!!
Guys, you really have got the sense of truth and lies mixed up.
PS: aha, and I had another laugh seeing Cowboy george winning from Texas... whowouldhavethunk
- mritunjai
Second item ---Customs service doing their job
case 3 now we're getting somewhere, unfortunately some scum take advantage of the legal system for harrassment, I could just as easily call the police(anonymously) and tell them I saw your car(description and partial plate) sitting by the pre-school playground for several hours taking pictures with a telephoto lens.
forth instance, inconclusive, likely similar to third and the restraunt was employing illegals, possibly suspected or even guilty of something
He's not in prison, so regardless of the claims of police impropriety, not an issue
VANDALISM
The article doesn't say anything, its purely speculation
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Look at what happened to the Democratic party as a whole.
- They spent more money on Kerry than on anyone else in their history. I even heard the out-spent the Republicans.
- The conservative religious people in 11 states (including Ohio & Nevada) banned gay marriages which helped get out the religious vote. These people are traditionally anti-abortion republicans. Kerry is a well know supporter of abortion.
- The Republicans gained seats in the Senate
- The Republicans gained seats in the House of Representatives.
- The Republicans hold the majority of governor's seats.
- Democratic Senator Tom Daschle was defeated. The first time a party leader was defeated in 52 years.
- The Democratic party spent a good deal of time in court in keeping Nader off of the ballot in some states. If you were a Nader supporting Democrat it was a tough pill to swallow.
The Democratic party was hit hard in this election.
It will be interesting to see what the restructuring effort will be.
I was cruising factcheck.org looking at at the proof that things like "flip-flopping", and banning certain shotguns were complete and utter lies and lamenting that most people would never have a clue how utterly decieved they were. I was thinking that I wished there was some well known organizations where people could go that they could trust to call the lies.
Then I realized there was already supposed to be someone doing that, the %&#@ing media!!!
How on earth can the media justify the job they did, both campaigns made blatant lies in their advertising and never was anything but a one line mention that it wasn't completely accurate. There was direct evidence to easily contradict most of that stuff and the mainstream media didn't touch it, all they did was recycle sound bites from the campaigns which doesn't sort out anything because everyone knows both sides lie through their teeth because the media doesn't call anyone on it!!!
I'm still by the number of people who were taken in by Bush but I think the media hold the blame for allowing those people to decieve themselves so easily
I stole this Sig
Kerry was a BS artist, and a demagogue to boot. While I don't like Bush, that's not enough of a reason for me to vote for a BS artist. At least Bush promotes Tort reform and opposes gay "marriage". There's no way in heck I'll tell to my son that "being gay is OK" and there's no way in heck I'll ever approve of gay adoptions. Economy will recover sooner or later on its own, but if they pass laws attacking the very basis of the society (the Family) everything will be screwed up forever.
I know I speak for half of us when I say: "AAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooonooonooonoooooooo*weepweepmoanm oangnashgnashsobsob*" ...I'm in no particular mood to be articulate about it because the scope of my disagreements with the radial right is just so dizzying, I can't fathom another 4 years... a WORSE 4 years omg the house and senate are totally within their control, no balance of power this time.. it just makes me ill. I was ill last election (I was in Florida) knowing we'd somehow end up in Iraq (am I psychic?), but this time it's our civil liberties that I'm deathly afraid for. Gays, abortion, the war, these are all very important issues, but none are as important to me as the age-old checks-and-balances and basic freedoms designed into our republic: not just the problems at hand--but the governmental processes we leave future generations to solve the issues of THEIR day too.
I read a lot of people thinking/joking about going to Canada... it's definetly tempting. I'm not quite ready to stop being an American patriot yet, but if these 4 years go as I expect them to, I might.
We who cared so much for "not Bush" have a huge responsibility over these next 4 years. Since there is no balance of power spead accross the Presidency, Senate, or House, we must do the impossable and retain this focus near-constantly as if the next election were 4 years long. Write your congresspeople CONSTANTLY. Pay attention to their voting records and major legislation (and please, read deeper than the name of the bill). Join a website that serves issue-alerts to suit your politics (I personally get alerts from moveOn, the ACLU and the EFF, maybe about half of which I act on and write my Congresspeople--all three have webportals that make it about a 3-click 2 minute operation)
The silver lining to this election is thus: we've had a HUGE turnout, and all the right groups, the groups people have been struggling to motivate for generations, came out in-force. Regarless of who wins in the process, these groups have stood up and said "You had better cater to our opinion, we're a voting force now!". I'd be curious to see if there'll be any statistical corrolation between the number and scope of curfew laws as impacted by the young voter turnout; same for black issues.
So brace yourself everybody, it's going to be a hard 4 years, and there's nobody to keep Bush in check this time but us.
Lastly, a thought about majority rule: If 53% of a kindergarten class votes to play kickball every day at recess, and 47% vote 4-square, is the fair solution to always play kickball, or to merely play kickball more often than 4-square?
"Regarding the terrorists, yes they actually do the attacks, and they are wrong to do so, but..."
And that girl that got raped? Her fault for leaving the house alone without her burka on.
I for one will be sending a bag of Pretzels to congratulate him.
My other SIG is a Sauer.
It's funny that your side loses, and you think, well, obviously we haven't been fighting nearly dirty enough. Guess I gotta step it up a notch!
After such a tremendous and consistent loss, I think it's funny there's no consideration as to wether your message, platform, and candidates are fundamentally flawed. You lost the presidency, house, and senate seats, and have the gall to blame the citizens for your failure, instead of considering what's wrong with you.
Oh yeah, as a Bush voter, you folks have been fighting tooth and nail for the past year and half, and have had most of the media on your side too.
You went negative all the time, but couldn't find a charge that stuck. Republicans already have their share of people spouting garbage & conspiracy theories. We've certainly had to put up with plenty from the left.
Your little double-agent-political-James-Bond games would just be a collosal waste of your time.
Using every single tactic in the infamous 'Karl Rove playbook' still won't win you a damn thing if you have no substance to sell to the American People.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Alot of organizations were running around registering people to vote. I was one of them, and even though we did it under the name of a non-partisan cause, we all knew that it was for the benefit of the Democrats. Most of us went around to the lowest voter turnout areas, which happened to usually be the more poorer sections of cities. We would register people to vote, and not ask them who they're going to vote for. But in the back of our heads, our thinking was that these people would be voting for the left wing choice...because most of them either were pissed off about the current situation and needed some convincing that their vote makes a difference, or another big reason was that they were a felon at one point in their lives and they had no idea that they can vote if they are off paper. Higher taxes are a pain for middle or upper class, but social services are a great benefit for the lower class, therefore if we made it easy for these people to vote, we thought they would be voting for Kerry.
This election had unprecedent voter turnout, so we succeeded in getting people out to vote! However, Bush beat Kerry better than he beat Gore. He even won the popular vote this time. So it seems that these people we were registering...well most of them chose Bush. The democratic party really needs to rethink their strategy, because that was a huge part of it.
My little theory, and this seems a little crude, is that if one opponent is using fear to win, well I don't think you can fight that with something else. I think you need to use that also, because the top voting issue was probably security. And if an opponent is using hatemongering tactics, you must do that same. You can't be nice and win in politics.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
Not only is the state-centric electoral process still valid because of the reasons everyone else is mentioning (The framers of the Constitution wanted the states to be able to determine the presidency, etc.), but even "in this day of information technology" we can't get old-fashioned vote-counting right, we can't get electronic voting right, we can't do a lot of things right. Anchors last night were talking about how even after 2000, Florida probably was in worse shape to add up their votes this time around than they were 4 years ago.
Even if Information Technology *could* make the electoral college obsolete (it can't, because IT isn't the reason for needing it to begin with, it's there for political purposes, not technical) we are definitely not to the point where IT could even make it obsolete technically.
So now that it's said and done, what are we to do? It looks like the majority of people here are anti-Bush and were hoping for a Kerry win. That even applies (possibly even more so) to those not living within the US.
;o)
So what should/could we do? Sure, fleeing to Canada is an option, but after reading some comments that is a selfish move - and something which is not helping the rest of the planet from W's path of destruction.
Any ideas?
Hypothetical question:
What were to happen if a candidate ran with one main promise: cut in half (or beter) taxes for anybody who makes _less_ than $250,000 a year, making up the difference by a small increase to people who make more (is a 5% increase enough? 3%? 1%?).
The rates would be calculated so that the government will be able to offer the same or better services to citizens.
Such a scheme would benefit at least 95% of tax payers. Based on the claim that most people vote first of all by personal finance, such a candidate should have an easy job, no?
Nebraska voter here. As I very well know my state would not vote Democrat, I started to wonder why this is. Or why this country has been so strongly divided. I had a long conversation with my Grandma last night, and it showed a lot of insight.
Nearly every arguement she used had to do with religion or something the TV had told her. She was still hanging on to ideas that Iraq collaborated with Al-Queda and that there could still be WMDs.
And she's not even really a Fox watcher. When I mentioned the 100,000 dead civilians in Iraq, she still refused to believe that they were not happy that we came in, and that the only ones who didn't want us there were the "radicals".
My roommies on the other hand, had different reasons. They are all very intellectual and logical thinkers, but they also share a common trait: They're racist biggots and classic examples of upper-middle class white people who fear change. I know a lot of that has to do with upbringing, but I was raised in a Republican household, and I turned out completely different. I guess there's a lot there to ponder.
What really confuses me is how, even with all the grassroots campaigns, like the Rock Against Bush tour, the big names openly speaking out against Bush, and even with all the hard evidence on the news where the mistakes speak for themselves (Nope, no WMDs here), and even such a huge voter turnout, that it still wasn't enough.
It's really kind of depressing when you think about it. Call me a sore loser, but when you give it your all and it isn't good enough, you're still a loser. I'm going to be depressed for about 4 years.
Many of us are just as shocked and disappointed as you are. I and 55,124,615 of my closest friends did our best to elect a non-madman, but we ultimately failed to an administration that invaded a country without cause, "lost" $2 billion to Halliburton, and had enough political capital left over to win a second term on a campaign targeted exclusively at their own base.
Before 2000, I was a conservative Republican. I saw the need in that election to put the country ahead of my own party and voted Libertarian. This time, I voted for Kerry. I don't love the Democratic party, but the dangerous state of events in our country right now calls for any plausible opposition, even if it comes from people I disagree with on most issues.
What we've seen here is the final defeat in a long war of ideas that liberals have been steadily losing since 1988. We need to reinvent opposition to the current government along new lines of political thought. I plan on working with my Democrat friends to try to develop that opposition. It will take time, but please remember that there are many of us who aren't happy with the way things are over here and are doing everything we can to fix it.
> Exactly how does a gay couple getting married affect you negatively?
Specifically, it will make me give them money. If your spouse dies in federal service, you are eligible for money. From taxes. Which I pay.
But that is really not the issue. The problem with gay marriage is that it grants a moral sanction to homosexuality. When made by an individual, I simply shrug, since his opinion has no value to me. When made by the government, which is supposed to be representing the interests and morals of all the people, it is reprehensible. It is the same reason why the government does not allow you to do drugs; so that if you do it, you do not have delusions that society approves of your actions. A drug user down the street does not hurt me in any way and I couldn't care less what he does in his living room. If he goes out driving and kills somebody, he goes to jail and loses his license; and that's fair. But I certainly don't want him to think that I approve of what he does. Just as I would not approve of him molesting children, having sex with cows, performing satanic rituals, torturing animals, or having sex with other men. If he wants to do it anyway, let him do it cowering and hiding, in shame and regret. Then maybe he will eventually stop. Until he does, I certainly want nothing to do with him. If I give a party, I will not invite him; if I have a job opening, I will not give it to him; if I run a store, I will sell him any goods. Of course, the government will forbid me from doing all that. And since they have the guns, I will comply. But nobody can make me like it, and that is the irony. The society still disapproves and the transgressors will know it.
As I'm typing this, you can listen to Kerry speak live over at NPR. They'll probably have a stream of the speech after it's finished, too.
There is a spellbook here; eat it? [ynq]
It is the vote differential that matters not the raw +votes... So even with all your cheery assumptions it would be ~50k votes gained not 100k votes gained. Which would be 80k short...
((135k*110%)*67%) - ((135k*110%)*33%) = vote differential
My favorite was on a button I saw at Bumbershoot:
:(
-------------------
Vote no CARB in 2004.
No Cheney
No Ashcroft
No Rumsfeld
No Bush
and definitely no Rice!
-------------------
I guess it seems the Atkins fad died down before the election
The election is over
;)
/. skews left, I think we'll need to get a head start on memorizing it :(
The results are known
The will of the people
has clearly been shown!
So let's forget our quarrels
And show by good deed
That we'll give our new leaders
All the help that they need
Let's let bygones be bygones
And let bitterness pass
I'll hug your Elephant
And you kiss my...Donkey!
In all seriousness...can somebody post the text of that Bush loyalty oath? Since
I hereby declare today a worldwide day of mourning. The American voters have brought shame on their once-great country.
Look, most smart people in the US are pissed, but saying stuff like this is really unconstructive. All you're going to do is start a flame war. Yes, we elected an idiot. Most of us are pissed about it. But that doesn't mean we're going to take your insults lying down, okay? We're still Americans, and we're still going to defend ourselves. He might be a moron, but he's our moron, and just like a retarded little brother, we're going to defend him against outsiders no matter how much he drools on our favorite toys. So let's all act like adults here, and not turn this into a name-calling match.
Eagles may fly, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
There was a _reason_ the electoral college came into being: so that populous states would not "drown" out the less populous ones. It had nothing to do with "information technology".
I agree with you wholeheartedly. If anyone disagrees with this statement, all you have to do is ask yourself this: is the direction of mob mentality always the correct choice? In urban settings, you definitely run the risk of mob mentality and end up voting for the person less congruent with your views. I.e. you vote for the more popular person in that locality for fear of not conforming with everyone around you. At the risk of sounding like a fundamentalist, evidence for this goes back to biblical times--who did the mob cry for when asked to decide between releasing Jesus and Barabbas (a murderer)?. I'm sure there's hundreds of other examples in modern day.
Linux at home
Well, drinking Molson, Labatt, etc... usually make you dislike beer :)
:P
Boreale, Unibroue, Belle Gueule, St-Ambroise, Etc... are all quite good beer, and if you want quality beer just come to your local brewery.
The best beer I've ever tasted are from DDC which has the top-3 best beer on ratebeer.com and has had, i think, the best imperial stout ever!
True, but...
Keep in mind that you can't unilaterally renounce your citizenship and be done with it. The Dept of State has to accept that renouncement. It is illegal to renounce citizenship for the purpose of evading taxes. If there's even a hint of that in your motivation, State will refuse. How will they know? It might come out in the interview. Renouncing your citizenship is something you have to do in person and there will be questions. Lots of them.
Yup, Iran is pleased with this outcome...
Anybody else?
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Please stop trying to claim that the above people are conservatives. They are not. They are the American version of the Taliban.
You make statements like this, and wonder why you and your kind are not taken seriosly by the majority of the public?
Go read some stories about how the Taliban ran Afgahnistan. Read about what they did to women. Read about how they beat men on the street for not having long enough beards and stoned women for getting raped. Read about the true face of evil. Saddam's regime would be a primer on this too.
Then come back here and tell me that the millions of YOUR COUNTRYMEN, some of which you know, are the same as the Taliban.
You keep losing because there's something clearly wrong with you, not the American people. You're welcome to keep denying your faults, as it will just lead to increasingly larger margins of victory for republicans.
Then maybe, one day, when the democratic party has drowned itself in a 5 gallon bucket it refused to pull its head out of, a new party can rise to counter the real faults of the republican party (which are quite different than what you imagine.)
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
I'm a Canadian who works in the US, and I'm retired military to boot, so I've been following this election with some interest. Here's my take.
The Democatic Party nominated THE single least electable canditate they could have laid their hands on.
You could have had General Clark - impeccable personal integrity, proven leadership ability (he ran NATO fer crissakes!) super handle on foreign policy - can you imagine Bush debating him? And no Senate voting record to dog him around.
You could have had Howard Dean, and gone for the young rockstar angle. New and hip vs old-skool and scary. Look at Illinois for how effective that can be.
You could have even had Al Sharpton and gone for pure shock and entertainment value.
Instead, you wound up with the Democratic version of your opponent - old-skool, big money, old boys club, pork-barrel, professional weasel-featured politician.
You made an election that _should_ have been a simple decision between good and evil into a choice between the lesser of two evils. What the HELL kind of strategy is "our guy may suck, but he sucks less"?
The American public is CRYING out for simple, strong, effective, and HONEST leadership. You actually sucker a decent man into the job, and you'll carry the country in a landslide. What the HELL were you thinking when you let Kerry get nominated?
My advice to you and your fellow confused and befuddled Democrats is to get active in the internal politics of your own party, and to work like mad to make sure the next guy you present to the electorate actually stands a chance at being elected.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Certainly not to defend Bush or anything -- I'm curious how you can use the words 'Progressive' and 'Atlas Shrugged' in the same post...
If I was that drunk, I would have remembered it -- H. Simpson
You failed to recognize the opportunity to bring these people into your camp, which would have been quite a feat considering many of the people in your camp are hippies that do not bathe
:) Not that I'm on your side necessarily. I'm no democrat but I tend to lean left and most certainly did NOT vote for Bush.
Hahaha.... that made me laugh out loud
Joseph?
Looking forward to $3.00/gallon gas prices and losing my job....
"I think you know what I'm talkin' about, Mr. President; We're gonna kill us a mummy!" - Bruce Campbell as Elvis Presley
It's called EUROPE.
We don't need every country in the world to devolve into a social welfare state.
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
A second question is who will run in 2008 for the republicans? It ain't gonna be Cheney, that's for sure. I wouldn't put it past them to try to run Bush again, or another Bush.
Yeah, whatever happened to Neil?
(Christ, I hope I'm joking.)
--saint
The statement that Bush won more votes than anyone in history is just showing a statistic. It's not saying that he won by a larger margin than everyone else in history, just that he got more raw votes than anyone. I don't think that's hard to understand, but for some reason, so many anti-Bush people just can't let that statement go without saying why it's "wrong" or "misleading".
If you want misleading, watch Farenheit 9/11.
aack http://www.anotherfouryears.com/
Robby Russell
PLANET ARGON
Robby on Rails
In case anyone finds it of use, here is a site with history of the electoral college.
Personally, I thought the EC was complete bunk until I read through some of the more interesting bits on the reasons why. Not that I am now in complete agreement, but there is some sense to it.
"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it." -Groucho Marx
At least based on one interpretation of Bin Laden's last video taped speech.
How is this for a target?
I can say, bring it on, too.
On a more serious tone, I really hope that the vicious attacks that occured over the course of this campaign can be left alone now. In 2008, there will be a new President, regardless of what Bush does now, and I don't think it will be Dick Cheeny either... I don't think the VP will even run, but who knows.
I also hope that this shows clearly to Al-Queida that the USA will not be intimidated by threats. I would also like to be a bug on the wall of the FBI anti-terrorism center to see what was done to keep this election incident-free. That there wasn't even a single bomb or even mugging at any polling locations shows just how powerless Al-Queida has become. I mean, for the state of Utah alone (from the link above) there were almost 2,000 different places they could have targeted, and Utah is a very small state. And most of these voting places didn't even have a police officer present, much less any other security at all.
You are correct, Europe and the US have seperated ideologically. And as you state, "respect" is in short supply. But, rather than "whine" about how wrong the "others" are, why not try to gain some fundemental understanding of why people think the way they do. Far too many people in this country ( USA) and across the world get caught up in this "Us" versus "Them" mentality without even stopping to debate the real issues at hand. I had hoped that slashdot's political section would be a place for such a dialog to take place, but it seems that we get the same crud here as everywhere else.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Americans may not be dumb, but a large percentage of them are surely living under a rock! And that's certainly not the fault of "liberal" Democrats.
You didn't actually READ my comment, did you?
You can cherry pick particular issues all you want, but the fact remains there's something fundamentally wrong with the democrats, and like you, they can't even begin to fathom what it is.
They will continue to lose by ever more embarassing margins until the party comes to terms with it's faults.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
According to this, , 75% of Bush supporters believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda (and 20% believe Saddam was directly involved in 9/11, though another study puts that at 56%). 72% of Bush supporters believe Iraq had WMD or a program to develop them, 72% believe Bush supports the treaty banning landmines. The list goes on. None of these beliefs are correct, but when you can successfully trick people into believing these things, you can probably trick them into voting for Bush too.
So much for the democrat theory that record turnouts would obviously mean good news for Kerry. Bush won more votes than any other President in our Nation's history. The American people have spoken, and spoken loudly.
I don't think this post is overated. This guy has a point. One of the key political strategies of the Democratic party is that an increased voter turnout equals more votes for them. In this case it's true, but it also meant more votes for the other guy which they weren't expecting. I got the impression last night from some of the coverage that Kerry's campaign advisers were stunned by this fact.
As far as the part of the American people speaking loudly, I hope you are refering to the turnout and not speaking loudly in support for Bush. Bush did have a majority but it wasn't a landslide. The country still remains bitterly divided. It's just 52/48 now.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
You know, something just hit me.
The electoral system in the US is about 2 or 3 centuries old. Compare with a country which just elected its first president democratically: Mexico.
Our current electoral system is less than 50 years (60 at most) old, but the latest changes are less than 10 years old.
These changes include an impartial instance where controversies are handled: The Electoral Federal Institute (IFE). These guys regulate the amount of money used in campaigns, who can be chosen as candidate, etc.
Litigations are handled by the (also impartial) Supreme Court's Electoral Tribunal.
Elector ID's have photograph, and all the votes are counted manually. There are independent citizen volunteers who aid in the revision of the vote counting, and all parties have someone representative who is part of the revision team. It's these representatives who impugnate against anything suspicious, and in certain circumstances, all the votes for a certain ballot are declared null.
That's not much of a problem because the ballots are distributed all over the city. (I live in Mexico city. It IS crowded, trust me). No big buildings where people get in line 8-hours to vote. Instead, the ballot posts are installed in high schools, or (smal) public libraries.
The voting system is easy to understand: You just grab a crayon and mark an "X" over who you want to win. (Their picture is printed on the sheet, and their name is below the picture). If you want to declare a null vote, you just mark an X over the whole sheet.
You're given 5 or 6 sheets, depending on what Office the candidates postulate for, and deposit them in different ballots.
After you're voted, your electoral ID is marked as "voted" for this year, and your thumb is marked with a special biological dye. This prevents you from voting twice.
I may have to stress that this whole system was designed by the opposing parties to prevent extremely old forms of electoral fraud used by the official party (PRI), which were part of the everyday political life of our country (People who voted many times, "pregnant" ballots which were already full before the official election time started, etc) since 70 years ago.
So the new electoral system is practically bullet-proof, and this allowed Vicente Fox to be the first president coming from an opposition party.
The system also allows multiple parties to compete for a certain Office, and because they use popular vote (instead of electoral votes, aka WTF?), a party can be allowed to remain registered if its total votes are greater than a certain percentage.
The mexican electoral system may have its flaws, but at least it makes me proud of not being an american.
Now if some person in the US put some of these ideas into practice... *sigh*
While it's true that part of the reason the electoral college exists was to insure that each state was considered by the presidential candidates, another very important reason had to do with the state of political parties and mass communication at the time the constitution was written.
When the concept of the electoral college was created there were no political parties. They really didn't enter into the calculations of the founding fathers. Considering the size of the United States and the lack of any real means of communicating with the masses of people, it was thought necessary to have some means of having informed representatives of the people decide which candidate represented their local interests. Basically, the founders felt that the average person wasn't well enough informed to make a decision as to who should be president. Electors were supposed to get together and DEBATE. Not be a rubber stamp.
Political parties really altered the situation. A candidate, through his party organzation, could inform the masses of his platform.
The current state of politics in the US all but insures that the electoral college is an effective barrier to any third party candidate. The best they can hope for is to be a spoiler. The electoral college as it's currently implemented is a bad system that serves the two major parties better than it does people to the US.
Welcome to another 4 years of being the Big Bad Guy! Here's to hoping Bush will rest thoroughly on his laurels, instead of trying to "impress" the world with his cowboy attitude. But I guess that's too much to hope for.
I think you've got a typo there, right around "That considered, the future oppinion of Bush could get better or worse."
/. today"
I believe that the correct spelling is "That considered, future opinions of Bush will be considerably worse than the stuff we're seeing on
I had a conversation with a friend at lunch during which I said "Look on the bright side...after this, GWB can never serve as US President again". Her reply: "...at least not until he amends the Constitution to fix that little loophole."
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"- Kieren O'Shaughnessy
Have a kid. Then you'll be in favor of 11th trimester abortions.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
All this time I thought that most Americans were stupid.
It appears it's only just over half.
There is something strange about President Bush these days, especially since the election. It's disquieting the way he has had the Secret Service don red robes whenever they follow him around. Personally I think he takes himself too seriously - probably a result of the Senate voting to give him emergency powers in 2002. Last week I was remarking on how Senator Jarjar from Texas really shouldn't have taken us in that direction, but then I looked it up last week, and it turns out that the "senator" actually held no political office at all, and was really just an assistant to the real senator, who was absent during that session. And I don't think it's any coincidence that he was from the same state as the president.
What I really want to know is this: the clone troopers in Iraq have proven to be invaluable to us, but no one is asking who placed the original order for them, years before we actually needed them.
Federalist #68
by Alexander Hamilton
Published March 14, 1788
The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded. I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of cor
I think this is an interesting point, and would mod it up myself if I had any points to give.
Particularly, I'd like to hear if other viewpoints about that fact....
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
I'm not one to complain about the electoral college or popular vote. The EC, more or less, works. However it could stand a spit shine in some places. Redistricting is a fairly shady practice, some states still have electoral representation based upon outdated demographics, and many people don't feel represented in states with a large number of electors.
... and, oddly enough, the previous #2 spot was held by Gore with 51+ million.
But as for " Bush got more votes than any American in history" That may be true, but to keep this in perspective, he also received more votes of opposition then anyone running for the Presidency. Populations increase and election turn out was high. Technically both candidates received more votes then any other candidate running for the Presidency... Bush with 58+ million and Kerry with 55+million.
And to post some random useless information... the previous #1 sport was held by Regan with 54+ million
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
As someone who was born in Louisiana ('78), and raised in downstate Illinois ('86-'00), I have to tell you that you are decribing the south, not the midwest.
Look at Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin. There is sanity parts of the midwest.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
then
Now
I do believe that we are a nation extremely divided, so much so that I present the above graphs as a scary reality of the current situation. I have no idea of how to resolve it but, it is truly scary when you look at the graphs and their striking similarities. It is again like two nations with two different philosophies coexisting under a strained bond that neither pleases nor comforts either populous.
I personally think Bush holds the best interest for me and my family but it does not seem that it is the case for the other side of the nation, which I feel very badly for. It was a little more than 100 years ago that a similar division happened and my family was on the loosing end of the deal. In which they felt they had to defend their rights as states as well as repeal what they felt was unjust taxation on the agricultural industry. In the end they decided that their was no other solution than to take up arms against their sister states to rectify their grievances. It is very scary how similar the course has taken. If you replace weapons of mass destruction for heavy taxation and the war on terror for states rights then you have the prevailing cause for the turmoil. Then if you look at history and find that all leaders try to find a moral cause for their war to rally support from the people and use that to supplant slavery with democracy then you could have the following two sentences:
Abraham Lincoln pursued the War Between the States as the southern states felt that there was no rectification for the taxation and states rights issues. He latter formulated that freeing slavery would win him moral support for his cause.
George Bush pursued the war on terror as rouge states felt that there was no rectification for the destruction of their weapons of mass destruction and harboring terrorists. He latter formulated that freeing Arabs would win him moral support for his cause.
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
I think this is precisely the ONLY type of campaign that can ever hope to "win" (not end, win) any war on terrorism.
I'm assuming by "this" you mean "Bush will launch a devastatingly aggressive battle in Fallujah and other strongholds of [snip] Islamic fascists."
I think a lot of America agrees with you that this is the best approach to ending terrorism. It might work, but we run the risk of this backfiring horribly. If you take a population outraged by the brutal killing of their people to the point of being willing to die to try to stop it, and go in and kill more of their people, does it make things better or worse? I think it can make things better but it depends on the care with which you conduct the operation. If you maintain an image of caring about the lives and futures of the people over there, you can make things better. If not, you could just end up swelling the ranks of the terrorists and we could have a 9/11 every year for decades. Bush isn't great at dealing with the little things and caring about the health and safety of the people in Iraq. There is the possibility that this could go horribly wrong.
Of course, I'm not necessarily convinced that it's self preservation that's motivating people to join terrorist groups as much as it is a sense of "deserving more power". It could be that a brutal smackdown won't swell the ranks of the terrorists, but do the opposite.
The country was clearly divided over this issue and judging by the reaction of the Bush supporters I've seen today it's the "brutal smackdown" votes that won Bush the election.
God help us if they are wrong.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
I voted for the guy, but he did not do a good job of making a case that he had a plan. Alot of it was I would do that better, well how? I mean he did a poor job of articulating his overall strategy and he still came close to winning.
I think this says more about Bushes weakness than Kerrys strength. A Bill Clinton in his prime would've eaten Bush for lunch.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
In case no one else has said it, I think we should all congratulate Bush on winning his first Presidential election.
rewriting history since 2109
While this will at least save us from hordes of lawyers swarming around constant recounts, it won't save us from any Michael Moore crapumentaries.
The part I find interesting is that the networks were ready to call Colorado for bush already fairly early last night. Bush is currently up by about 120,000 votes in Colorado (as of 12:00pm Nov 3rd) but Boulder county, one of the states largest heavily Democratic counties (over 300,000 people, not sure how many registered voters) has only reported 5% of its precincts vote so far. At the earliest they won't be done counting the regular ballots until this evening, after which there will still be early voting, provisional ballots, absentee ballots, etc. So while I'm not expecting Colorado to switch sides, (120,000 votes is a decent margin to overcome for a 300,000 person county- the Boulder precincts that have reported so far are about 2-1 for Kerry) if it does happen, Bush drops back below 270, even with Ohio, and we would be waiting on Iowa and New Mexico....
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Why stop at third trimester? I say any brats under the age of 10 should also be aborted...
Cuz Arnie wasn't born in the US, but I'm sure they're willing to do it.
Btw, you might want to tell your friend that the Gipper *was* a primate, as are all of us. Much as Bush's supporters don't want to admit it.
http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?pro
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
The government doesn't allow one to snort crack, not even in the privacy of your own home. Do you support that law?
The government allows gay people to have sex (in privacy like everyone else). Do you prefer the government outlaw that?
So you would like to stop gay people from being gay and acting accordingly?
I guess you still haven't answered my question as to how a gay marriage negatively affects you (aside from the tax part, which you said wasn't really the issue). I understand that you find homosexuality disgusting and against your moral ideals, and you wish the government to enforce your moral standards on other people, but I don't see why. I still don't understand how a gay marriage actually affects your life one bit.
If a gay couple living right next door to you married, how will your lifestyle be changed as a result of that marriage?
Or are you basically saying that it will not affect you, you just find the concept of it and the idea that someone is actually practicing it disgusting?
What he was referring to, albeit rather poorly, is this odd idea called "cause and effect." That is, actions cause reactions, and thus that terrorists' actions are in part (if not majorly) determined by the world in which they live. The more injustice seen by muslims around the world, the more they will consider becoming terrorists, and the more resources a terrorist organization will have. More resources mean more likelihood of a successful attack. Is this not logical?
Of course, there's the definition of 'injustice', which is somewhat relative, but I'll get to that later.
Draft? Hate to tell you this, but the draft was the democrats idea, and now it's certainly not going to come to pass.
This is a mindless jab at the Democrats. Kerry also refuted a draft, so your contention here is just as justified as the one you're responding to (that GWB/Rep = draft).
The middle east has been propetually in conflict. We've now established two democracies (well, probably 1.5 so far). The region used to only have death. Now it has both death and hope.
And what if China thought the US becoming communist would significantly reduce the amount of conflict in the world, and thus invaded us - and won? Would that be 'just' or an 'injustice'? It certainly would have been a justified war in the eyes of the supporters of communism, just as installing democracies around the world is seen as justified by - surprise - democracies! But I have a feeling Americans would feel that it was actually an injustice done to them. So what you see as a 'just' and necessary overthrowing of a tyrant government, most other people see as empire trying to expand it's own reach and violently forcing its ways upon people who never even asked for help. So for you America is spreading 'hope', but to the people who feel they're being occupied, it's spreading 'oppresion'. Or, as someone in that region might say, 'more of the same'.
Forcing your ideologies on other people is based on a belief that your ideology is right for everyone - including those who you don't understand or identify with. You talk like you're intimately familiar with matters of the Middle East, and know what's best for everyone there, yet if you're like most people I've talked to, you've never been there and know little more than what you read in the papers. I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong, of course. And the ironic part is that you later go on to say that the rest of the world doesn't know what's right for America! (But we do, in fact, know what's right for the rest of the world, right?)
Ummm.... it's the dems that like to play funny games with the constitution. They don't like the fact that conservative judges actually look to what the constitution says, and what the founders meant when they wrote it. The dems think it needs to be "interpretted dynamically" (i.e. mean whatever the judge says it means).
The Old Testament says an eye for an eye, but the New Testiment says turn the other cheek. By your logic, if rules as serious at those in the Constitution are not meant to be 'dynamic', Jesus had no place challenging the "eye for an eye" law, and we should be using it as the basis of our legal system as well. But the world changes, and the law needs to change too. And spare me your response about eroding the Constitution, no one is intending to do that. (The Patriot Act and DMCA probably come closer to that than most of the things you're actually responding to anyways.)
In any case, your statement ignores the fact that *interpretation* is as a matter of fact a dynamic process that depends on the individual interpreting. If it needs to be interpreted at all, there was in fact some ambiguity in it. Possibly the Framers of the Constitution left a little ambiguity in there for a reason? Democracy thrives when there are many different interpretations being debated, not when the only people being heard are all on the same side. I don't believe th
Your post should be modded up as funny.
I probably shouldn't have invoked Atlas Shrugged as I did, only because it detracts from the overall point.
To be clear, I don't agree with Ayn Rands "reasoning". She definitely needed to reassess her own motivations and assumptions. But regardless of the many flaws in the logic of the book, the image of the intelligent productive people leaving the idiots behind to deal with their own problems is useful.
So I was intending to invoke her imagery *without* her theoretical underpinnings. Probably not a good idea, as you point out, but there it is.
...and another 4 years of terror begin :(
How can so many people be so stupid and vote this muppet in for a second time, in fairness its a total joke and once again almost every country in the world laughs at the USA
"WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
1st of all, he did not concede. What he did was call the president to congradulate him on his win. This is tradition...he isn't really conceding...it is just what they call the phone call.
2nd, there are not enough uncounted ballots to swing the election to his favor. Bush's lead is big enough that even if all of the uncounted ballots are for Kerry, he still can't carry the state.
I know this is flamebait, but if this is a negative trait, then I guess I like negative people.
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
That's boring. Assault weapon shooting, though, is lots of fun.
If, like many Slashdotters, you enjoy hobbies with lots of neat-o gear, where perfectionism and in-depth arcane knowledge lead to success and the respect of your peers, the shooting sports are perfect for you. For those nasty assault rifles, Highpower rifle competition is one of the most popular shooting sports for the precision-minded. For the precision-minded who border on (or go well over the border to) obsessive-compulsive, look into benchrest competition. For shorter-range, fast shooting look into practical rifle. For the ultimate in slow, long-range work, look into 1000-yard benchrest or F-class competition.
If you prefer pistols, there's a plethora of options with targets ranging from big 'uns just 10 feet away to little 'uns out at 500 meters.
Just an overview. If you want more specifc info, reply and I'll post back.
OTOH, if you were just trying to be sarcastic, you failed miserably, at least with me and all the other assault rifle collectors in the audience.
Is Kerry's concession legally binding?
No, it is not.
It would, however, be a very touch political maneuver to explain to the American people how you ended up winning the election, even after conceding it.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
Would George W. Bush, under the same circumstances that Kerry found himself this morning, have conceded victory?
What?
The story of America's independance from England is very well known; but did you know that Canada was once also a part of the British Empire? It's true! We Canadian's threw of the same British yoke as you, only we took a more leisurely route to liberation. In fact you might say we've been declaring our independence for more than two hundred years... kind of.
Our style of revolution centered less on bloodshed and gorilla warfare and more on the time tested strategy of not making a fuss. For example, at the same time you were declaring war on the English monarchy, we were enjoying privlidges granted to us by King George in the treaty of Versailles which gave us fishing rights off the coast of Newfoundland - provided we did not dry or cure fish on land. And by the way, we later got the right to dry and cure fish on land thank you very much.
All I'm saying is, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Not that I'm saying in any way that I'd like to harm a cat. Quite the contrary! I like cats... unless America wants Canada to skin a cat, in which case we'll gladly do it.
The point is, we took our time waiting for the Canadian moment to arrive rather than forcing it upon the world. We waited in the cold watching the US, most of Central and South America, Africa and Asia throw off its colonial oppressors. I think it was us and Belize that held out. And our patience ultimately paid off for in the glorious year of 1982 we took the bold step of getting permission from England to amend our constitution so we could amend our constitution without getting permission from England. Let freedom ring!
Now the only remnants of the tyrannical rule of Queen Elizabeth II are an appointed governor general who represents her in Canadian governmental affairs. And the Queen is officially still our head of state, plus she's on all our money, and when we take government job we have to swear a loyalty pledge to her. All in all, a small price to pay for an independence achieved without bloodshed, violence, glory or independence.
I'm sorry if this in any way seems like I'm bragging.
Kidding aside, as some others here have mentioned, there are times when I wonder about getting out. Many a morning finds me having coffee at my favorite local breakfast dive and staring across lake Erie... wondering if I'm up for a swim today. However, usually before my feet are wet I remember that I love my country. I also recognize the differences between patriotism and blind nationalism and often wonder how those differing animals became the same ugly beast that is our national symbol today.
To the chagrin of many friends, family, colleagues and associates I am under the opinion that four more years of President Bush is exactly what we need. If for no other reason than to have undeniable proof that change is essential, necessary and unavoidable. It is time to tear apart the useless mechanism of the Electoral College, it is time to cast aside elitist political agendas that form in the stagnant water of bipartisanism. It is time to educate ourselves in the language of our liberty and take the responsibility of keeping it alive and healthy.
One thing is for sure... one way or another, this hazy, incoherent notion that we live in a democracy needs to come to an end. Look it up folks... our system of government is a Federalist Republic. If you want Democracy... you're going to have to fight for it.
#SickNotWeak
CLIFF AND EMCEE: Happy to see you. Bleibe, reste, stay... Willkommen, en bienvenue, welcome Im Cabaret, au Cabaret, tu Cabaret
....
... I'm going like Elsie.
... from cradle to tomb
...
EMCEE: (spoken) Meine Damen und Herren... Mesdames et Messieurs... Ladies and Gentlemen. Where are your troubles now? Forgotten? I told you so. We have no troubles here! In here life is beautiful... the girls are beautiful... even the orchestra is beautiful.
(The GIRL ORCHESTRA appears onstage as do the characters from the opening scene, but this time the picture and the mood are much different. The
girls are not as pretty, German uniforms and swastika armbands are apparent; it is not as bright, a dream-like quality that prevails. dissonant strains of "Willkommen" (Nazi music) are heard. Then from among the moving people,
we see HERR SCHULTZ)
ALL: (Singing) Willkommen, bienvenue, welcome Fremde, etranger, stranger
SCHULTZ: Just children. Mischievous children on their way to school. You understand.
(The people move again and we see FRAULEIN SCHNEIDER)
FRAULEIN SCHNEIDER: I understand. One does what one must.
(Again the people move and we see SALLY)
SALLY: It'll all work out. It's only politics, and what's that got to do with us?
All: Glucklich zu sehen Je suis enchante. Happy to see you.
FRAULEIN SCHNEIDER: I must be sensible. If the Nazis come- what other choice have I?
SCHULTZ: I know I am right because I understand the Germans. After all, what am I? A German.
ALL: (Singing) Fremde, etranger, stranger
Glucklich zu sehen Je suis enchante
(Suddenly SALLY is lifted high on a chair)
SALLY: (Singing) I made my mind up back in Chelsea. When I go
(SALLY is lowered. The people gradually fade away)
Isn't that long a stay.
Life is a cabaret, old chum,
Life is a cabaret, old chum,
(SALLY disappears into the darkness-leaving the EMCEE alone on the stage)
EMCEE: Life is a cabaret.
Auf wiedersehen!
A bientot.
Good night!...
(The EMCEE bows, accompanied by a snare drum roll, then suddenly vanishes with the crash of a high hat cymbal. The stage is empty except for the street lamps shining on the wet street, the mirror, and then, glowing in the darkness, the Cabaret sign)
(final curtain, house lights up)
Edith Keeler Must Die
Bush took office less than 9 months before the terrorists attacks that started all this. Even if we assume (which is unlikely) that the terrorists move as fast as possible, they needed several months to work out all the details. Not to mention teach their people to fly. There is evidence that this group had attacked the US before Bush took office, so perhaps we should blame Clinton's policies. (this would also be wrong - Clinton might have been able to prevent them, but there would be other costs to that)
You might not like Bush's policies. That is fine. You can say they are making things worse, many would agree, and many would disagree. You cannot say his policies caused this. He was not in office long enough for his policies to change much.
All of America Flip Flopped in this election. Damn flip floppers. It's a nation of flip floppers.
Ironically, the left is vastly more organized, and has been for a long, long time.
People talk about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but the reality is that the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy actually really exists, and has existed for quite some time.
I wrote about it here:
http://slashdot.org/~eglamkowski/journal/75818
Four "Internationals" plus the still active "Socialist International".
And you think there's not enough left wing propaganda?
And I could further bemoan the tremendous shift leftwards that has permeated society over the past 200 years overall.
Don't believe it?
Here's Marx's 10 points from his Communist Manifesto:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
We are so there. And the few bits that haven't been implemented, both Bush and Kerry were gushing about implementing.
That's what really pisses me off the most - we've drifted so far left that many people fail to recognize it. Anything that isn't flat out communist is seen as being dangerously right wing. What a joke!
The only danger of becoming a right wing dictatorship is that of first going so far left that we wrap back around the political spectrum.
Just watch what you wish for, you may just get it...
Government IS the problem.
First off, if any of this has been posted before in the 2000+ comments before mine, my apologies. Its kinda hard to read that many replies....
My congratulations to President Bush. I may not like the man or his policies, but he did win not only the Electoral but the Popular Vote. In a sense we can put behind us the issues from the 2000 Election.
But now that he's in charge again, what scares me is what he could do.
Over the next few years he will more than likely be able to appoint three to four Supreme Court Justices.
I may be wrong about this, but this could be the first time in history that the same party will have effective control of the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, and quite possibly the Supreme Court.
Also, now that President Bush has no need to cater to the mainstream in order to win another election, I expect that we'll see a dramatic shift in policy that will make the Religious Right more than happy.
If you put both of those together, there is a great possiblity of the loss of alot of personal rights and freedoms as well as Abortion Rights and possibly more censorship as the Religious Right becomes energized and begins to take power.
Personally, if this happens I see very dark days for the common working man. President Bush has always been extremely Pro Big Business and Pro Rich.
I'm beginning to wonder what sort of country will be left for my son when he becomes of age within the next ten years.......
There must be a fundamentalist Christian state, as many wish South Carolina (the State with the highest per capita African American population) to become.
There must be a panmixia state, as New York is becoming.
There must be ethnostates, as Europe and the Amerindian reservations could still support.
There must be an east-west hybrid state as parts of Hawaii are becoming (with some islands reserved for indigenous Hawians).
There must be a politically correct state as California has become.
There must be a frontier -- as the ocean deserts and space could be if interference with claims were prevented.
And even these aren't enough.
The problem is that all of these things represent true diversity which is the enemy of all those who claim to support diversity.
The fundamental conflict is between democracy as dispute processing and migration as dispute processing. Migration is superior, so long as eminent domain compensation applies, for the simple reason that it allows self determination for all value systems -- not just value systems that can produce the most invasive voters world wide.
Seastead this.
Let's see... you voted Democratic until you voted for a man because so many people say they hate him?
Yeah, that's a guy who has a lot going for him.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
01. Do nothing after repeated warnings about attacks on major US sites using passenger jets. (except Ashcroft took to flying private).
There are so many warnings, if we acted on each one, we'd be going in circles. Plus, the prior administration let Osama go anyway... so if Clinton thought he wasn't that bad, why should Bush?
02. Be so influenced by the Israeli lobby as to allow the Palestinian situation to escalate out of all control. The backlash against this being one of the prime motivators of the 9/11 and other terrorists.
And do what about it? Let Palestinians take over Isreal? I say let Isreal fight back on this one. They want the land, let them bomb the hell out of the countries that send people to bomb their citizens.
03. Allow al-Qaeda/the freedom fighters formerly known as the Mujahideen to take root in Afghanistan. This group having been formed out of the remnants of groups created and financed by Bin Laden at the behest of the CIA.
Again, you have to blame Clinton, too. It happened on his watch, also.
04. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack allow Bin Ladens family to *fly* out of the US unquestioned.
Yea, that was a fuckup, but until you give more than just 1 sentence, I'll hold judgement on that, considering I (and you) don't know all the facts.
05. Holding back US troops to allow Bin Laden to escape from his holdout on the Pakistan border. If captured he might have some embarrassing facts to disclose.
Wait a minute, didn't the rest of the world want a coalition of forces? What's wrong with having other countries help? Kerry said bi-lateral support is now called "outsourcing". First they want it, then they dont?
06. Take a middle eastern dictatorship (Iraq) and overthrow its ruler. In the process disbanded its highly trained army and allow them to escape with most of their weapons intact. The remnants of which later joined forces with radical Islamic fundamentalists forming the bulk of the current Guerilla army. Making large parts of Iraq no go areas for US troops. Almost a year after the so called 'ceasefire'.
Uh, they're not "highly trained". A highly trained army would have put up more of a fight, in BOTH wars. Anyway, we should just bomb the shit out of the trouble ares... hell, it worked in WWII.
07. Incidentally whilst Heusen was in power and still an asset of the CIA it was his job to suppress the 'fundamentalists'. And after the first Gulf war he was totally suppressed and *no* external threat to anyone. He still could stifle the fundamentalists. So removing him has actually created a state that supports terrorism.
He still never complied with the UN's resolutions. A dozen years after that is long enough to wait for action. Like this whole N.Korea thing... Give them time to comply, if not, force them to. After talking to a kid about being bad, who still repeats their actions, you eventually have to spank them.
08. Arbitrarily dismiss and ignore the views of the USAs own allies to such an extent that *no* country apart from the UK went into Iraq with it. Chiefly because Tony Blain had no choice. The rest he bribed with contracts or getting their application to join the EU speeded up.
Just another way the EU is forcing countries to "do what we do".
09. In the process Bush did something the USSR could never achieve trough out WW11, the Warsaw Pact, the Cold war, the Cuban missile crises and the breakup of the Soviet Union. He split NATO in two. He couldn't have done better if he was Putins foreign minister.
Survival of the fittest. If you want to just let mouth-foaming dogs lie, that's your choice.
10. Provoked North Korea and Iran into going Nuclear. Something they had no incentive in doing until his famous axis of evil speech.
Ha! Provoked? No incentive? Then why did N.Korea send spies in under Clinton's watch to grab nuclear intelligence? Wait a minute... there must have been an incentive back then. Maybe it takes MORE tha
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
I also wanted to point out something that speaks clearly to the lack of a "message" by the Kerry campaign. I had more than one prson say to me "Kerry keeps saying 'I have a plan.' Well, what is this plan? He keeps talking about it but never tells us what it is!"
Even my dad, who voted for Perot 12 years ago and isn't what you'd call a conservative, said this. Most people aren't going to seek out real information on candidates and vote on shallow issues or mis-information. Hell, a survey taken 2 weeks ago found that a majority of Bush supporters were still convinced Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and that there were WMDs stillin Iraq. Go figure that one out....
I meant to add to this: I'm a Briton who lives in Canada, and I can say from our perspective that you're going to have almost as tough a time coming here as somebody from Eastern Europe. The only advantage will be a NAFTA visa... but good luck finding an employer to sponsor you with the state of our economy and the general level of Canadian personal reservation.
The Options (someone from the UK please confirm this) are the Labour party (Blair's party, who are conservatives in the clothes of progressives) and the Conservative party (who are conservatives). There is no major progressive party now that the Labour party has been co-opted.
Everybody's been watching too much Survivor and thought they were voting Bush out.
Even if Bush won 100% of the popular vote, and Kerry conceeded 1 minute after the first precinct closed, Kerry could still be elected president. Or Nader for that matter.
Hmmm. In some states the electors are legally required to cast their ballots "correctly", but in many states they're actually free to vote "their consciensce". So, if Bill Gates really wanted to buy the presidency, he could just find 270 "free" electors (now that they're chosen) and offer them $50M each to vote for him instead! For $135M, he would be President! That'd be a lot cheaper than campaigning. A lot less work, too.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
That the United States did not officially occupy or annex Germany and Japan after World War II, but instead it unofficially made them its satellite states. In France, Britain, Germany, Japan, and many other countries you will find U.S. Military installations. How many of those countries have a base in the United States? None.
The United States does indeed have a global military hegemony, and does indeed have a group of defacto satellite states.
Ahem...It's 'Sister,' but thanks, nonetheless! What's more, we should all take a close look at the group of voters that failed us this election, on whom we counted a bit too much: The 18-25 year age range was courted wildly and feverishly. They registered in record numbers and attended lots of free concerts, yada, yada. They didn't vote in this election any more than in 2000, with turnout of only 17%- an identical ratio. Somehow, in order to overcome the overwhelmingly disproportionate power distribution that has now been created, we have to get these young voters to *vote* in the next major elections, for our reps and our senators, as well. We have to engage these voters and bring them into the polls to cast a ballot, not just get them amped. Maybe the draft will make them active...
-Honestly, stupidity should be painful.
I'm Danish, and I'm very much against Bush. From reading blogs on the internet, I get the impression that the fact that the rest of the world - by and large - is against Bush, actually helped him, because many voters thought (based on zero-sum view of world politics) 'Hey, that's because they want us to vote for a weak president - that means Bush is strong!". If Americans think europeans are crying now, think again. The general European view is that we don't understand how the American people can vote for a president that is in the process of ruining his country. We are not that afraid of how the election will affect our own situation - after all, it doesn't have that much of an effect on *us* who sits in the White House... it is not very likely Bush is going on another Iraq-venture soon. The result of this election, is going to be really bad for Americans themselves.
You can already now see the dollar in the red, after it became known that Bush keeps the presidency, because Bush is not going to do anything about the umpteen-billion (or is it trillion) dollar trade and budget deficits - at least until he has to. However, sooner or later the world and the fundamental mechanisms of economics are going to do something about it, and it could get really ugly. Bush seems to think that the deficits will disappear by themselves as the economy grows, but that will unfortunately not be the case: The U.S. economy grew at a fast pace for the past 1½ years and that has done nothing but to make the already record-high deficits even bigger. So the kind of growth the U.S. has experienced has been mainly in demand with little growth in exports. Why should further growth change that?
On the other hand, if the U.S. is heading for a recession, which is becoming a possibility now that it is becoming clear that consumers have exhausted all their credit options and the artifical growth created by the tax cuts, the U.S. is going to be in big trouble: It is going to have to deal with hefty deficits, inflation and a recession at the same time! An almost impossible task because fixing one of the problems will make the others worse. In the worst-case-scenario such a situation would create a self-sustaining dollar fall as foreign investors pull their money out of U.S. assets because of the lower growth prospects.
Throw in high oil prices (which due to subtle mechanisms will eventually affect the dollar) and slowing growth in China, and you will see that this is not just paranoia but genuine concerns.
I really hope none of this is going to happen because it will affect not only the U.S. economy but the entire world economy - but of course, budget-disciplined nations like the Scandinavian countries will have much less of a problem because they don't have to repay a huge debt.
So good luck America - particularly to those sensible people who didn't vote for Bush. To the rest, you got what you asked for, I really hope you will enjoy it... however, I'm quite sure that within the next four years many of you will regret your choice.
I cannot agree more.
Some predicted, I remember, that if Russia had to withdraw from the Afghanistan on overhelming causalties (in Russian terms), US cannot succeed.
I checked Vietnak war statistics:
Someone said that Iraq is new Vietnam.
If it were, we would need draft, three times as much troops, had 25 times as many causalties and the front would still be hundred miles from Baghdad.
I checked teh Economic statistics:
This recession's peak unemployment was lowerst below the average of the past 30 years and the lowes in all recorded recessions. We are too young to remember the true recessions and the deficit is starting to improev rapidly.
The other guy promissed 10 millioon jobs, never mind that there is only 8 millions unemployed. He has no sensee of economics
I checked the numbers. In 4 years, considering that the workforce grew by 6.5 million, loosing 0.6% of unemployment rate results in 6.5-50*0.013 = 0.9-6.5 = 5.6million jobs gained.
Why don't we hear any of this on the TV?
If the election ended up differently, there would be hardly any space for improvement, but lot more potentioal for becoming worse.
Petrus
On the other hand, that could make fraud easier, as you don't see suspicious swells or dips in the voter count. *shrug* Six of one, half a dozen of the other, and Seven-of-Nine.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
>Regarding the terrorists, yes they actually do >the attacks, and they are wrong to do so, but it >is still largely caused by the asinine and >boorish foreign policies embraced by the >Republican party.
.5 of a democracy >with Iraq? All we've established is a full >quagmire.
:)
Hmm considering 9/11 happened after 8 years of Democratic administrations, thats a very lame argument. And it happened less than a year into
George W Bush's presidency, long before he had done anything outside the US. And if you want to blame the first Gulf war, thats the one completely authorized and supported by the United Nations.
>Regarding the draft, well, the Republican party >may say they don't want it, but those same >foreign policies may necessitate it. The Dems who >are pushing for it know they won't get it, >they're trying to make a political point.
The phoney draft cards that got mailed around by the democrats, was the last straw that made me support Bush, anybody but Bush is not a viable plan.
>And you think we've established
Yes Iraq is a mess, in retrospect it was a bad move to go there. But virtually everyone including Bill Clinton and John Kerry supported it.
But Afghanistan did hold an election (free and fair as certified by international observers). More than 10 million people voted, I think thats a massive
change from the Taliban regime that ruled before.
A time when people got taken to a soccer field and shot for listening to music.
>And while we shouldn't be accountable to the rest >of the world, you might think something is awry >when 80% of the world doesn't like what you're >doing. Considering the thoughts of others doesn't >mean you're cowtowing to them, it just means >you're not an arrogant asshole.
The rest of the world has disliked the US for a long time, long before George W Bush became president. Most of it is just people not liking the fact that US has the most powerful economy, and American culture relentlessly creeping into their countries via TV/Movies/Music etc. When a single entity dominates for so long, lot of people
will cheer for the underdog. Its the reason why
so many people dislike the New York Yankees baseball team. The reaction to 9/11 in this '80%'
of the world you mention was one of concealed glee. To a lot of them it was the dominant player
finally losing.
Even if a democrat had been elected the '80%' of the world would still dislike America and Americans, Bush is just an excuse for them to express their dislike openly.
America voted decisively for Bush yesterday, he won by more than 3.5 million votes. Whats more
the republicans gained seats both in the Senate and the House of Representatives. If the democrats want to win elections they ought to listen to the electorate, not what someone in Canada or Sweden thinks. People from other countries dont vote in their elections worrying about what the Americans might think, dont know why we should be worrying about what other countries might think about our president.
John kerry ran an ad on tv, one where he was the hawk and Bush was the Ostrich with his head stuck in the sand. Only right now its the Democratic party who have their head in the sand, refusing to see the writing on the wall.
I have always been more aligned to Democratic party policices than the Republican party's. But this time with only the hate Bush rhetoric coming from the democrats and no real ideas for progress. I had to support Bush, albeit with heavy reservations. And I suspect looking at the popular vote, lot of other people around the country felt the same way.
And no the US isnt just collapsing, our economy
is strong, we have 5.4% unemployment, compare that
to over 10% in most of the rest of the '80%' of the world..including France and Germany.
For those who voted for kerry..repeat after me....this too shall pass
I've heard from about a half dozen liberal friends about the election so far, and without exception each one has instantly run afoul of Goodwin's Law.
In my book, it goes quite some ways towards explaining why they lost.
No, I know you were refuting the "we stand on God for Thee" bit - I was referring to your rant against the President putting God into his policies - since as a Canadian, we've got God right there in our anthem...
As to my nationality quiz - that's probably the only reason I'll respond, cause I really like your choice of questions.
-What is your favorite Timbit?
My favourite chocolate, though I was raised on Robins Eggs - we didn't get a Timmy Ho's here until I was 18 or something...
-Who is Paul Henderson, what did he do, and when?
Paul scored a goal against the Russians three years before I was born (I was born in 1975.) It was a very big goal. "There's a shot. Out front to Henderson, he scores!" I think I've heard that aboot a million and a half times.
-38 and no date describes what NHL team.
That's no team, that's the maple leafs.
-Name two dog breeds named for a Canadian province.
I'll admit you've got me stumped there - Labrador Retriever? and ? I'm not a big dog guy.
-Who is Grapes? Blue? Rose? Ron?
Don Cherry, his dog (a bull terrier, who passed away some time ago) his wife (who passed away two years ago, which resulted in him growing that godawful goatee) and his straightman on HNIC - the current host of Movie Night in Canada
-Toronto is the capital of what (and no, "smelling like my ass" is not a correct response, even if it is true)?
Hmmm isn't Tdot the capital of the world? No, wait, the Universe...Ah, hell. Ontario. Close enough.
I've had my .2 second thought about this. But there's one problem - in W's second term, we don't know how many people are going to die as a result of his policies. I'm not comfortable laying down to watch X,000 or XX,000 young American soldiers, or XX,000 or XXX,000 Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Iranians, Phillipinos, Thais or whomever get killed because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There is a need for a war against terrorists, sure. W's plan is not that type of war. His war is a crusader's war and that cannot be swallowed whole and without resistance.
Organize to defend our rights or literally die.
I'd buy that for a dollar. (canned laughter)
Let me tell you why I strongly dislike George Bush.
These are just a few of the many reasons I think George W. Bush is entirely unfit for the office of the president. Also, please bear in mind that the above proposals were done in his first term - a term where he knew he would be seeking reelection. What's the man going to do now that he knows he's got nothing else to run for?
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
There was a _reason_ the electoral college came into being: so that populous states would not "drown" out the less populous ones. It had nothing to do with "information technology".
Okay, how about we keep the electoral college, but ditch the "winner takes all" aspect. Each state's electoral votes get split according to the popular vote in that state. This more closely approximates the popular vote while leaving less populous states with the same influence in the election.
I was curious about how the electoral vote vs state population numbers really stacked up, and figured it out the other day. I didn't put a ton of time into it and thus made some really bad assumptions (100% turnout etc), but it worked out that in the worst-case scenario a candidate could potentially win with only 22% of the popular vote. Also, a vote in Wyoming is worth the most towards winning an electoral vote, a vote in Texas is worth the least. I made all comparisons in relation to Minnesota (where I live) - a Wyoming vote is worth 3 times as much as a MN one, and Texas is only 77% of a MN vote.
My conclusion? The electoral college has got to go. Why shouldn't we have a popular vote? Because it disadvantages the small states? That's crap - they already have disproportionate numbers in Congress, why should they have an advantage in the presidential election as well?
A popular vote + instant runoff voting would really go a long way towards restoring my confidence in American politics. Even if the elections kept going to the dems or repubs, at least third parties would get enough of a vote as to have a voice. Unless I'm being overly presumptuous - would people still stick to the red vs blue, elephant vs donkey power struggle?
Alot of comments here seem to suggest that since Bush cannot be re-elected, he is now free to do anything he wants without regard for the public opinion. These comments miss a few very important points.
The Bush administration has a large interest in keeping public approval. Not so much Bush himself, but the neocons arounds him - ie Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Paul Bremer and Lewis Libby to name a few.
The neocons have had key positions in every republican administration since the mid-70s, including under Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bush senior and now Bush junior. They are an ideological group based in part on the philosophy of Leo Strauss, whose stated goals are to spread democracy around the world, by force, preserving Pax Americana and expanding the american economic and cultural empire.
To acheieve this goal, an organization named The Project for a New American Century was founded by William Kristol in 1997. Its members include all of the neocons listed above, and its basic principles are, according to its website:
The neoconservatives have had complete control of the US foreign policy in the Bush administration. The Bush doctrine is based on a document written by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992, called the Defense Planning Guidance. At the time, under Bush senior, the document was regarded as too radical and key propositions in it was rejected (including unilateralism and the use of preemtive strikes). These radical propositions now form the core of US foreign policy.
In addition, the PNAC released a report in 2000 called Rebuilding Americas Defenses (PDF download here), which outlines the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and installation of a US base in Iraq to secure the oil for geostrategic purposes after peak-oil (just consider the control it would give them over China, when they can control a large portion of their energy supplies), and to attempt to spread democracy in the region. According to the document, this would only be possible after, and I quote, a "catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor".
Now, this little project of theirs is quite ambitious, and will take a long time, so the neocons have great interest in keeping a republican presidency (puppet or not), so they stay in control of foreign policy. They attempted to persuade Clinton to attack Iraq, but without any success, so now that they are in power they won't give it up easily. Luckily for them, the american public seems more than happy to go along.
when bush totally alienates the USA from the rest of the world. this is one of my biggest fears. the brand called "America" has been tarnished by this administration's bullying and selfishness. if we cry wolf (read "WMD") next time who's gonna help?
http://www.chrysanthalbee.com/wordpress
Why is this flamebait? The parent was a valid statement that some moderator didn't agree with. I can only metamoderation comes up for me on the parent.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
If you're really concerned about politics than vote at a local level. Local representatives can do a whole lot more to your life than the president can.
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
The Power of Nightmares. Find it on your favourite P2P network.
to get you all riled up like that, eh kid? I'm just impressed that out of around 2700 comments (mostly pro-Kerry) - somebody cared enough to read through them, mod me down (twice) AND reply!
.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it. (--paraphrased quote)
SO, it will be interesting to see how the final certified vote counts go. We may find that other swing states were closer than we thought. It only takes two or three of them to shift the other way and counter Ohio. In my county in New Mexico, there were still 20,000 uncounted votes as of this morning (about 40% of the total cast). It'd be a shame if JK quit too soon. .
This sig is a test. If this had been an actual sig, you would be reading something quite a bit wittier than this now.
GET OVER IT.
Face it. You all were fed a line... You had a choice of horseshit candidate #1 and horseshit candidate #2, and most of the people voted for horseshit candidate #1. Stop voting for what you think is the lesser of to piles of horseshit. Things are never going to get better while we still buy this ridiculous line of reasoning. Bottom line, more than %98 percent of the people who voted still voted for a pile of horseshit!!!
Half the country thinks their vote was for nothing and they lost. A lot of people who voted for the winner are sitting around thinking... "Whew... close call, pile of hs #1 might not be the best president, but at least we didn't get pile #2!!!"
Stop voting for piles of horseshit!!!! It doesn't matter which one you get, it's still horseshit!
Damn I'm glad I voted libertarian.
When you lose a Presidential election, at what point does your Secret Service protection end? Day after election day? Moment you concede? January 20?
No state votes will go for kerry, they all go for bush no matter what. The system is flawed.
I'm pretty sure that the Democrats didn't complain about all of the CA and NY states votes going to Kerry, not to mention that Bush actually managed to also win by the popular vote as well this time. According to the exit polls, 56% of voters 60 and older voted for Bush so they sure got someone they liked elected.
I didn't vote in 2000 as I disliked both Bush and Gore (I was a McCain supporter). Even though I'm not fan of either Bush or Kerry, I voted for Kerry this time around because I didn't want Bush re-elected. Unfortunately, Kerry didn't get elected, but I can at least say I tried to make a difference.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Bush is only for free trade on exports - which isn't really "free".
If he were *really* for free trade, he'd not have allowed the steel and softwood lumber tarriffs (both of which impartial courts have decided are unfair and in violation of NAFTA) and would lift the ban on importation of live Canadian beef.
I hate to break it too you, but all the signs show the ecoonomy improving.
The down turn started with the dot com crash, which happened while Bill was still in office.
They are atrocities, but they aren't necessary. The assault on Iraq has caused the federal government to fail its chief job: protecting the rights and security of the citizens of the United States. On 2001-09-11, we were counter-attacked for the actions we have taken in the middle east over at least the last 50 years. Among the most egregious of these actions are the overthrow of the democratically-elected leader of Iran in 1953; and the continued support of Israel in their fight against Palestine. In my view it is wrong to interfere in the affairs of these other countries. The goal of establishing democracy in Iraq stands vis-a-vis to the basic desire for self-determination that led the founders of the U.S. to establish a democracy in the first place. That is, it's not a question of whether we value democracy; it is a question of whether we value self determination. Even though we helped Saddam, this cycle must be stopped, and the pleas to emotional response stand as circumvention of reason rather than emphasis applied to it.
Terrorists are born of the desperation and total disenfranchisement of a societal vacuum created by, for instance, a tyrannical government. When scorn metastasizes, it colors every interaction you make with your environment until it turns into violent predilections and eventually action. These actions are not misaligned; they always point at those they have directly experienced as being responsible. If your democratically-elected leader has been removed and replaced with a dictator, and you can identify the interloper, feelings of hatred and disenfranchisement cannot be denied. To this day the government of Iran bears a hatred for us, even going as far as joining in shouting "death to America" upon approval of laws that would further their nuclear weapons programs. That is the result of one action we took over half a century ago; the resentment burns even today, and if anything will calm it, it's certainly not the deja vu experienced when a geographically adjacent country is having its government altered by the same powers, especially when the instantiation of that power is an entirely different generation of people.
The humbling and terrible power that can be exerted by the United States also causes tremendous aggravation to existing resentment in the region. When that power is utilized in a very efficient manner, the fear and desperation only increase. There is no reason to believe that we will not be attacked again. These possible attacks will definitely be executed in an environment of increased desperation, and symbolic targets may be eschewed in favor of something more relatable and frankly deadly to the general population and government of the target country. For example, these hypothesized attacks may take the form of an explosion of mustard or sarin gas or the explosion of a nuclear weapon. The attacks on 2001-09-11 were, from the viewpoint of the attackers, collectively a counter-attack on those who would not only interfere in their affairs, but do so in a chronic, increasingly invasive and virulent manner that does not -- and indeed cannot -- respond or even listen to the pleas of the actual indigenous peoples (rather than just the reviled and farcical leaders of the nations in this region).
George Bush and John Kerry both extolled the virtues of the principal axioms, motives and reasons for the war in Iraq and the "war on terror." One major difference between them is their attitudes: while Bush initiated this war, probably as a result of the long-held desires of not only himself but also his administration and possibly his political party, Kerry supports it because he feels he must, or he won't win elected office. If either of these ma
It's hard for me to believe that people would rather vote based on taking away other peoples rights away ( same sex marriage, abortion ) as opposed to voting to better the people on a whole ( health care, enviroment, economical growth ), but I'm sure fear has alot to do with it. Oh well I Don't live in the U.S. but I hope your president leads you well. And I congradulate both parties for an exciting and interesting election.
> The government doesn't allow one to snort crack, not even
> in the privacy of your own home. Do you support that law?
I do. And if I had to vote for it, I would, because to do otherwise would be to give sanction to the behaviour.
> The government allows gay people to have sex (in privacy like
> everyone else). Do you prefer the government outlaw that?
Not necessarily. But I don't want them to legalize it either by publicly endorsing gay marriage.
> So you would like to stop gay people from being gay and acting accordingly?
I would like to rid them of the delusion that what they do is normal and acceptable. A drug user knows he's wrong to do what he does. However he tries to rationalize his habit, he will never try to publicly announce it and he will not be proud of it. Likewise, gays should know that they are in the wrong and correct that wrong, either by therapy, or by abstinence.
> I guess you still haven't answered my question
> as to how a gay marriage negatively affects you
But I have! I said it did not. But the thing is, if I am faced with a casting a vote for or against it, I have no doubt that I will vote against it. For me to do otherwise would be moral hypocrisy and I would be overwhelmed with guilt for allowing sanctioned sodomy into my world. Just as you are guilty of manslaughter if you allow a man to die by refusing some to take some simple action that would have prevented it, likewise you are guilty of a moral crime if you fail to refuse sanction to that which you consider immoral. I can not prevent the government from giving sanction to homosexuality if the majority votes for it, but if the government has the courtesy of asking for my opinion before enacting such legislation, I am certainly going to provide it.
> If a gay couple living right next door to you married,
> how will your lifestyle be changed as a result of that marriage?
It will not change one bit. But I am a homebody; I don't even remember who my neighbours are. Someone who likes socializing with his neighbours would be affected more.
Wouldn't that easily qualify as flip flop? ;)
From M-W.com:
demagogue:
a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
So you tell me, which candidate does that describe? The one who turned out his evangelical base by riding on the coattails of anti-gay prejudice? The one who led us into a quagmire in Iraq based on false claims and fear-mongering?
If Kerry had told the people "what they wanted to hear" he would have been giving his acceptance speech right now. Instead he told them the truth: the issues at play today are complex and nuanced, and require as much thought as resolve..... but of course, that's flip-flopping.
Obviously Kerry is the demagogue..... what was I thinking.....
You are not an idiot, and you are entitled to your opinion. However, separation of church and state should be a consideration in your vote too. Having faith is all well and good, but it is up to us to take care of things here on Terra Firma.
Maybe you haven't really been paying attention, but the "president" has made anybody who disagrees with him look like an anti-patriot.
You bring up the Supreme Court...they are the fools that put shrubbie in office in the first place...to be the US's first dictator!
The problem is that the electoral base of the Republicans (which is apparently, and unfortunately the majority of american voters) does not care what goes on outside their country. As long as the president can control gaz prices at reasonable levels, keep the interest rates low so they can continue their buying frenzy, and make them FEEL like they're safe, they're content with that. So sadly enough, for the majority of americans, there was NO reason not to vote for Bush.
Americans have always been more interested with what goes on inside their country then out. And it looks like the majority of them cannot understand that their current foreign policy will only fuel hate towards America, and can only hinder their precious "war on terror" in the long run.
For a country that is so proud of being so religious, whatever happened "Do upon others what you would like done to you" (??? sorry can't remember the real quote) ? You bomb people left and right, overthrow democratic governments throughout the world in favor of dictatorships in your own interest... and then your surprised that people in the world hate Americans that much ??
For once i think bin Laden had it right when he said that America's future was not in the hands of Kerry or Bush, but in their own hands.
Wake up and face what's really happening around us. The world is not a pretty place. Compassion, education, cheap medecines free of any patents/restrictions would go a lot further than sanctions, bombings and Departments of Homeland Security. And speaking of that, am I the only one that seemed to think that Osama bin Laden
A million monkeys and this is the best sig they could come up with...
America 2004 = Britain 1900?
American 2054 = Britain 1950?
Carl Rove. (sp?)
The reason the 2000 vote was so close was that many of the religous right didn't vote.
This is why the deeper crap the president got into, the more 'radical' religious issues were brought up by the administration.
One of the major issues was whether or not two people of the same gender can enter into a legal contract of marriage.
It ahs no real effect, becasue two people who believe in a faith that allows same gender intitution can still get married in the eyes of their church.
It in no way stops same gender relatinships.
The two same gendered people walking down the street holding hands will still do so regardless of there legal contractual status.
So, it was a point that has no bearing on anyones day to day life that Carl Rove was able to manipulate the religious 'right' to vote.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Does having grandparents who left Germany for America in 1938 count?
I think AC was referring to someplace closer to home and sometime closer to the present.
It's just that to compare 2004 America with 1938 Germany appears to trivialize the fear and desperation many of us can only read about.
It trivializes the consequences of the actions of fearful and desperate people too.
What, NPR isn't enough of a LEFTwing propoganda machine for you?
That doesn't include the large quantity of other media lefties - documentary filmmakers, journalists, etc.
That said, you're correct that the left wing folks have not done a good job articulating what's good about their positions and opinions. I asked several seriously Democratic friends of mine to articulate what was good about Kerry, and most of them were only able to say "he's not Bush" or hit Bush with some insult. That's not particularly compelling to me, and it appears not to have been compelling to the rest of the country.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
I, for one, welcome the apocalypse.
1 person, 1 vote is the only fair system.
No it isn't. In fact there are cases where it is really quite UNfair. That is the case when a country has a large, diverse geography and demographics. When it comes to electing a government that meets the diverse needs pure rep-by-pop or "1 person 1 vote" is a poor system. There has to be a mechanism in place to reflect LOCAL and REGIONAL interests as well as the simple majority.
If there was no electoral college or similar mechanism, NY, CA and other states with large urban centres could dominate. The concerns of people outside those area would be ignored because they couldn't mathematically compete against the concerns of urban costal USA. Believe me, what is right for LA or NYC is NOT right for Idaho and Wyoming. In case you havent noticed, LA and NYC appear to be different planets to just about the whole rest of the continent.
I'm not saying that the electoral college is the best way to go or it cannot be improved, I'm just saying that there has to be some balance in the selection of the US president. If the President could get elected by relying only on big cities then the whole country would go to hell in a handbasket. A life long resident of NYC or LA cannot comprehend at all what life is like in a place like Billings, MT.
Count yourselves lucky...in Canada, Paul Martin was voted in as PM literally because of how Toronto voted (all Toronto ridings but one went Liberal IIRC...if they all went Conservative it would've had a minorty governemt under Prime Minster Steven Harper). Whether or not that would've been better or worse is not the point--it's that under the Canadian system, someone can lead the nation with less than 40% of the popular vote and rely on concentration of votes to the point where A SINGLE CITY can be the kingmaker. And people wonder why Albertans are so grumpy politically, Quebec continuously threatens to secede from Canada and the Premier of Newfoundland storms out of meetings with the PM?
The Constitution says the one with a majority of electoral votes serves as President. So even if Bush is claiming victory and Kerry is conceding defeat, if the provisional ballots in Ohio cause a turn around in the count, (however unlikely) then Kerry would have to serve as President. The Constitution says nothing about a candidate winning by concession from the other candidates.
It's very unlikely, but in the event that this did happen, you would see a very nasty temper tantrum from the current administration. You could count on them suddenly reversing their position on a Strict Interpretation of the Constitution.
Dammit, you people are really starting to piss me off. The Midwest is not liberal (as much as I wish it were). Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Arkansas, Louisiana; those are midwestern states. Do you see an overwhelming Liberal population in this list? Ohio and Michigan are not Midwestern states! You're speaking like a true coast-hugger. Everything west of Buffalo, NY is considered "Midwest" by an east-coast-hugger. Everything east of the Las Vegas, NV is considered "Midwest" by a west-coast-hugger. Outside of your second paragraph everything is mostly right.
Yeah, so im throwin a mass suicide at my house later today. Email me for directions.
How is the parent modded 'flamebait', and the grandparent not? The parent contained no personal insults and no swearing -- it was as calm a rebuttal as could be. The grandparent is full of childish personal insults and rampant swearing, and is far more a candidate for 'flamebait' than the parent. I think that given most of the replies to the grandparent are flames, that it is far more likely to be 'flamebait' than the parent, which has facilitated intelligent discussion.
He was defeated here in his race for US Congress. He posted this on his web site Monday. Well worth listening to - no matter what side of what isle/line/issue you stand on.
"We are divided as a state and as a nation. Tuesday evening's results might widen that division, to our collective detriment. Many say that the decision we make at the polls on November 2nd is the most important in our lifetime. I disagree. I think that the decision we make on November 3rd on how to act with the previous day's results is even more vital to our future.
Please join me on Tuesday evening - and every day after - in focusing on the opportunities we face and the work we must do instead of allowing healthy skepticism to spiral into irreversible cynicism. No matter who our new leaders are and no matter what you think of them, we cannot afford to battle for another two or four years between "us" and "them." Win or lose, we all need to roll up our sleeves and get to work." - Ted Ladd
http://www.laddforwyoming.com/
As an aside - the incumbant Rebuplican won that election.
Senior NCO in the fight against entropy. I've seen things, man. Things no one should have to see.....
1. Get your brother's and father's friends to steal the election for you and become president
2. Clear brush on your ranch all summer, ignoring warnings that bin Laden wants to fly airplanes into buildings (until he does)
3. Convince your gullible voter base that you have made them safer because it only happened once and win re-election
4. Profit!!!
The existence of the electoral college implies that the federal government is a creation of the states. The federal government is a creation of the PEOPLE.
Regardless of the outcome of this election, I would have still wanted the electoral college to be abolished.
+++ATH0
"One thing that is very strange is how much the exit polls differed from the final results, especially in Ohio. Remember that Ohio uses Diebold voting machines in many areas. These machines have no paper trail. Early in the campaign, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell, a GOP fundraiser, promised to deliver Ohio to Bush. He later regretted having said that."
Here lies wisdom.
Rest In Peace.
Personally I don't like Bush at all, I genuinly dislike him and would rather have "Not Bush" be president.
But Kerry was unelectable. Not because he is bad or evil or anything stupid like that, but rather because his only belief was "Bush was wrong." Without Bush there to be wrong he had nothing to say. Heck if he said "We should shoot all republicans and burn all Churhes in the country" I would have had more respect for him because he would have had some beliefs. I would not agree with him, but I would have had more respect for him.
==>Lazn
I for one do not salute our old fear-mongering, xenophobic, crusading overlord.
Your contender in the meeting was saying that Bush has authorized the rape and murder of millions in Iraq. The number is much lower than that, but her interpretation of what has happened is akin to Hitler in WWII. He personally did not kill millions, but he authorized it. If you feel that Bush was innocent, then you feel that Hitler was innocent.
Also, you are doing exactly what you say you dislike: voting for someone specificaly because of 'hate'. You dislike the hatred from democrats so much that you voted against them. You're a hipocrite!
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
I do not think you are an idiot, I think you miss the point of our nation as a whole.
This nation was founded thanks to the desire to be free of a leadership based in religion. Yes, it was originally founded to give those who came over the right to worship the christian god the way that they chose rather than the way they were told to worship by the governance of Britain. We have lost the ideal of religious freedom in the united states of america (lowercase on purpose, as I have lost all respect for our populace)... It has become the new trend to enforce christian (and dubiously at that) views on all of this nation, rather than following our own beliefs for ourselves, and allowing others to worship and act as they should for their religions. It pains me, but america has become the country that our founders fled from. The worst of it, is that there's nowhere for those of us who still believe in freedom to flee to.
I hear alot of complaining from Demo-types (mostly coastal, no doubt), about how disenchanted they are with the "red states" taking over.
Consider: the whole American system of government is _designed_ to allow for big differences in how each State runs its affairs. Back in the Civil War days, the _Dems_ were the champions of States Rights (for bad reasons, but still...) -- it was the 'Pubs who wanted strong centralized government. Perhaps now, the "old North" should come around -- appreciate the wisdom of decentralization. Let the red states have their Christian conservative style of government (outlaw abortion, teach creationism, have prayer in public schools, capital punishment, etc). The coastals (aka blue states) can have a more _liberal_ style (gay marriage, medical marijuana, etc.) The States would then be in (more) competition with eachother -- a true marketplace of ideas.
That is, this _could_ all happen if States Rights were truly respected. Unfortunately, the central government takes in too much tax revenue, and so it has too much power. The Supreme Court has also done its part to dilute the power of the States.
When you have a big country like the US, strong central government -- winner takes all -- leads to excessive political friction. The regional differences are too great.
Michigan: "The union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as marriage or similar union for any purpose." (emphasis mine)
Ohio: "This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
I'll let you fill in the other nine.
As a resident and citizen of another country I can tell you that I have much more respect for those with truly American courage who are not afraid of taking the risk to remove dictators from power
than of those preferring waiting.
Bush is not smart and made a lot of errors
but he is man of action and I respect it.
I am a European with memory - if not for
American action we would be speaking German or Russian now. It is also tough Reagan's 'star wars' what economically killed USSR.
Here's the link.
An excerpt related to what I said:
---
There was also a decided income divide: Those earning $50,000 or less resoundingly backed the Massachusetts senator (56 percent to 43 percent), while respondents with a higher annual income were more likely to back the president.
---
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Up until yesterday, you got the benefit of the doubt: you surely couldn't predict what a newly-chosen president was going to do, especially with the 9/11 aftermath... When the day comes to hold him accountable for his actions, you don't...
I'm really wondering if the average US citizen is really convinced that George W. Bush did a good job and is the best choice to represent them for another four years.
Just mindboggling...
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
"...when you give it your all and it isn't good enough, you're still a loser."
No. When you give it your all and it isn't good enough, and you think that makes you a loser, you're a fool. Your own candidate's speech to his supporters acknowledges that you don't have to be a loser just because you didn't win the race.
But I have to agree, you talk like a loser. You scoff at your grandmother because she believes in God and anything the TV says. [1] So you decide this makes her a fool, and the only other people you know who voted for Bush (or against Kerry) are racist bigots who fear change. Ah, yes, the "Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid or evil" approach to life.
Your religion (I'm not quite sure what it is... liberalism, the DNC, We Are The World, Might Makes Right, whatever) has failed you, and you're bitter. Perhaps that's more a sign that you need to reevaluate what you believe in than anything else.
You don't have to be a loser. You seem to have chosen to e one, anyway. Yeah, that's something to be depressed about. But maybe you should go have a long talk with your grandma (whether you agree with her or not, the perspective is good), reevaluate, and decide to get on with life. You'll be a much happier person. And you won't be a loser.
Being a loser is a choice.
[1] I know the major news media outlets are mostly crap, but the crap cuts both ways, and there is still actual news in there.
The dolt is still in the house.
Anyway I'm glad it happened this way... everything would have stayed the same with Kerry, so at least 50% of the US and 95% of the world (if it counts) knows they have a fucktard as president in the US.
that if a candidate ran on a platform of "I hate baseball and apple pie, and I eat babies for breakfast", 51% of the voters would still vote for him if he was nominated by the Republican party. Most people know nothing about any "issues", they just know how to pull the red or blue lever like they're told. And, before I get flamed, the Democrats are no less guilty, they're just slightly less numerous.
Well you certainly do if you believe that. And still the Democrats wonder why they lost this election. It is this general elitism and malice (towards our own people even) that drives undecided voters away from the liberals and into the arms of the conservatives.
Regardless of your political beliefs, it is pretty sick that you are so petty that you think we deserve to get attacked because Kerry didn't win. You're like a child who's lost a video game and wants to break the machine. Grow the fuck up.
That Bush has the support of the majority of the country is an undeniable fact, therefore he knows he has their trust and confidence.
Republicans now control both the House and Senate. With a Republican President coupled with these, they will have absolute authority, we are a one party system for now.
Because Bush has the undeniable trust of the majority of people, and the ability to really pass whatever legislation he wants, he will in my opinion do things that will overshadow anything negative he has done in the past.
However to be fair if he actually creates something good, well then we all know who was right.
But I think this is the start of the downfall of the unipolarity system in this world. I believe unipolarity can be maintained if that country is being responsible, however when you start expanding and creating an empire in the middle east (2 countries now officially), the collective security of the weaker states can overturn the US.
We have the global North and the global South. The global North are countries like US, countries in Europe, and basically most countries above the hemisphere (Australia is a notable exception, they are included in the Global north), the global south consists of the very poor countries south of the hemisphere. We have countries from both the Global North AND Global South hating us. This is not good, and I think Bush will only further aggravate this problem.
I couldn't exactly describe the feeling I've had all day... until I saw a poster on another site mention it, and it hit me when I'd last felt this way before. And I don't know why it is, but all day, I've felt the same way I did the day of 9/11/2001. ... I can't really say why, though....
"Now we're getting to Science -- I love this!" -- Dr. Steven Chu, Energy Secretary confirmation hearings.
America has always been on the progressive march as a whole. But we are very cautious due to morals and ethics...unlike Europe who just dives right in. When it comes to wartime, Americans value the hardline and down-to-earth decisions of a republican in office. But once this World War 3 is over (Global terror) expect America to start voting Democratic again.
Life is not for the lazy.
My comment regarding mental capacity of gay folk who decide to put down roots in the rural red states still stands.
goto http://rizzn.com
Arggh!
I get annoyed everytime I hear about how Bush ran away with the popular vote. It was 51/48 for Christ's sake! Reagan/Mondale was a runaway election, this one was actually pretty tight.
This is a good point, and there is something of a historical parallel. In 1992, after years of Conservative rule, the Tory party managed to win the UK general election despite being behind in the polls (even the exit polls) and generally being less popular than herpes.
Five years of corruption and incompetence later, the Labour party (with a new charismatic leader) won a record-breaking landslide and the Tories look to be finished as a political force.
Try to learn from our mistakes however by not selecting a right winger as the Democrat nominee.
It would, however, be a very touch political maneuver to explain to the American people how you ended up winning the election, even after conceding it.
It's not like it hasn't been tried before.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
Where I said "ballot", i meant to say "urn". (Sorry, English is not my first language).
And it never occured to you that it was European imperialism that drove all those native Americans away? Alas, it makes sense you would blame the US for things that happened before it existed.
The Democrats will never succeed by employing a platform of hatred vocalized by agents such as Michael Moore and Paul Begala. It did not work against Regean and it won't work now. The Republicans learned some valuable lessons when their attacks on Clinton backfired. However, the Democrats appear to be too arrogant to evolve.
Europeans were wringing their hands in the early 80's that Regean would initiate the destruction of the planet. All of the vitriol from that period was forgotten when Eastern Europe was liberated and the cold war was won. Now Europe is again nervous that America is embarking on another epic battle to bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East. I suspect that when those tyrannical governments start to fall and their citizens taste freedom, Europeans will soon forget how much hatred they held for Bush.
No worries tho'. As nature abhors a vacuum, Democrats and Europeans will eventually find something new to hate about Americans that do not share their current perspective on the world.
I thought the London bookmakers odds were the best indicator of a narrow Bush win. It is very difficult to judge from the polls anymore. They have turned into a device the media in the US uses to mold public opinion.
an ill wind that blows no good
I just don't understand what people's opinions on why we went to war have to do with the actual reasons. Since none of the given reasons make any sense, wouldn't it follow that there must be other reasons that weren't politically appropriate for general knowledge. What benefit to Bush would there be to go to war for no real good reason? The press isn't very good at making leaps of insight, so you need to dig into the intelligence community to get the real answers.
George Friedman of Stratfor wrote a book on the intelligence (or lack there of) behind the events of the last three years and comes to a conclusion as to why we invaded Iraq, and it's not for any of the reasons we've heard.
You want to know why we invaded Iraq??
We physically needed Iraq's real estate to intimidate Saudi Arabia into cracking down on Al Queda, and establish an overwhelming presence in the region to deter Al Queda from enhancing its position in the Middle East.
That's it in a nutshell.
Read the book for the underlying intelligence: America's Secret War.
I seriously can't believe that some of you (and there's been more than one post of this kind) are talking about civil war and killing people just because your guy lost. Isn't that the very hot-button issue you hate Bush for? Grow the hell up.
That's one thing that you republicans have in common with Al Qaeda. You both want to live in the past and turn your back on social and scientific progress.
The idea of calling Kerry an idiot is ridiculous. He may not play the political game as well as Bush, but it's clear from the debates that he's much, much smarter than Bush.
Call Kerry wishy-washy. Call him unclear. Call him a flip-flopper. Call him boring. But when you support Bush, don't call Kerry an idiot. That's just silly.
The American people voted for a president that presided over an economy that produced a record current account deficit, a record trade deficit, a record budget deficit and a national debt of such proportions that the IMF says they threaten the world economy.
Who ever said all that Americans ever care about is money?
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
I see the problem here! I would like to point out that your particular view of where our rights come from is not applicable to the question of American rights.
The issue of rights is a complex one, and some societies do, in fact, work on the principle that the rights of the individual are explicitly granted by the state, and (this is the important distinction) that which is not permitted is disallowed.
America is a bit different. From the "inalienable rights" referenced in the Declaration of Independence to the considerably more binding text of the 9th Amendment to the US constitution - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - the American tradition is that all rights not explicitly prohibited are allowed. They weren't "granted" by society, they are inherent, and can only be removed by specific legislative action. In other words, you are wrong.
As to the heart of your argument, I didn't find the "I get disgusted" argument compelling when used to explain why interracial relationships should be looked down upon or legally barred, and I don't find it any more compelling now.
You don't like gay people? Tough. In a fair society (which we may have proven we aren't any longer), you should have to come up with a reasonable and compelling argument to bar behavior you don't like. Appeals to a personal sense of distaste or the commands of Zeus, Thor, Ra, the Easter Bunny or YHWH do not meet that standard. Sorry.
It's more like half.
Half of us want to attack countries when they may be a threat to us at some point in the future. Half of us don't.
Half of us want "strong moral values" imposed on everybody, the other half thinks the government should keep its nose out of our personal lives.
Half of us see no problem with supporting the death penalty while opposing abortion, the other half doesn't believe zygotes are children, and believes all sentient human lives are valuable.
All of us think the media and Hollywood is biased. Some think it's biased towards the left. Some think it's biased towards the right. Some think it's biased towards profits.
In 4 years time, we'll see what wonders a Republican president who doesn't have to worry about re-election, a Republican senate and a Republican congress can do. Might as well start sending your taxes directly to their corporate sponsors.
A Bill Clinton in his prime would've eaten Bush for lunch.
There are so many obvoius jokes that could be made on that statement, it's barely worth the post pointing out how many there are.
I see everyone's theories here, ideas that moral issues are more important than economic. Ideas that people are just voting for their party, no matter what. Ideas that the Republican party is just better at campaigning.
To all these theories, there is just one thing you have to explain... Clinton defeated George Bush Sr. If people vote for morality, that shouldn't have happened. If people vote for defense, that shouldn't have happened. If people voted their party, that shouldn't have happened.
Besides that, Kerry is a Catholic, against gay marriage, and practically a clone of the president on Iraq, and defense in general.
Now, I'd like to hear some theories that actually take reality into account.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Then, by chance, I happened upon a very interesting article by Phil Agre: http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.
You're a fucking dick.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
...what happens when one state offers better benefits than another state? Unlike many countries of the past (and even some of the present), you don't need "papers" to pack up and move to another state.
Fine, you say, so people move to where the benefits are better. But exactly how is the state-with-better-benefits supposed to pay for all of these additional people? Assuming (based on current evidence) that these people are not contributing their "fair share" to the cost of such services, it quickly leads to one of two situations: either the state in question goes bankrupt or it radically cuts (even eliminates) services to balance the load. Regardless of which, everyone loses. The unfortunate pack up again and move to the next best state, which eventually collapses under the added load, and so forth until the entire country is in shambles.
I see only three ways to avoid such a scenario: prevent the free movement of people from state to state (unlikely, even under the current administration); eliminate social services in their entirety (popular with many folks, I'm sure, but near-certain political suicide for any politician who even brings the subject up); or maintain the centralized system.
With a centralized (federal) system of benefits, it doesn't really matter if you live in a "wealthy" state (e.g., California) or a "poor" state (e.g., Arkansas) -- your benefits are the same either way.
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
Actually, even just western Europe, consisting principally of France, Germany, and Britain.
It notably does not include Russia - most of whose population lives (I believe) in Europe - and whose leader (Putin) supports Bush. It also does not consist of many of the central and southern European countries who have done the same.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
...because he's one of their guys. And is there any real doubt that Hillary isn't the Democratic frontrunner for 2008 now? The joke in Iowa is that she was seen condo-shopping in the state.
I think he's a disaster for the Dems, so as a Republican, I obviously want him to stay. But the REAL verdict on McAullife comes in 2008. If Hillary wins, he stays a party power broker. If Hillary loses, THEN you'll see a massive shakeup in the Democratic Party. That year will be the moment of truth; who should control the Democratic agenda? The Clinton gang, or the newly emergent Howard Dean-style hardliners that inhabit the likes of Democratic Underground? That election will tell the tale.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Democracy is one sheep and two wolves voting on what's for lunch.
I hope he really lets loose and does every crazy thing he imagines Jebus is telling him to do. I hope he gets on the radio every week and summarizes how that week's direct conversations with God went. I hope he and the Republicans attack more countries, enact more loathsome restrictive limitations to our freedoms, and blatantly whore our nation to the corporate overlords.
Maybe, just maybe, if they go far enough, the idiots who voted them in will start to see why they're wrong.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
As far as citizens' votes are concerned, there is no such thing as a "federal election". We are a country of united separate states (hence the United States). The Constitution (yeah that silly old thing) specifically grants states sovereignty and power over themselves. The states must abide by the US Constitution and Federal laws, but most of what they legislate is completely up to them. Concerning the election, it is not 280+ million Americans voting in a federal election, it is 50 states casting their weighted vote as a part of the Union. The difference is subtle, but very large.
Go back and correct your grammar before I'll reply. I could barely make out much of what you said and I'm not going to make wild guesses at your true meaning.
They may not want you living next door to them, but they're perfectly happy to force their beliefs on you.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I grew up in the midwest and now live in the bible belt and I can tell you with complete certainty the majority of the people I know don't give a shit about the facts or reality. Most of them still believe saddahm worked with the terrorists that blew up the wtc, that abortion is their decision for everyone, that gay marriage is their decision for everyone, that "faith" should be their decision for everyone because "they are right." Most of the people around here, in fact, are believers in all that second coming bullshit - to them chaos in the mideast is a GOOD thing because it "clears the way for jesus." These goddamned wackos want nothing more than to see the world vaporized in a cloud of thunder, and this administration is not only catering to their whims, it's preaching those wacko beliefs from the state department.
Fuck your hypocritical "beliefs."
I don't feel like that at all--I'm more worried about my countrymen being seen as history's next Nazis.
I'm glad you got that cleared up. Now, I think the leader of your death squad is calling. He says it's time to get back to executing homeless children in the streets of whatever Brazillian city you live in.
move to Canada part too. You wanna move here? Go right ahead. We have been having a "Liberal" (centre left, kind of like Canadian Democrats) government that is myred in scandal and mismanagement (another word for what they're doing is theft). Liberal with our cash they are. Yet they keep winning the federal elections. I am seriously sick of you "smart" people thinking that left leaning is automatically better. If I were in the States I'd vote Bush and my IQ is well above average. Look at Clinton. What fscking good did he do for anybody? The recession started during his term in office so he wasn't really a boon for the economy. He ignored Osama during his entire stay in office even after the first attempt at the WTC and the US embasies in Africa. That complacence culminated in 9/11. Oh, wait, he decoded the human genome, right? What makes you think that Kerry would be any different? He's as amituous as Clinton and surrounded with Clinton people. Also a political marriage like Clintons. If you were any smarter you'd realize that these guys have themselves on their minds and not you or anybody else. Clinton was hell bent on getting into history books and not really doing anything real. I am *sick* of those "liberals" and "democrats" (note that I am very much liberal leaning in my beliefs, just the *liberal* parties today aren't really my cup of tea).
How can it be that this country's "moral compass" is so screwed up that it's okay for the president to start a war in a country (which never attacked us or even threatened to attack) that leaves 100,000 civilians and 1,000 US soldiers (and rising) dead, while it's grounds for impeachment to have oral sex in the oval office? When did sexuality become so forbidden that the Statue of Justice was covered up solely because it had an exposed female breast? When was it that personal freedoms and the right for each person to follow their own beliefs and define their own sense of right and wrong fell to making sure that everyone followed the hard-core Christian rules of life (as opposed to the reasonable "help your neighbor and love them as yourselves" Christian rules of life), even if these rules are not compatible with their own beliefs? Since when did we go from "equal rights" to "equal rights to everybody but homosexuals?"
How can it be that people believe that Bush will do a better job of keeping America safe? This seems incredible, considering he already had his shot to protect this country in September of 2001 and he failed it. It is interesting that New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington DC, the three areas of the country that were directly affected by the attacks on September 11th, all voted for Kerry. Yet many people feel that Bush is the person to keep them safer. Why? What has he done to earn this reputation? Certainly, it's not that he went maverick and attacked a sovereign nation with no ties to our attackers. Maybe it's how we gave up on the search for Bin Laden, who was known to be our enemy to attack someone else who didn't attack us. Terrorists, by definition, exist to instill terror into the hearts of a populace, and they did it. Mission accomplished. Our country has been irrevocably scared, and that fear has been used, abused, and manipulated by our administration to keep us under control, and to convince us that it is necessary give up some of our vital, fundamental American freedoms (via the PATRIOT Act, for instance) to keep us "safe." No society should ever have to give up its freedoms. In fact, every republic and democracy in history that has fallen did so because they gave up their freedom for security.
How can it be that the people of this country believe that a man who reduced limitations on mercury emissions (which cause birth defects in surrounding areas), who opened up old-growth forests for clear-cutting, and who gives tax breaks to people who buy gas-guzzling SUVs is helping the environment? Perhaps it's that he called the bills by names which imply that they are good measures, when they are not.
How can it be that a person who changed his mind repeatedly on everything from education to stem cell research to whether Osama Bin Laden was really important, who kept reading a children's book for a photo opportunity even after learning that America was under attack, and who skipped out on the Vietnam war in a sneaky (but sadly legal) way could paint Kerry as being a flip-flopping weakling with a bad war record? And how are the people gullible enough to believe that Kerry did not rightly and justly deserve the three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and various other ribbons that he won in that terrible war? With everyone from his swift boat giving first-hand reports of how heroic and noble he was during the war, how can people believe such things?
How can it be that people have become so resistant to ideas that are not their own? When did "Freedom of Speech" become "Freedom to say only good things about the US government?" Why do people immediately label dissenters as Un-American, when speaking out against the government is one of the greatest freedoms that our country allows us? Since when did "liberal" become an insult? If it weren't for liberals, minimum wage would be lower, blacks and women would still be unable to vote, and slavery would still exist. Liberals are the people who have fought for progress in this country (by sheer Webster Dictionary
This exchange is a great example of how people's moral beliefs affect their views. Let me demonstrate why the poster advocating gay marrage feels morally outraged by your position. I have changed some key phrases (the ones in all caps) in the post to illustrate. I translated it to a similar debate Americans had in pre-1960s America:
> The government allows RACIALLY MIXED COUPLES to have sex (in privacy like
> everyone else). Do you prefer the government outlaw that?
Not necessarily. But I don't want them to legalize it either by publicly endorsing RACIALLY MIXED marriage.
> So you would like to stop RACIALLY MIXED COUPLES from being TOGETHER and acting accordingly?
I would like to rid them of the delusion that what they do is normal and acceptable. A drug user knows he's wrong to do what he does. However he tries to rationalize his habit, he will never try to publicly announce it and he will not be proud of it. Likewise, RACIALLY MIXED COUPLES should know that they are in the wrong and correct that wrong, either by therapy, or by abstinence.
> I guess you still haven't answered my question
> as to how a RACIALLY MIXED marriage negatively affects you
But I have! I said it did not. But the thing is, if I am faced with a casting a vote for or against it, I have no doubt that I will vote against it. For me to do otherwise would be moral hypocrisy and I would be overwhelmed with guilt for allowing sanctioned SINNING into my world. Just as you are guilty of manslaughter if you allow a man to die by refusing some to take some simple action that would have prevented it, likewise you are guilty of a moral crime if you fail to refuse sanction to that which you consider immoral. I can not prevent the government from giving sanction to RACIAL MIXING if the majority votes for it, but if the government has the courtesy of asking for my opinion before enacting such legislation, I am certainly going to provide it.
> If a RACIALLY MIXED couple living right next door to you married,
> how will your lifestyle be changed as a result of that marriage?
It will not change one bit. But I am a homebody; I don't even remember who my neighbours are. Someone who likes socializing with his neighbours would be affected more.
You feel moral outrage about gays activities and don't want the govenment to endorce it. The other guy feels just as much outrage about government sanctioned discrimination.
-I.V.
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
And liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.
"American intelligence" is one of those things like "military intelligence" and "jumbo shrimp." And the irony, of course, is that the word describing this includes the word "moron."
Living in the bible belt I can tell you most of the folks around here are just that. Most of them, in fact, are really little different than those "primitives" living in caves and calling for jihad. This country has become a superpower and is in real danger of becoming just another of those fundamentalist states bent on world destruction in the name of allah. Of course most around here will deny it because (just like those other guys) "they are objectively right and the others are wrong." They defend "right to life" but in reality want nothing more than to see us all dead, dead, dead. What do they care? After all, they'll be "raptured" before the bloody end - "let'em eat cake."
At least the USSR had the courtesy to be a "godless superpower." This nation is already well on the road to becoming exactly what it fears most: a fundamentalist "superpower."
"God" help us all.
I think this view is pretty much accurate but not all inclusive. There are many people in Europe who have reasons I do not know or understand for their beliefs but that is to be expected as I don't live there (but do have friends that do) and the /. portions are not truly representive either.
One thing I do know, you are not going to change our minds by constantly berating us. You will definitely not change the minds of those who voted for Bush, only harden their beliefs.
---
In London's Daily Telegraph, Janet Daley reflects on Bush-hatred as an expression of European anti-Americanism:
He is hated because he is the embodiment of everything that the United States is, and Europe is not: not just enormously powerful, militarily and economically, but brashly confident and fervently patriotic. Where Europe is steeped in historical guilt and self-loathing--so immersed in its own unforgivable past that it is trying to fashion a constitution that actually prohibits national pride--America is profoundly proud of the success of its own miraculous achievement.
---
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
So the "tyranny of the swing states" is better?
American history teaches us that many of the immigrants came here to escape religious persecution, or wanted to be self sufficent or for economic opportunity or for a more classless society.
It is pretty hard to sell leftwing ideals to a society which believes in upward class movement (look at some recent studies in which 20+% of people thought they would become rich), believes in hard work, and is one of the most religious western societies.
What benefits would it provide, to someone who works hard to improve themselves? One would have to appeal to ones ability for compassion, but how do you do that in a self centered consumer society which has no history of group cooperation? How can you convince someone that they don't deserve a new SUV or big TV that they have worked for (or put themseleves in debt for), so that someone else, may be able to get health care, or enough food to eat?
Where would funding come from to fund leftist programs? Obviously more taxes, because cutting military funding would take away from manufacturing and research jobs, and all of their supporting industries.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Funny, Insightful, and true.
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
All three major network anchors (Brokaw, Jennings and Rather) show strong liberal bias. Rather is the most transparent. Last night he winced often and came up with several longshot ways for Kerry to "still win" even though the numbers ought to have dissuaded him. Later, CBS had a professor named Richard Reeves who claimed on national television that the Bush Republicans push forward an agenda only for white, evangelical males.
An excerpt of a NY Times article (by Nicholas Kryztof) this morning:
If that quote isn't glib and inaccurate (and Left), then I don't know what is.
I don't wish to cite too many examples, but your argument about a Right Wing cabal controlling American media falls flat. Most journalists tend to be left of center and if you read a cross section of print media and listen to the talking heads on TV (not just Fox News), you would find that the US does have a good balance -- it just doesn't have a lot of good journalism period.
Most of your points about the benefits of unionism and nationalized health-care should be tempered with their drawbacks (we have to wait almost a year for an MRI in Canada -- most go to the US. Germany's stubborn unions are putting its economy at a standstill (the Economist has several articles ont this)). Anyhow, I don't think that we need more left-wing propaganda (been on a university campus lately?), I think we need a more balanced, skeptical media.
-- I'm embarassed to look like Hemos.
Amen to that!! I voted for Bush but that doesn't mean I agree with all of his policies. You Europeans need to realize that a vote for a man doesn't mean he has carte blanche to run amok and do as he pleases while the nation shuts its eyes. Plenty of us here are watchful and mindful of waht the future may hold. I am pleased by the attitude taken by the parent poster and hope that the rest of us can act smiilarly. If I had mod points I'd definitely give you +1 Insightful!
What is your penile percentile?
I'm often baffled by people who can't conceive of anyone seeing issues differently than themselves, and who can't understand why someone might have different priorities than they do.
... possibly, but probably not. If you assume they are just stupid and there can't be a good reason to disagree with you, then you alienate yourself.
Here you've got 51% of the population who wants George Bush to be president. You voted against him. So all those people (51%) must be stupid right? After all they don't agree with you. If you honestly think like this, you probably stopped developing mentally at the tender age of 6.
There are a lot of issues that people disagree on vehemently. Your first step should be to understand why the people you disagree with see things differently than you do. Is it because they are stupid/crazy/bastards/wackos?
I've noticed this trend a lot here on slashdot. And if you'd like to keep thinking this way, by all means continue. But if you do, you'll see the next election decided by 4-5% instead of 3%. People don't like it when you look down on them because of disagreement. And that is enough to influence a vote.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
That's an amazing fact, which I think says it all.
The power of Christ compiles you!
no way, dude!
filmcritic.com - Movie reviews on Internet time
From reading this thread, I might just add that the issue of raising children comes strongly into play. As a parent, you try to teach them to avoid things you consider unacceptible - whether that is sticking their fingers in light sockets, or making certain moral decisions. You believe that both will harm them, and you understand that they may not have the discernment to choose for themselves. In that case, it's quite important what your neighbor does or does not do. Children are very good at watching what adults do and then imitating it - they automatically believe it's ok. I will most certainly also cast my vote to shield them as much as possible.
Ah well, gotta love seeing all the wouldbe intellectuals spewing venom because they think they know what's best for their country.
Time to grow up, folks. The mass media lied to us blatantly and consistently, and we grew tired of it.
Nobody is _afraid_ of faggots. And being black is not a perversion, it's something that you're born with. Discriminating people based on the color of their skin is absurd, just as discriminating them on the color of their eyes.
However, calling faggots "normal" and allowing them to have "families" is just as absurd, whether you base your opinion on the Bible or on the Darwin theory. Let's lay down this one: men fucking each other in the ass are not normal, OK? Men fucking each other in the ass who want to get tax breaks (that were instituted to help families have children) and adopt children (who by all accounts need a mother _and_ a father to get proper upbringing) - are two levels of magnitude more abnormal.
I'm fine with them fucking each other in the ass, and I'm fine with the civil unions. However, I'm not fine with giving them tax breaks (there's simply no reason to do so) and allowing them to adopt children (which is why they want their unions to be legally accepted as "families").
real Americans (such as me an dubya) kick some Towel Headed Terrorist ass.
You spelled Dumbass wrong.
Kerry's shown some integrity and spirit in his concession. Unfortunately, he - and the DNC - showed none when they were running his campaign. For some reason though that ignoring the issues and focusing on FUD was a good idea.
If you think for a second that Bush and the RNC showed any more integrity or spirit in their campaign than did Kerry and the DNC, then I'd love to get a lead on the illicit drugs you must be smoking.
Anyone with any objectiveness about them could see both sides were equally evil in this campaign--they just did it in slightly different ways. Personally, I felt Bush himself was a little less evil, and thus voted for him. At the same time, I wasn't fooled into believing that his campaign was any less vile or underhanded than Kerry's.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
The media is socially liberal. yes, they promote racial diversity. And like you, when I was a faithful conservative years ago, whenever I saw some gratuitous example of the media's obvious social-liberal bias, I would say "damn liberal media" to myself.
But you can see for yourself that the media is economically liberal. Here is how you can do: in the next year to two, the rightwing machine is going to be trying to rape the Social Security system. Well, they have been trying for years, but they are going to step up their efforts. So watch for what kind of possible solutions are presented to the phony SS crisis. What how often they mention the solution of decreasing benefits. What how often they mention raising the retirement age. Those two solutions are the favord Rigtwing solutions.
The leftwing favors different solutions. THe leftwing wants to raise the payroll tax cap from its present $87K to unlimited. Also the left favors raising the top tax rate paid by millionaires and use that revenue to pay the SS benefits.
You watch PBS CNN CBS NBC ABC MSNBC FOX et al, and you tell which solutions get mentioned again and again and again. I can already tell you which solutions. In fact, some of you have already noticed it too. And then tell me how often the leftwing solutions get mentioned. Please tell me if you hear the, because ever since I became convinced that the Left is right, I have been watching. And I NEVER see leftwing solutions mentioned on major tv networks.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
NOW we see in the latest videotape that Osama Bin Laden has changed his tune.
Sorry to be the one to draw attention to your selective memory, but Troops In Saudi was only ONE of Osama's original gripes. Support of Israeli oppression of Palestine was, in fact, another.
What a utopia that was: women were brutally oppressed and beaten, artists were executed, an ancient Buddhist statue carved into a cliff was demolished by a shoulder missile, native Afghanis lived in constant fear of irritating the Taliban authorities and resented their intrusion.
Hatred of theofascist culture of Talibanistan, is understandable. I, myself, unabashedly reject the multiculturalist calls, and hate them. But I'm not fooled for a minute that Bush has any designs on sending them all back to the 13th Century. His middle eastern alliances, and pandering to the far-right religious base in the US is evidence enough for me that he has NO intention of leaning on Islamic Fundamentalism in any meaningful or effective way.
I fully agree that more agressive measures are needed in the War On Terror, but step 1 is a balls-out effort to end US dependence on foreign oil. Step 2 is a balls-out rejection of Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. (or at least a more realistic and honest approach to the regimes who funded and sheltered bin Laden).
now that we KNOW for certain that France and other countries were secretly pouring money into his regime
not to sound like a broken record, but we really need to see proof of this accusation now. The fact is, this stuff is coming from the Chalabi camp. And maybe nobody believed the supposedly politically motivated charges of his massive Petra Bank embezzling in Jordan. Maybe nobody believed in the supposedly politically motivated charges of his involvement of counterfeiting Iraqi currency after the regime change (AT US TAXPAYER EXPENSE, TO HIS PERSONAL PROFIT!), but certainly you've got to believe that the CIA wasn't fucking around when they intercepted his email, to Iranian Intelligence agents in Tehran, disclosing sensitive US NSA secrets he should not have had access to in the first place. I think that Chalabi's credibility is low, to be blunt. I think the onus of this debacle is on the man who invited Chalabi to sit behind Laura Bush at the 2003 State of the Union Address. Are we REALLY that careless about our allies? If nothing else, it really looks bad.
The people who oppose the United States are generally Socialist.
Rather an overly dramatic abuse of the term there. Acceptance of progressive taxation or worker protections, or civil rights, or even public investment in infrastructure is hardly "Socialism". Of course you follow up with the typical equating of Socialism with Communism, to further distort the statement - and then finish up by equating Socialism with Support for Terrorism.
. . . vacations are a month long,
Are you certain you're not talking about the White House?
and unemployment is a whopping 10-20%
um, that's an awful wide margin. By the way, Apples and Oranges when comparing to the US, since they measure unemployment differently than we do, since the Reagan Years.
Finally, if you think that America invaded Iraq for its own control of the oil, explain to me why, ten years after the first Gulf War, no American company controls any of the Kuwaiti oil market?
Finally, you vastly oversimplify the whole "war for oil" meme. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with "control of the oil" - well, partially, it has to do with the pricing of oil in dollars. Saddam was in the beginning stages of switching to pricing in Euros. Which would have been a disaster for the US and the UK. Still - it's about driving up speculation and prices for a certain vital commodity, which brings in much higher profits for those who deal that commodity.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The Muslims in Srebrenica were supposed to be disarmed and under protection of the Dutch - so called "UN Safe Haven". Those Dutch were there doing nothing while the Muslims were running around the Serbian villages near Srebrenica burning, raping and decapitating (their captain Naser Oric is The Hague answering for those things right now). The complacent US and Europe didn't care because the victims were the bad Serbs. I am not trying to justify what ulimately happened to those Muslims, just explaining what complacency can lead to.
hell, just let the campaigners go to detroit, chicago and cleveland and they can tie up those three states!
Apparently' you're not familiar with the concept of population dispersion. Look at a county by county map of michigan, for example, and you'll see MOST of the state backed Bush. Yet michigan cast all its votes for kerry. why? Because MOST of the people in the state live in the metro detroit area, so the people in the country get to eat cake. Ohio and Chicago are the same way. So is NY, LA - just about every state has a major population center, but in some states the balance is really disproportionate.
Why should the candidates even bother with campaign stops? How many people actually show up for these hokey circle jerks, anyway? Most folks sit home and watch tv - the candidates don't even need to leave washington for that. Now that we have the web and literally anyone can speak their views those quaint "campaign stops" are even more a decadent waste of jet fuel.
One man, one vote is the only fair way. The "electoral college" was made obsolete by the communications revolution.
Here's a headline from CNN from earlier today:
World leaders back 'whoever wins'
Doesn't this sound like something from the Daily Show or The Onion? Alas, it's a sad reality when the rest of the world doesn't have any balls. Where are all these highly opinionated Europeans now? Swallowed their tongues all of a sudden?
a "commie overlord".
I for one would not welcome them.
Please look at this map of the 2000 presidential election results broken down county by county. Hopefully you won't blame all of us southerners for this disaster. I wish I could find the same for the 2004 election.
n /map.asp
http://cabernet.caliper.com/Maptitude/2000Electio
By the way, I live in Georgia, and I am thoroughly pissed off at this president and arrived at the polls an hour before they opened to express my quiet rage.
Ok, think about what you just said. Now slap yourself upside your head (you pick which side) and say "Duh." Congress is now predominantly Republican. We no longer have a balance. We're now in a position where the Republican party can ensure that almost all legislation will get through unscathed. Can't you see that? Our leglislation and executive bodies are no longer balanced.
3 reasons I supported Kerry.
1.Kerry doesn't have his head up his ass.
2.Kerry didn't go AWOL in Nam.
3.Kerry does have some common sense.
None of the above 3 mention Bush.(PS quit hiding behind the anonyous coward handle)
3 reason I hate Bush
1.The Patroit Act.
2.The Corruption shown in Bush's presidency.
3.Bush is an Idiot.(Personal Opinion)
Nuff said.
"There is something that ALL politicians despirately need--SHOT BETWEEN THE EYES"
Geek Hillbilly
"Education" is the word for what you think must be done. And I'll agree, there seems to be an awful lack of it.
When someone graduates from high school in the U.S., they should know:
1. What the national debt is
2. What the deficit is
3. How the national debt is financed
4. Basics of economics (supply, demand, transaction costs, etc.)
5. What the Constitution and Bill of Rights say
6. How the Supreme Court has interpreted our rights
7. Why it is dangerous to erode rights -- even for good causes
8. The legislative processes and the checks and balances
If that were the case, the outcome of elections in this country would be profoundly different.
I'd rather trust an anti-war veteran than a warmongering deserter. Technically, Bush isn't a deserter, but using contacts to go into the national guard was clearly an attempt to avoid going to war, which is also what a deserter does (avoid going to war).
We all know that Kerry is a war hero, and we all know he's against war. He has been since Vietnam. This "We know nothing about Kerry" is just more republican propaganda.
We also all know that Dick Cheney makes money because of the war through Halliburton. Isn't it clear that this war doesn't exist to "spread democracy" or "chase terrorists", but to give money to friends of the republican party? Sure, corruption would also exist if Kerry would have won, but I doubt it would be THAT blatant.
I'm glad I'm not american. Here in Canada, most of us can clearly see the sillyness of this all.
perception is reality
Corrections In CAPS:
The media is socially liberal. yes, they promote racial diversity, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, ABORTION AND GAY RIGHTS AND OTHER LIBERAL SOCIAL ISSUES. And like you, when I was a faithful conservative years ago, whenever I saw some gratuitous example of the media's obvious social-liberal bias, I would say "damn liberal media" to myself.
But you can see for yourself that the media is NOT economically liberal. Here is how you can do: in the next year to two, the rightwing machine is going to be trying to rape the Social Security system. Well, they have been trying for years, but they are going to step up their efforts. So watch for what kind of possible solutions are presented to the phony SS crisis. What how often they mention the solution of decreasing benefits. What how often they mention raising the retirement age. Those two solutions are the favord Rigtwing solutions.
The leftwing favors different solutions. THe leftwing wants to raise the payroll tax cap from its present $87K to unlimited. Also the left favors raising the top tax rate paid by millionaires and use that revenue to pay the SS benefits.
You watch PBS CNN CBS NBC ABC MSNBC FOX et al, and you tell which solutions get mentioned again and again and again. I can already tell you which solutions. In fact, some of you have already noticed it too. And then tell me how often the leftwing solutions get mentioned. Please tell me if you hear the, because ever since I became convinced that the Left is right, I have been watching. And I NEVER see leftwing solutions mentioned on major tv networks.
THAT IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF HOW YOU CAN PROVE THAT THE MEDIA IS NOT ECONOMICALLY LIBERAL. THE MAIN ECONOMIC LIBERAL ISSUES ARE TAXES (PROGRESSIVE TAXATION, WHERE THE TAX RATES RISE AS INOCOME RISES, AND TAXATION ON CAPITAL GAINS).
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I'm curious, though. Everyone is all over my terrorism comment, but nobody can refute my statement on economies?
Yes I can. Economic growth is not particularly linked to democratic forms of government. A stable society, with strong law and order, and fairly open international trade seem to be the biggest predictors. The Russian experiment with western-style democracy is now mostly over, but during that period their economy collapsed to roughly the same size as Belgium. Compare that with firmly non-democratic China, which has quadrupled it's economy since it opened to international trade in 1978; it is now the second largest economy in the world in local currency terms; and over the last 5 years has accounted for 1/4 of global economic growth.
hope this helps.
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
It started when our own troops first refused a mission in Iraq http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3748390.stm . This was the seed that thinking, professional, educated commanders will feed off of when they realize that their job is NOT to defend America, but simply to be Bush's THUGS. They are securing oil-rich territory with their lives so that Bush's people can get richer, and it won't take long until they fire him as their commander in chief.
Seriously, part of the problem here is that people bought into personal attacks that had nothing to do away with issues... Many of which were lies. We need to ban campaign commercials on TV and Radio and just have a series of debates throughout the campaign that are non-negotiated and open to any national party's candidate. Make them debate in public. Make them answer the tough questions. Put in Moderators who will hold every candidate's feet to the fire. Then we'll start to see an educated public make decisions.
Regards, Ian
I will not discuss it because of your obvious liberal bias. Shut up.
Just shut up. Shut up. Cut the mike.
In case you were living in your cube, frantically preparing your killer web page for when Jim Carrey won and brought back the dot com boom or perhaps you were frantically fixing Y2K bugs because you thought Jim Carrey would bring back Y2K compliance contracts, you figured out that the Democrats have nominated Hillary Clinton for president in 2008. She hit the campaign trail today.
The nomination of Hillary Clinton seems more like a last ditch, desperate attempt to get back into the game. She's literally all they have left, the only recognizable name who could possibly survive an election.
Most democrats seem to think the reason they waited this long before calling her up was because she was a sledgehammer being brought out to fix a watch. That's like baseball teams using the worst players and keeping the best players on the bench because the best players are overkill.
Hillary Clinton will run against a republican of much less fame in 2008. It's a mathematical certainty. Hillary Clinton winning is highly unlikely because
#1 gender views just aren't at the level of electing heroines for presidents and most democrats want to subsidize wife domestication not bring wives into the workforce.
#2 a wife who excused a cheating husband and continued to sleep in the same bed while the semen was still wet flat out doesn't have the conviction to make the kind of radical changes the democrats want to make.
...what has expatriating done to improve the situation in terms of both what's going on in the US and what we're doing to the rest of the world? It seems to me that a mass exodus of the (relative) left to Canada/EU/wherever would be the LAST thing that should be happening - it would give unquestioned control of the US and its attendant military and economic power to the Far Right, which seems to me to be a Very Bad Idea. Yes, one could argue that the path the Right is taking us down leads to inevitable economic and attendant military collapse, but that's all hypothetical rambling - do you REALLY want to leave the arch-conservatives in power with no real opposition anymore?
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
I don't know why I even read this page. It pisses me off to read comments from liberals or conservatives "moving to canada" if they don't get their way. It pisses me off reading opinions of liberals or conservatives who vote based on religion or lack there of. It pisses me off when liberals or democrats object to THE WAR.
To those who want to go to canada: GO, put your tail between your legs and go. You are a quitter, you will not fight for what you believe in you will quit and cry like a child not getting their way. You don't help this nation you divide it.
To those of you who are crying about Bush being a Christian or the "born again population of your state": Get over it. There are catholic priests fucking little boys, and there are atheist tv stars fucking little boys. No one said life is fair nor suggested it ever would be. Let the legal system sort them out and complain about that.
To the morons complaining about THE WAR: We didn't pick this fight. Do you think OBL, gave a fuck that there were atheists in the towers, do you think he gave a fuck that there were Muslims in the trade towers, do you think he gave a fuck that there were women and children in the trade towers, do you think he gave a fuck that there were catholic priests, tv stars, politicians, or his relatives in the trade towers?
Do you think he is the only one thinking this way?
The world brought the fight here!
GET IT?
Either your with us or not, PERIOD
WE DID NOT START THIS WAR. WE WILL FINISH
At which place doesn't matter unless your soon to be one of the Canadian immigrants.
Personally I love the USA, I hate its politics, religious or otherwise. I hate the party system.
And I'd be happy to be the first to put a bullet into the Osama Bin Ladens, Saddams, David dukes, michael jacksons, Rev. boy lovers, or any other radical person haters out there who has NO respect for the people in this world.
I'm not the President of the United States of America. I don't have the authority, knowledge, wisdom, or nuts to to run this country. George W. Bush, certainly is not the best president that we have ever had but he is OUR GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING LEADER, SO LISTEN WITH A LITTLE BIT OF DIGNITY TO WHAT HE SAYS. Stop criticizing his grammar. This is life not usenet. Stop complaining about his policy's. Its easy to talk the talk but who here has run the USA? Who here has seen whats on the books? Who here can be president? Deeds not words. Now get back to work before china becomes more productive than the US and takes over the world.
The biggest irony it seems that they voted on something which doesn't really exist at all...
0 901.stm
e.g.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/397
Deleted
Bush is also the first president since 1988 (yup, that was his dad) to get a majority of the popular vote.
I've been waiting for someone to repeat that soundbite. It's meaningless!
1992: Strong third-party candidate, so of course no one got a majority.
1996: Strong third-party candidate, so of course no one got a majority.
2000: Bush lost the popular vote, so of course he didn't get a majority.
2004: No strong third-party candidate. ANY winner would get a majority.
Here. I'll give you the other soundbite for free: More people voted for Bush than any other president in history.
The other half of that fact? More people also voted AGAINST Bush than any other president in history. There were more voters in general.
Both of these statistics are just designed to make 51% of the vote somehow seem like a Mandate, when of course it is not.
ARTIST: Neil Young
:
:
TITLE: Ohio
Lyrics and Chords
Tin soldiers and Bush are coming
We're finally on our own
This summer I hear the drumming
Votes counted in Ohio
/ Dm - F C /
Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are gunning US down
Should have been done long ago
What if you knew them and
Found them dead on the ground
How can you run when you know
/ Gm7 - / C - / Gm7 - C - /
Ok, just for the record, if 20 years from now we are still crusading around the world, and I decide that I don't want to send my son to die for half-baked imperial tendencies I would like to point out that I didn't support the warmongering in the first place!
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Ignoring the rest of your post, the title is a good question. Why did Kerry lose to Bush? What is it about Bush that made 51% of American voters vote for him? Is it the macho guy stance, the push to make abortion illegal, an association of Kerry with Communism, or something else?
Gore won the popular vote and that's all that should matter. Structuring the votes via electoral college to suppress the voice of populated states and amplify the voice of the less popular states represents an obviously inaccurate view of majority. This is in no way fair.
This article should be required reading by all participants in any discussion of reforming the Electoral College.
as a non-US citizen I would like to add:
9. Rough knowledge of world geographics (that includes natural resources and some basics about climate)
10. Rough knowledge of modern history (say 1789+)
err, no, I'm not French, but European. And I personally think, we tend to get the same problems here. But as in many other (often positive) fields the US are just some years ahead of us.
So, is it too early to emigrate to Mars for the next 4 years?
because I voted for CowboyNeal. ;)
America does not have the highest STANDARD of living. When you said "it isn't just a statistic, I've seen it first hand", your mistakingly referning to the QUALITY of living, something the UN does *not* measure, because its slightly relative. However, I somewhat agree with you (although I find Canada - besides the winters :) - much better, I'd have to say America comes in 2nd)
"The most powerful and successful country in the world is further to the right than the rest of the world."
and:
the U.S.S.R. was left of the rest of the world and now is no more
Bush's ideology and the Soviet Union's ideology are not polar opposites. In fact, the whole idea that all political ideologies can be categorized as either "left" or "right" is very suspect; the world is more complicated than that.
- The "right wing" is normally associated with conservatism, which includes fiscal conservatism,
while the "left wing" is normally associated with big government and out-of-control government spending. Bush has increased government spending and the size of government to historic highs. This is behaviour that we associate more with the soviet union than with the "right". Bush has already caused a lot of damage to the U.S. economy. If he were to continue along this path (and hopefully he isn't stupid enough to do so), then he will precipitate a Soviet Union style economic collapse.
-
The illegal invasion of Iraq was a soviet-style act of naked imperialism. I don't know how else to describe it, since we know that Bush's justifications for the invasion were all lies (WMDs, the Al-Quaeda link).
-
Bush is the most authoritarian president ever. Americans have lost a number of freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, including freedom from arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial. Just like the soviet union.
Please understand that I am not arguing that Bush is "left wing", whatever that means. I'm arguing that the categories themselves are useless and meaningless.Doug Moen
I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
I know I am late to this 4000-post debate an noone will see this but ...
We had this problem in the UK. Although the Tories were unpopular in the 'intelectual' media and so people pretendedf they weren't going to vote for them, when it came to it, they did. For whatever reason, who knows.
Same here maybe.
I agree. And there are probably many other things to be added to our lists.
But it's scary how illogical and uninformed the average U.S. voter is. I was arguing with one poster who insisted that Canada's drug prices were subsidized rather than negotiated. He honestly believed that the Canadian government was using Canadian tax dollars to subsidize drug purchases and then letting U.S. citizens come across the border to buy the drugs. I provided links to the Canadian government's own web sites, and he still didn't get it.
China, Buddhism, Communism all await your concession speech, oh champion of majority rule.
Do you read much history? Does it give you the impression that the smartest or the best ideas are often shared by the majority of people?
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
First, be sure to assert the stupidity of the American people for doing this. Doing so clearly defines your superiority to the unwashed masses across the pond, and lets any Americans who may be paying attention (not that they would, anyway) who's the real boss.
Secondly, be sure to bring up some of Bush's failures in the past four years. In the most expensive and extensive campaigns in American history, many important issues -- such as Iraq and the Economy -- were completely ignored. It's important to make those facts known, as they help with again clearly defining your superiority; first you told them who's the boss, and now you've proven it!
Last, be sure to mention something about your future travel plans, such as where you're planning on taking a vacation and more importantly where you're not taking vacation. Better yet, welcome them to Europe with open arms. No one's really attached to their home anyway and want more than nothing else to find a better place to live; by demonstrating your superiority so clearly in the first two steps above, they know where they can go!
IMPORTANT: By no means allow anyone who voted for Bush attempt to explain it! No matter how irrational or idiotic their reasons are, you run the risk of understanding their motives, which could cause irreparable harm to your ideology! AVOID AVOID AVOID! If they attempt to speak, interrupt them or silence them quickly before you become contaminated! Remember that you're the boss here! Show them who is in charge!
By following these instructions, you will... oh, I see most of you already have. My mistake!
There isn't any discussion of politics as they relate to people. Whenever I bring up politics here (Texas) it is immediately met with, "I hate politics", "politicians are corrupt", "let's talk football".
This disinterest in politics ensures that the voter is informed by rumor, innuendo, and electoral noise. People still believe we found WMDs in Iraq, Al-Qaida and Saddam kicked it at his palace, and poor people are poor because they are lazy. It is no wonder that Americans are left with Abortion and Gay Marriage, the two most unimportant topics, as major campaign issues.
I have spent years living in each country. I have enough experience with each culture to know that you are profoundly mistaken.
My standard line is that Canadians and Americans are more similar than Canadians would like to think, and less similar than Americans would like to think.
While we are indeed similar in many very important ways - linguistically, culturally, historically, societally - there are also very significant differences that are perhaps a little more subtle and require a little more thought to see.
Look at the attitudes of the two countries towards the domestic role of the government (universal health care vs. tax cuts), towards the international role of the government (UN peacekeeping vs. Iraq war), towards the role of the government in private life (gay marriage/decriminalized marijuana vs. anti-gay constitutional amendments and War on Drugs), ...
The differences may be a little more subtle than "they speak a different language", but in many ways the differences are just as important.
Don't take this to mean I'm saying the American way is wrong, merely different. This isn't a competition, and the mere fact that I need to add such a disclaimer shows another cultural difference. Life is not unrelenting competition.
You're joking right? Diplomatic power is the way to really get things done? Yeah, diplomatic power worked very well when America wanted its independence. Diplomacy did a bang up job of preventing World War I and World War II. Diplomacy worked wonders at getting Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991. In fact, as we speak, diplomacy is working beautifully in Darfur, Sudan.
If America would have used diplomacy alone to obtain it's independence from Great Britian, we probably would have gotten it, but not until the 1950's . If the Allies would have used diplomacy during World War I, there wouldn't have been a World War II because the continent of Europe would have become the German Empire. If the Allies had used diplomacy during World War II, not only would Eurpoe be completely conquered but there wouldn't be any Jew's left in the continent. If we would have used diplomacy and diplomacy alone to get Saddam out of Kuwait, he never would have left. Now let's turn to Darfur, Sudan. We have been using diplomacy and diplomacy alone to try to bring about the end to the genocide there. Thousands continue to die. At this rate, if we are ever able to reach a successful diplomatic solution, there probably won't be anyone left in the region to "save".
Diplomacy is a joke unless you are prepared to back it up with action and actually have the economic and/or military might to see that action through. History has taught us this important lesson time and time again.
If 59 million American's think Bush is doing a good enough job to be re-elected... America deserves him, his puppet-masters, his lies, his policies, his floundering economy, his record-breaking national debt, his fear-mongering and the world's opinion of America as an ignorant, arrogant, violent and self-centered society. Let America continue to outsource brainpower in the search of a .5 point bump in the company stock, let America continue to act unilaterally in international affairs, let America dig it's own hole... it seems we can't dig it fast enough!
At this rate of spending (coupled with the imminent retirement of the baby boomers) America will become the new Argentina within the next decade (if not within the next 4 years).
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
"Well, the economy is down the drain, Iraq is a mess, Afganistan is a mess, everyone hates America, and I don't think things will change the next four years. How about we just nominate the dullest guy we can find and let The Republicans handle this mess. Four more years of this crap and we'll be seen as saints."
I have a friend who's a politician and actually suggested this strategy for his party (local politician). Unfortunatly they didn't like the idea and was forced to take care of the mess the previous party created and was naturally voted out of office on the next election. Cleaning up a budget will do that.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
Blaming all your problems on the jews is such a cliche. The Germans wrote the book on it and the Arabs are now adding chapters.
The power of Christ compiles you!
If you read the gospels, you'll find not one reference in praise of intelligence.
Bush is the worst president in the last 50 years. This is widely accepted
That's a novel definition of "wide."
One could argue that a poll could be taken to determine just how widely such an opinion is held. Oh wait, we just did. 51% of the country disagrees with your statement.
While Bush certainly isn't the best person in the country to be president, apparently most people thought he was the best one of the people offered. I don't buy the argument that people are misguided, vote blindly, or didn't hear the opposing message. I think the Democratic party got out its message better than it ever has before. Consider Moveon.org, Fahrenheit 9/11, Bruce Springsteen. People heard the message and decided that they wanted someone other than Kerry.
I'm a strong conservative, one of those vilified people here on slashdot. But I hate it when I hear my conservative friends lump all people left of center as "evil" or "stupid" or "dishonest." Both sides have had their fair share of moments that they shouldn't be very proud of.
The blind hate needs to stop. On both sides.
In the interests of trying to heal the divisions of this country, I think all of us (me included) need to try and remember to view those on the "other side," those who voted other than we did, as intelligent people, as people who are worthy to listen to. I couldn't stand Kerry. I was very happy to see him concede the election. But I have to respect that he is doing, and has been doing, what he believes is right for his country. And that's very honorable and worthy of my respect, even if I disagree with his actions and positions.
I want to elaborate on this point for a minute. Where I work we have a number of people who spend a period of time in Washington, D.C., interacting with congresscritters and other Legislative and Executive staffers. After their stint there (1-2 years), they come back here. Every person I've ever talked to who has worked in Washington has said that they now have a different view of the people who work at that level of government. That every single person, agree with them or not, takes their job seriously and does what they believe is right for the good of the country. That's important. That says that the people we elect, and the people who help them, really are trying to be honest with us, trying to do their best to make this country strong.
We need to respect that sentiment.
This is a good argument for changing how a president is elected. For a good read, see...
For another good read, see this article.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Bush and his NeoCon Crownies.
These people have no code! No moral code, no code of honor, nothing zip nada. They don't care about the small citizin for a split second. How can the people of the USA elect such a total disastrous bunch of swindlers as their Elect Saviors ?
I keep thinking about these things like judgment day, when God comes to to earth and has to decide who will live and who will die. The Bush people have IMHO violated any moral code or any code whatsoever in the past 4 years. They have been warned. I fear the worst for them.
Robert
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Excellent, that was very well put my good sir, I only wish /. could give higher ratings than a 5. Keep modding this up!
Best. Webhost. Ever. Dreamhost.
But you don't have a different kind of occupation today, and that is where the numbers of troops are needed
The US military can flatten almost any country without breaking a sweat; nobody's arguing that. The army's high-tech weapons don't do all that much to pacify an occupied country, though - they don't replace the GI marching down the street, making his presence known, helping where needed, keeping an eye and mind out for trouble.
Nobody's saying the US military's not big enough to fight a war. They're saying the US military's not big enough to win a peace.
Good lord, what a complete and utter mess. On one side we have a republican party that is becoming more socially controlling (or conservative) while it abandons the core fiscal conservativism that has been the cornerstone of its ideology for decades. On the other hand we have the Democrats, who were handed a golden opportunity on a silver platter by Bush, but they still managed to make a mess out of it.
I didn't vote for Bush, or Kerry. I didn't see how either one of them had proven he could do the job well. With Bush we know his track record-he's not the worst president ever (there are plenty of candidates for that, like Hoover, Polk, Buchannen), or the worst of the last 50 years (Nixon and LBJ are front runners for that in my opinion), but he's pretty bad at the job.
Look at what happened: a lot of people I know, aside from the died in the whole democrats, voted for Kerry not because they thought he would do a good job, but because he wasn't Bush. On the other hand, a lot of the folks I know who aren't died in the wool Republicans voted for Bush because they figure at least that way they know what they're getting, because they didn't like Kerry, or didn't think he could do any better at the job. I have met very very few people who really liked Kerry who weren't ardent Democrats.
Another problem I've always seen, and it has always made me very wary of the "liberal" point of view is the attitude-the belief that only idiots and the brain dead would vote the other way, that if everyone were smart they would vote the same way you do. That's all well and good, and the conservatives have much the same attitude, but they don't go around proclaiming that everyone who votes Democrat is a back woods hick with a first grade education and brain damage. Its bad marketing. All that calling the people who didn't agree with you idiots does is turn away folks who might, otherwise, agree with you-and in many cases it offends people who have come to their opinions based upon a good deal of insight and critical thinking.
Personally, I'm more socially liberal (and that also includes gun ownership-I believe that law abiding citizens should be able to own and bear arms for protection of themselves and their family in case of crime and tyrany, as well as the aquisition of food), but I'm fiscally conservative. I'd love to see the Democratic party reform itself as a party focused on fiscal conservatism, a government that keeps its nose out of your personal business, and the belief that people should be able to live their lives without being told how to live day to day by the government, or anyone else for that matter.
Hmm, kind of sounds like what I thought the republican party was growing up, without the religious overtones.
500 words. One paragraph.
;-)
You could certainly be better educated than me, but at least I know how to whip up a couple of line-breaks every now and then
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
There is never going to be a meaningful debate about electoral college refore. The reason, changing the system would require two thirds of the states to approve the change and that simply isn't going to happen. There are too many states that know that they would become completely meaningless if we switched to a popular vote system.
Take this elections, for instance. Would the Democrats have cared one whit for New Mexico or Nevada if all they needed was a popular majority. Heck no, they would have concentrated all of their efforts on the 10 largest cities and the rest of the country could vote however they wanted. With the current system, however, small states like New Mexico and Nevada can become critical. In point of fact, if Kerry had taken those states (and he came close in both) he would be the next President.
So forget about the system changing. The smaller states actually like the fact that you can have an election like 2000 where the smaller states are able to conjur up enough electoral votes to overrule the more populous areas of the country.
"I'm not looking forward to the USA Bush will create as it's clarly [sic] not in the interest of most americans nor the rest of the world."
Keep fooling yourself out there like this guy, you democrats out there - it'll do the republicans a lot of good.
Let's keep in mind that through the entire election season, Bush was being attacked nonstop by the press, hollywood, academia, and liberal bloggers. He was accused of stupidity, tyranny, oafishness, dishonesty, war crimes, corporate cronyism, derilection of duty, racism, homophobia, bigotry, and of being a nazi. The candidate you guys chose to run against him wasn't even the one you really wanted, it was the one you thought could win. you picked him in spite of your disagreement with him because you figured the guy you really wanted couldn't win. Yet Bush won with more votes than any other president in history; he's the first president since reagan to be elected with a majority of the popular vote, and the first since FDR to be reelected while his party increased its control of the senate.
Your side lost. Big time. Even though you chose a candidate whom you didn't really want because you thought he would win, and even though you had constant attacks on bush from all sides, you still lost.
Our government is a democractic one, and the people make decisions about who they want to lead. It would be logical to conclude that, if your side loses an election running a compromise of a candidate against a man who is continually attacked, and loses big, it's because the american peole reject your message. After all, if you have a minority opinion and you live in a democracy, you're never going to get what you want. The logical result would either be to give up any hope of ever getting what you want, or perhaps recrafting your message so that it's more in tune with what the american people want. If you knew what was good for you, you'd stop and think in a serious, introspective manner about what it is the american people want and how you can craft a new message that the american people will accept and will accomplish what you want.
You won't do that, however. You'll revel in self pity for a while before concluding that you've got to just shout your message louder and more fiercely. The thing is, your side is utterly incapable of understanding that the american people don't like your line of thinking.You'll revel in self pity for a while before concluding that you've got to just shout your message louder and more fiercely. You'll conclude that you didn't do a good enough job of getting your message out and explaining it to people; that your mistake was not attacking bush fiercely enough. You'll say they just don't get how bad the bush administration is for them; if only they knew better you guys would be in power. You'll spend the next four years fiercely attacking the president for anything you can concoct that'll make him look bad, and you'll constantly decry the state of the nation and the way things are going. And you'll shake your heads in digust and confusion when you lose the senate and house races in 2006.
My blog
...really. I don't swear much or often, but that was quite nice. I'll add to it, it's not just the 51%, it's the other 48% who wasted their vote as well-clearly now, they wasted it, and voted to try and compromise "this time" so they can "work to make it better" the next 4 years. I've seen it election after election after election, over and over and over again. Keep voting for the two headed demon, that's who gets in.
There's only a small few percent of us out here, whether we call ourselves greens, libertarians, progressives, constitutionalists, reformers, independents, who make an effort to REALLY have some change, to vote for ANYTHING but an R&D dictatorship, the same dictatorship and cooperative criminal junta which has RULED over the US for generations now. We are of both the left and the right, but one thing we agree on,and a place we can get together on and start to work more effectively from, is the point that that gangster R&D nonsense is EVIL AND STUPID AND A BIG FAT WASTE OF TIME.
Oh, BTW, don't go "to the wall" easily. Even if it gets down to just anyone "you" alone, fight the creeping fascism, I know I plan on it.
Why so often do I notice that there are many pages seemingly filled with the same comments.
This topic for instance seems to have the first page repeated 10 times.
which I think account for about 1000 of the 3800 post i.e. 100 not 1000.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=223849
China, Buddhism, Communism all await your concession speech, oh champion of majority rule.
Tell me that China has any sort of consensual, democratic government, and we can discuss them.
Buddism? I don't see what that has to do with anything here.
Communism? That's a failed adventure in social structure, now isn't it? If any communist country could even hold a candle to ours, we might have a discussion. China isn't so much communist as facist, North Korea is utterly worthless outside a weapons program that's still 30 years behind us, and Cuba is an insignificant Banana republic.
The Soviet Union Collapsed.
So, challenger of majority rule, bring me some opposing group that's worth even discussing.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
I love reading Slashdot when it comes to tech stuff, but politics here are just unbearable. You would think that the next Hitler was elected president... Of course half the people on the board will state that Bush IS Hitler, which just proves my point. Since this topic is as old as abortion, and just as impossible to discuss, can we just please drop it, and go back to talking about Linux, or next iPod or something?
That seems inaccurate to me. Source?
everything in moderation
> In short, American military forces will now conduct the kind of campaign that would not have been politically palatable during the political campaign season. Go USA!
A conventional army, especially of occupation, can't win against a guerilla army with the support of the population. You guys should know, since you basically invented this tactic in the war of independence, and then got a reminder of it in Vietnam.
Iraq is not a winnable situation - not by military means anyway.
no taxation without representation!
perhaps you read more whining into it than there was.
i wasn't inferring that kerry should be co-president, only that Bush shouldn't look upon this as validation--half of us still disagree.
so what if they hold the election _every recess_ the results of that scenario are still unfair if the kickball players never once acknowledge the barely-a-minority opinion.
einstein yourself. dig.
Actually people "voting with thier feet" is how much of the USA was formed, people moving because of political economic and social reasons. (plus a few prison colonies, in fact more prisoners sent here from England than to Australia)
So if people want to "vote with their feet" by moving somewhere that fits their ideology, I say go for it, it is a basic human right in my book.
==>Lazn
Really need to set nested oldest first.
Notice that the first 10 pages are the same -
so 3800 comments is really 2900 comments.
I have not bothered checking the rest but I think someone should try and fix this error.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson
I would just like to say that I consider the set of values that has been deemed in America to be "Moral" is completely immoral. I've had a few discussions about "moral values" and "family values" with various people, and it seems to me that they are based more in jingoism and/or fear (depending on the particular value) than in an honest desire to make the world a better place.
Did it EVER occur to you that maybe...just maybe the American public actually value family stability? To hell with jobs, without family, I'm livinb in a world of hell all by myself. The fact of the matter is, people stick togeather in tought times. This was most evident durring the depression.
Family with moral values or jobs...hmmm let me think. Hell with jobs, they come and go. But family is forever.
Life is not for the lazy.
...that at super high levels of the Dem party that a controlled loss this election cycle was in their best interest? Look at political reality coming down the pike. The dollar is going to be devalued, severely, no way around it now if we want to export whatever pitiful remnanats of manufactired goods we still make, along with our agricultural surplus. The price of gasoline and diesel at the pump has been held artifically low because of the election, with current barrels of credu over 50$, by all rights pump prices should be closet to 3.50$. Iraq is a near rout, the only thing they have left is aerial bombardment of large areas of civilian packed cities as any sort of effective military tactic. Basically, localised small scale intense genocide. The government spending is so out of control that there is no fix for it. Private foreclosures and bankruptcies are at a 30 year high and climbing. The pension bubble is looming large, I mean really large. Real good paying jobs are evaporating, being replaced with lower paying jobs at less than full time hours with zero benefits.
All that and more is what is facing the "new and recently elected" regime. Envy them?
And that's where all the blame is being to be aimed at as each one of those factors keeps hammering on the US population.
Now, if you were the grand exalted political strategist for the Dems, would you A-take on this task now and be *stuck* with a lot of the manure that is going to be sticking to everything, or B-let the other side absorb it for at least two more years so they get good and completely covered with it?
And don't think this can't happen, in the 64 election I worked as a goldwater dude, I saw the eastern establishment Republicans not only seize control but purposely lose the election, it was a major insider coup of convenience, a double/double cross. It was simply an amazing education for me in realpolitik. They, the coup plotters who are still running the R party now, sabotaged their own election, because they knew that the US couldn't absorb a major war, a moon race, and an expansion of the welfare state all at once, plus try to slide in advanced corporatism and global profits. So they took a dive, and that is exactly what happened, they threw an election on purpose.
What goes around comes around, this election looks like that is what the high level Dems did, I mean really, Kerry was about the most dismal choice they could have made out of their lineup they had in the primaries. You could see them pushing him in subtle ways, both with what they did and how they controlled the propoganda and spin in the media. You really don't think that was accidental, do you? Of course it wasn't, so therefore, there's only one possible reason for it, and I just outlined what that is.
Amen, preach it brother! More proof that religion is bad... BAD... BAD!!!!
Meh.
And they are telling me that believing the bullshit that Timmy down the hall in your dorm tells you is a bad idea.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
Yes, at which point the south was mostly democrat. I'm not talking about republican VS democrat, I'm talking about the south.
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
There is a reason for the electoral college. The popular vote would mean presidents campaigning only in certain states (California, Texas, New York, etc.) and leaving the rest to read about the candidate's planks in the newspaper.
"I don't think many Americans realise how much the world hates your president. "
And they won't realize it, until some nation in this "world" you speak of, musters the integrity to do something about it. That means, in case you haven't figured it out yet, taking military action against the US. Don't hate the US that much yet? Oh well.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I think that the Republican party does more for the middle class than the Democrats do at this point. The tax cuts (targeted at "rich people") did a lot of good for middle class people trying to get ahead. The child tax credit is very nice for the parents of young kids, and the tuition credits are helpful for those in college. The new HSA's give middle class people a way to sneak around the 7.5% floor on the deductiblity of medical expenses and take away the risk of losing everything not used in a flexplan. All of these things phase out at "higher" incomes, and all of them can help out a typical middle class family - but the Democrats fought them tooth and nail.
I'm not sure that the Democratic party can come back to the middle class. They've sold out to the coasts and to the celebrities (as you said) and I don't think that they could reconnect with middle america. The Republicans have at least said that they'd like to get government off of most peoples back (whether or not they do that is another matter entirely!) - but that's what most people want and that's 180 out of phase for the Democrats.
I'm not a Democrat, but I'm not sure what they could do to start being competitive in the rural areas again. In Iowa, Democratic candidates won both the state senate and house seats in my rural district, so it can happen - but they were not the kind of Democrats that could win at any higher level - and that's probably the problem that the Democrats face.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Look at countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, France, etc. Do you see a lot of citizens coming over here from there to live permanently?
Setting propaganda aside for a moment, do you have any idea how much of people's income is take by the governments in these countries? If you don't please investigate. I would like better health care as well, but what goes on in the majority of these countries is nothing more than a large redistrobution of wealth. I used to live there.
It's easy to have rose colored glasses, but be realistic. Not everyone is willing to give half their paycheck to pay for everyone's problems.
If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
Just as an additional note: W will probably be allowed to elect at least 2 supreme court justices, which will unbalance the judicial branch of government as well.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Good guys finish last.
Actually, the saying is "Nice huys finish last". And indeed, Kerry is very nice.
You also place far too much emphasis on speech hiccups just as people placed too much emphasis on Kerry's flip-flopping.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I see, so it's the Israeli lobby in the U.S. that pressures the government to support Israel, not the Jewish lobby. Of course. You're not blaming the jews for anything. I'm sure some of your best friends are jews as well. It's the neo-conservatives and Israeli pressure groups in DC that are to blame for all of America's troubles - not the jews. The jews have nothing to do with it. Those two groups are so obviously seperate and mutualy exclusive.
The power of Christ compiles you!
Claimed to have voted for Kerry, I think the US still use secret ballot?
And I agree with most of what you want (except that there will always be taxes, although we could cut back on a lot of spending)..
BUT....
Republicans are not conservatives, and Kerry is not a liberal. George and Co want you to BELIEVE that they are conservatives, but they are not. A conservative doesn't pass every single pork spending bill his political party can come up with, or run a huge deficit, for example.
Kerry doesn't fit your definition of Liberal, and Bush doesn't fit your definition of Conservative. I'm going to assume you voted for Bush... why?
Do you also believe that the government should encourage religious values? Do you think the government should ban gay marraige?
You're also only a conservative when it's convenient to you - you don't want to help people, unless it's your father-in-law and grandfather-in-law, in which case you think they're entitled to keep the same job despite changing business conditions. Next you'll be telling us they deserve unemployment or something.
But, back to the original post, I know plenty of people who are "conservative" because they don't like black people, are convinced "liberals" are going to take away their guns, and are terrified that gay people might live happy lives together.
"Conservatives" are just as guilty of trying to run people's lives as liberals, they just try and run different parts.
paintball
Why did they not moderate this as offtopic?
It's about Kerry Konceding!
I took the opposite route, working as a precinct captain for Gephart in '88 before drifting over to the moderate right. Yeah, there used to be one.
You hit dead center when you say that the GOP has left itself open on several fronts to an aggressive liberal party. I miss the days of having two or more viable points of view, not just "this" and "not this." A good place to start would be acknowledging and welcoming voters of moderate religious faith. There is a big group between the atheists and the born-agains, and they're just waiting for someone to take them in.
I'm hoping, honestly, that this election is a watershed for democrats the way the Johnson-Goldwater blowout was for the GOP. The soul-searching and realigning that resulted from that led to Reagan, the GOP uprising in '94, and of course the current president. I'd love to see a liberal version of this.
I'll tell you what the 'effect' is! It's pissing me off!
Is anyone else out there bothered by the fact that technically, because of the use of electronic voting machines and paperless ballots, there is no way to prove that Bush actually won the election?
Oh, sure, you can argue that we wouldn't know if Kerry won either, but still, either way, doesn't that bother anyone else?
The People have spoken!
Mr. Bush won. Mr. Kerry lost, and was man enough to realize and admit it.
So to all you whiners, piss and moan all you want. Get it out of your systems. Eventually you will have to deal with the reality of it.
I think you've got a bigger problem than you're making out.
... confirm this with other non-US people if you must ... take a deep breath ... continue.
As others have pointed out, your left wing (Democrat) party would be regarded as right wing in many/most other democracies.
Pause
Your Republican party has progressively moved itself further and further to the right, and as a result you could reasonably expect it should be appealing to less and less people in the process. Obviously this isn't the case, so you have to ask why.
Reasons that occur to me:
- fear; GWB promoted a fear of terrorist attacks extremely well, and Osama bin Laden's latest video helped him hugely
- ageing population; it's well documented that people tend to move to the right politically as they age, and there's a huge grey vote that's going to grow in proportion to the rest of the voters for at least the next 10-20 years
- simple vision that is easy to understand; GWB very clearly said "Follow me and I'll lead you to the promised land, free of terrorism". Kerry's vision was a lot muddier
- positive message; GWB was all about "I'll lead you out of the darkness, as I've already done for Afghanistan and Iraq by bringing them democracy", while Kerry was all about undoing the bad things that Bush had done
- single-mindedness; GWB consistently said the same thing over and over, whereas Kerry tried to present himself as rounded and across all the issues. I doubt many people think Bush is across all the issues that would normally confront a world leader, but apparently voters don't see that as important at present
- war; countries tend not to change leaders during wartime
- religion; the Republican party clearly positions itself as a Christian party, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are perceived by many as "good vs. bad" as well as "Christian vs. Muslim". It's not a big jump from there to "Christian=good; Muslim/other=bad" for many people
I'm betting study of how Bush/Cheney managed to win this election, against the very clear expectations of the rest of the world and after a pretty bad 4-year track record in those areas that most people thought were critical (i.e. economy, health, foreign policy, education), will become a very popular target in political courses over many years.
So bring it on.
In keeping with my view that things need to get a whole lot worse before anyone lifts a finger, the go ahead and do whatever it takes to make things orders of magnitude worse.
$12.00/gallon gasoline?
80% unemployment?
Dissolution of the UN and NATO?
Former allies forming a coalition and declaring war on the US?
My scenario is so much worse than the worst case scenario of the darkest doom-and-gloomer, it's not even funny. But I really think things need to become far worse before people really wake up.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
> About why I can't accept Europe as a nation yet:
I have a simpler metric. When the EU is seated in the UN as the replacement for it's former member states, then it is a single country.
Democrat delenda est
world leaders coming to work with Bush all of a sudden? Wasn't that Kerry's big selling point? He would bring "friends and allies" to the table?
Strength and determination--they smell it and fear it.
I created a table mapping the 2004 state by state ACT composite scores with presidential voting. (The ACT is a test used for high school students as part of the college admission process in the US). The states are listed from highest ACT scores to the lowest. I think it makes interesting reading.
Vote. State........ ACT Score
Kerry Vermont........... 22.7
Kerry Maine............. 22.6
Kerry Connecticut....... 22.5
Kerry New Hampshire..... 22.5
Kerry Oregon............ 22.5
Kerry Washington........ 22.5
Kerry Massachusetts..... 22.4
Kerry New York.......... 22.3
Kerry Minnesota......... 22.2
Kerry Wisconsin......... 22.2
Bush. Iowa.............. 22.0
Kerry Rhode Island...... 21.9
Kerry Pennsylvania...... 21.8
Kerry Hawaii............ 21.7
Bush. Montana........... 21.7
Bush. Nebraska.......... 21.7
Kerry California........ 21.6
Bush. Indiana........... 21.6
Bush. Kansas............ 21.6
Bush. Arizona........... 21.5
Kerry Delaware.......... 21.5
Bush. Missouri.......... 21.5
Bush. South Dakota...... 21.5
Bush. Utah.............. 21.5
Kerry Michigan.......... 21.4
Bush. Ohio.............. 21.4
Bush. Wyoming........... 21.4
Bush. Alaska............ 21.3
Bush. Idaho............. 21.3
Bush. Nevada............ 21.2
Kerry New Jersey........ 21.2
Bush. North Dakota...... 21.2
Bush. Virginia.......... 20.9
Kerry Maryland.......... 20.8
Bush. Oklahoma.......... 20.6
Bush. Florida........... 20.5
Bush. Tennessee......... 20.5
Bush. West Virginia..... 20.5
Bush. Arkansas.......... 20.4
Bush. Colorado.......... 20.3
Kerry Illinois.......... 20.3
Bush. Kentucky.......... 20.3
Bush. North Carolina.... 20.3
Bush. Alabama........... 20.2
Bush. Texas............. 20.2
Bush. New Mexico........ 20.1
Bush. Georgia........... 20.0
Bush. Louisiana......... 19.8
Bush. South Carolina.... 19.3
Bush. Mississippi....... 18.8
As you can see the top 10 states as ranked by ACT composite score all voted for Kerry and of the bottom 10 states 9 voted for Bush. I don't know what to make of this but I need to keep typing to get around the lameness filter. So this line goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever.
Thank goodness there are a few who remember. Thank you.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
So all you have to do is persuade some of the electors that they've been had.
Standard of proof are going to be high. And you only have a couple of weeks to do it. Good luck.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Most people's student loans are worse than that.
paintball
While I predict the same general trend is going to hold for SATs as well, why did you choose to use ACT instead, given how SATs are more widely taken? Was similar data simply not available for SAT scores?
"American 2054 = Britain 1950?"
I'm going to laugh hard when the UK re-elects Tony Blair, and the continuation of the Bush agenda for Britain.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Good point. However unfair it may be, if someone has an interest in it and can put the kibbosh on it, it will stay. But large states have a lot of clout in various spheres. They might be able to do something.
However, the electoral college system has been modified at least once when they gave DC three votes (the population of Wyoming is actually less than DC). Puerto Rico (bigger than half the states) really ought to petition for that if they're dead set on staying a commonwealth. As for guam, samoa, and the virgin islands... tough luck for them eh?
Also, even if Kerry took New Mexico and Nevada (and Iowa and Wisconsin) that would only tie the vote if he lost Ohio. I'm not sure where you heard that he would win otherwise.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way ouy.
That the electoral college is nondemocratic and controversial is hardly news. But the winning party never wants to rock the boat, since it's the one that got them there. Thus having both parties get burned by it in succession might be the one thing that would actually promote debate.
Although a tie would mean it would go to the legislature, and therefore be a Bush win, that would hardly be a satisfying or decisive victory, now would it? Of course this is a man who lost the popular vote and had to settle for a supreme court vote to guarantee his electoral margin once already, and still governed as though he had a mandate, so failing to win a majority of electoral votes would hardly cause him to lose sleep. Who needs a mandate from the election when you're chosen by God, eh?
While certainly did insult Dubya, it is unrelated to the issue of electoral reform. As for GWB's imbecility, I hold that truth to be self evident. The relative contributions of the booze, the coke, the cronies, and the church to that is a matter of debate.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I wrote:
/sarcasm
Look at countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, France, etc. Do you see a lot of citizens coming over here from there to live permanently?
you wrote:
Setting propaganda aside for a moment, do you have any idea how much of people's income is take by the governments in these countries? If you don't please investigate.
Gasp! You mean, the taxes are higher there than they are here!? I had no IDEA!
Umm. Yeah, I know full well the that taxes are higher there. THat is one reason why the quality of life for the average person is higher there. Although I never would have believed it 5 years ago, it is now apparent to me that high taxation is good, as long as it is not spent on military too much. Investigate it yourself. I already have. In fact, if you read my sig, you can find links to pages that discuss that very topic!
You wrote:
I would like better health care as well, but what goes on in the majority of these countries is nothing more than a large redistribution of wealth.
"Nothing more than a large redistribution of wealth"? How about "nothing LESS than a large redistrobution of wealth"? I got news for you: redistribution of wealth is a GOOD THING. Go where the redistribution of wealth is high, and there is where you will find the highest quality of living. Swden, Norway, Denamrk, France, etc.
Now, that redistribution is almost certainly not the only cause of the high standards of living. It may well be that the people are smarter or more educated, thus they know that redistribution of wealth makes for a better life for all.
Or perhaps they are just less easily fooled by their politicians than some other countries?
((COUGH)))AMERICA(((COUGH)))
Now, you will no doubt cite the Soviet Union or Cuba or N Korea as counter examples. Nope Saw-ree! They did/do not redistribute much wealth, as they do not have good gernerators of wealth. In order to redistribute wealth, you have to generate it first!
It's easy to have rose colored glasses, but be realistic. Not everyone is willing to give half their paycheck to pay for everyone's problems.
Man, talk about circular logic! Let me just point out to you what you just said: "Not everyone is willing to give half their paycheck to pay for everyone's problems."
Oh, man! Looking into your mind is like looking into one of those carnival House of Mirrors!
Let me just say this: when we take care of the weakest of us, we take care of ourselves. Do not let the greedheads suck you into their rigged game. The house always wins, and they own the House. Play the odds.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Link?
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
Keep in mind that we already have an extremely powerful arm of the government that represents states rather than people; the senate.
That used to be true when the states directly selected senators. Since they are now voted in by popular vote, keeping the job means satisfying voters, not the state govt.
--Tony
I stood in a University Residence in Canada watching the bush/gore results pour in. When the final results were announced, the only person in the room to say anything was an american buddy of mine.
All he had to say was "Oh $#!^, I'm going to war."
He was right.
Seeing as America is currently at war, I wonder what he would say tonight?
That way, the Red States can't impose their "moral values" on the Blue States, or vice versa.
With zero vetoes so far it would seem he controls the legislature as well. And if it weren't for filibusters he would be having an enormous amount of influence in the judiciary as well.
you know what? I used to be a christian, now I am not one, I know all about the damn bible and I don't like what it says and I refuse to live by it, I don't have a problem with you, I have a problem with your god.
I'm guessing that y'all in the red states have known how important "moral values" are for years. In the blue states, we were completely blindsided by it, and it scares the shit out of most of us. The fact is, nearly a third of the electorate believes that "moral values" are an important issue. We honestly had no idea it mattered to anyone, and most of us us are scratching our heads trying to figure out why it would matter to anyone.
The term "Moral Values" can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. I think what people thought they were responding to when asked if "Moral Values" were important was character.
Why is it so surprising that people would want a president with a good deal of character? Regardless of how you feel about each candidate, Bush did a better job at appearing to be more straightforward than Kerry, and I really think that's why a lot of people went for him. I know I'll get flamed to high heaven for daring to say that Bush came across more sztraightforward, but that's how a lot of people felt.
Personally I never found Kerry very likable. I know it sounds silly, but even just the whole thing about the Botox injections really turns me off - I cannot imagine someone that vain (or weak minded) being president. There are other reasons too of course but that's kind of like the canary in the mine.
If the Democrats had sent me someone like Dean, I could have voted for him But Kerry? Urg.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Did he misquote other vets who spoke of atrocities witnessed and committed? They happened. Truth dishonors noone. Is there any doubt poorly-led American troops are, much like other folks, capable of torture? Hint:
http://www.aztlan.net/us_torture_pows.htm
Vietnam was an occupation. We don't do those well. It is inherently dishonorable to fight that kind of war.
Kerry was right to do what he could to truthfully testify to what was going on, in an attempt to end it. What can there be to dispute? Do you have an answer to his question? How do you ask someone to be the last one to die for a mistake? It was a mistake.
What if after the election and the absentee balots and ect, are counted it turnes out that kerry wins. if kerry concedes, does that meen that bush would still win
A redistribution of wealth is only good in a society where everyone already has the mind set of being hard workers. Here in the US we have a few too many slackers who are unwilling to work because they know they can get free stuff to not do so. Especially since this wealth is(supposedly) just being taken from the "evil rich" who, after all, just got "lucky" ("won life's lottery" as Daschle would have you believe). That kind of mentality is essentially unheard of in Europe.
I recall reading of a poll in which people of different wealth status were asked what the most important factor was to becoming wealthy. Poor people said education. Rich people said hard work.
Let me tell you, the rich are right on this one. I know a lot of immigrants to the US who come here with just the shirt on their backs, and typically have a 3rd or 5th grade level of education, but who are very nicely and/or retired early because they started their own businesses and work their butts off.
If you've the mentality that poor people are poor just because they aren't "lucky", I ask you to look up Oprah Winfrey's little experiment done through the James Addams Hull House entitled "Families for a Better Life". Well, actually you'll probably be too depressed if you read it, since it thoroughly debunks this silly notion of wealth through luck. Which was exactly the opposite of what Oprah wanted to prove, but she was woman enough to acknowledge the results and concede there was more to wealth than just luck. That's a step up from Daschle, but it doesn't stop ol' Tom from trying to foist that lie off on the rest of us. And too many people believe it.
Government IS the problem.
Another sad day for the wise, another happy one for extremists, religious nuts and other blind fucks all over the planet.
Kerry, Bush, Nader, left, right, I don't care. But just look at the lack of critical thinking, the utter emptiness and lack of reason, and cry. Incomprehensible to almost anybody living in the real world outside the US. What a bleak view for the future. Most people don't deserve the democracy they live in.
Please, no more interviews with "the average American on the street", and no more documentaries of Fox 'News'. It started out funny, but it quickly became the stuff nightmares are made off.
Why does everybody around me feel so jaded about this whole election and its outcome...
I (as a Kerry voter) also concede defeat to President Bush.
I plan on sending George a congratulatory bag of pretzels.
Its that it is official: You can lie, mislead, and divide, and sucessfully win an election.
Out of country for the Clinton administration, were you?
So Bush got it. Let see when he reviels his plan to build a portal to release the DEMON OF KRAGGARDOR. Causing world-wide terror, fear, war-mongering, destruction and oppresion of people. Wait...... Well a Demon would be cool non-the-less.
Slashdot 1|0 Productivity
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Getting to declare yourself Canadian, but still getting to try to fix things here? Aces! When can I get a bumper sticker?
20 more comments until what? BTW- BUSH SUCKS!!!
Meh.
YOu will NEVER convince me that working hard and striving gives a high quality of life. THat is SO insane! Lots of vacation time is high quality. A short work week is high quality. Medical care from the state paid for by taxes is high quality.
Having lots of time off to do as you please is high quality.
Commuting an hour a day, working your ass off, afraid you are going to be fired and lose your health insurance is NOT high quality.
WORKING HARD year in and year out in NOT high quality.
Yet 10 years ago, I said the same things as you. It is amazing how malleable young people are....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I see that you continue your cyber-stalking.
Lies. You are fuckin lying. Canada's health care is in shambles and the taxes (all of them) add up to being outrageous.
I am not lying. Drug prices for patented medicine in Canada are negotiated and regulated by the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board of the Canadian government. From their web siteThey do not give money to drug companies to buy, or subsidize the cost of, drugs sold in Canada.
You want to fucking implement socialist constructs in the USA and you think it has NO COST?
Everything has cost, but Canada has proven that negotiating prices for patented drugs results in a savings to consumers -- regardless of whether any other portion of the Canadian health care system is adopted.
FUCK YOU.
I'm flattered, but I'm straight. Sorry.
You are the idiot here. You are also the loser. Your candidate is anti nuclear power and was anti-NRA and was a certified gun grabber / confiscator / banner.
Do you have a copy of the certificate? If so, who issued it? What guns has he "grabbed" or confiscated?
What the hell is wrong with you?
Nothing. I'm not the one stalking you all over Slashdot.
Start a socialist party so at least the name fits. Democrat no longer makes sense.
Many Democrats are in favor of purchasing drugs through Canada.
But at the very least, electors should be eliminated. There should be no possibility of "faithless electors" who are accountable to absolutely no one going against the wishes of their constituents.
+++ATH0
I suppose that we should have waited for the U.N. members to finally ok the liberation of iraq. I mean after all we didnt really give the inspectors enough time to do their job. Saddam was really working hard to remove any stumbling blocks so the inspectors could look wherever they wanted at any time for weapons of mass destruction. I mean after all we ONLY gave saddam 12 years to allow the UN to compleate their goal. Plus i mean i guess its ok that saddam was paying the families of hamas who lost members in sucide raids in isreal. Sure that must be ok.
/end sarcasim
,but at least now since the United States and other countries liberated that country, you can now vote.
As far as us Americans careing about moral issues what were we thinking? We have no right to care about moral issues! We should be going with what the rest of the world does and feel how they feel. After all we are here to serve you. Next time im sure we will consider your feelings on morals before we vote about them.
As far as war goes who are you europeians to point fingers at us? England, France, and Spain were enemies for centuries. After all france took a great intrest in our independance war soley because we were rebelling against England.
Germany started what 2 world wars?
France was the first to get involved in vietnam. France also, as i mentioned above, have had strong naval wars of conquest against England and Spain. France who are you to condem our views on capital punishment? After all you had something far worse in terms of human tourture have with the French Guiana that you formally dropped after WWII and left them there to die. At least we make the death penalty quick and swift for our convicted murderers.
Russia...U.S.S.R. and their world B.S. for centuries that countries around the world asked the U.S. for assitance when it came to deterring the Soviets from invading their land. Plus isnt russia currently invovled in a bloody civil war themselves right now with Chechnya? Not to mention Putin is now enacting so many new censorship laws that their own democracy is going back to the old Soviet days in a hurry. Why isnt there a world outcry for the Chechnyians and the civil liberty violations in Russia right now? Also the U.S. has pumped a lot of money into many economies around the world including the post Soviet fall in Russia.
The United States entered both WWI and WWII to fight along side the remaining allies to liberate france and surrounding countries and to drive Germany back to berlin and Japan back to tokyo. We have helped in times of crisis around the world when asked. We have defended Post WWII western Germany from the invasion of Russia for 4 decades. We protected South Korea from a North Korean invasion since the 50's. We (the South Koreans and Americans)are currently still in a state of war with North Korea.
After all this do i ask for the world to kiss our asses? No i do not! I dont expect anything out of anyone but the common courtesy of letting us vote for who we want for whatever reason without belittling us for doing so. We could care less who you all vote into office. We only care who you vote for when you are being forced to vote for that one person. When your civil liberties are violated and you are unable to vote or make your own choices to run your lives.
Iraq will soon be able to vote for who they want into power. We may not like who they vote in
In the United States we are all made up from immigants that came from countries around the world. I myself have a strong German history in my family and i feel very closely to Germany for that reason. I am compelled to learn as much as i can about that country and one day hope to visit.
The point of all this is the United States is asked to help in the world and most of the time we do so. Obviously we cannot answer the call all the time. We in the U.S. are brothers to the rest of the world from our immigrated ancestors from the past.
Some people seem to think that I'm going on about all Kerry voters. But I am not - only about the ones that felt like voting for someone and instead voted for someone else.
There are real tangible benefits to voting for third parties even when they do not win - that is what people seem to forget.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We already won by military means. You're right, a foreign army cannot win against a gurilla force with the support of the populace, however an occupier with the support of the populace has already defeated the guerillas and it's just a matter of time before they are hunted down or surrender. By the way, That only holds when the occupation is unpopular in the home country of the occupier. The American Revolution was increasingly unpopular in England, and Vitenam was unpopular in the US. The Second Gulf War is popular in the US, and the occupation and reconstruction is popular, or at least accepted, in Iraq. The only place the US will "lose" the occupation is at home.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
hmm... all that and you cannot even use you real acount to post with.
First, i think your beliefs you expressed are wrong. And yes war is a neccesary evil that we must put up with.
You go on to mention the kyoto protocal and the world. haha. First, the kyoto bullshit is nothign but garbage designed to redistribute wealth. Find a real solution to a problem that is still arguable and maybe we would jump on. The world isn't going to hell. It isn't going to disapear tomarrow. It isn't even in trouble. We have cleaner air then when we first started tracking it. The enviroment is in better shape then it was 20 years ago. It may not be the same shape but it is better.
You also mention the U.N. what a joke. The U.N. hasn't been able to do anythign without messing it up. They think passing a resolution will end genocide in africa. You have a few countries that will block any meaningfull actions because it might disrupt thier financial standings (yes i'm including but not limiting this to the U.S). The U.N. needs to be scraped oe seriously updated. I cannot believe someone would actually think the U.N is capable of doing anythign constructive or for the betterment of the world. (wich is also subject to opinion)
Yuo asked if i have saw someone die. well the answer is yes. several people. some deserved it while other didn't and then there were a few i didn't know about. Death is a process of life and isn't something so terible. Sure it isn't the hapiest thing in the world. It is somewhat saddening but it isn't the end of the world You call me a troll because i don't believe the same as you. Well were i come from we have name for people like you (lets hug a tree and save the world) but i won't repeate them. good luck with life. don't look too hard for disapointments, you will find them. instead look for the brighter things in life, you will be happier.
I understand that sharing principals can lead to split votes and then weakening of a party compared to another. In fact did not Clinton get voted in partly because of Perot taking in many Republican voters?
All that means is that a platform must be different enough so as to dampen such a split, and also able to take from both sides. I really feel like the libertarian platform is at a place now where it is very different from the other ones and can appeal to people from both parties.
There is room for a few parties as long as the platforms are distinct as you note.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Violence brings more violence.
If the US will be attacked again, we don't know.
But if that happens the rest of the world will say, well didn't you vote for Bush? You should expect that coming...
To be fair, the Bush platform is only against embryonic stem cell research. Bush actually funded half a billion dollars worth of adult stem cell research during his first 4 years (it should be noted that no long term treatments have been developed with embryonic stem cells, but adult stem cells on the other hand have found their way into something like 5 current working treatments).
As for the No Child Left Behind Act, Kerry also came out in firm support of the act. Although he says he can fund it better than Bush did. If you are looking for an issue to differentiate Bush from the pack, this isn't the issue to use.
As a dedicated independent voter in the US, it constantly amazes me that the right and the left are able to pump so much SHIT information into the media. What scares me even more is that so many of you actually believe it.
As for the choice between a Bush and a Kerry presidency, most independents such as myself were quite pissed that we had to chose between two people few of us thought would be an excellent leader. This two part system needs to end so we can get some real leaders on the ballet, not your party's most favorite whippingboy.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
That's actually an improvement from 2000. 92% of African Americans voted for Gore.
The population of the country has increased. Sure, Bush got the most votes in history, but he also got the most votes against him of any incumbent president in history. Population and turnout were increased.
What matters is the percentage, and while Bush did clearly win it, the margin is still pretty close. Add in the fact that I'd bet many of the non-voters dislike Bush, and you have a president whom at least half of the country is unhappy with. Now I'm not saying he didn't win, but the fact that our system has come down to this seems indicative of a systemic problem.
Under different forms of government of government this would have seen an armed upraising or states fracturing off and declaring independence. Instead, because of democracy and voting people just shrug it off and decide to suffer under 4 more years of this just so they can vote again.
Really? Now what form of government would that be when half the population would nt support such an action, and activley work against it?
I think in fact our government does support such an action, as is evidenced by the civil war.
You can't rise up without most of the populace supporting such action. And right now, not even a majority feel as you do. So you can try to start a riot but all that will happen is you'll go to jail and no-one will even care - not even the guys who voted for Kerry!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I live in New York (Not the city, but in a college town populated mostly by kids from the city), Bush scares the shit out of us, because we are pretty damn sure that the war in Iraq is making us less safe.
One of the things that we notice, that we don't think the other side notices, is that there are not a finite number of terrorists that we need to kill. Our Iraq policy is making new terrorists every day. Kerry got shit for saying it, but we do need a more sensative war on terror. If we bomb the shit out of everywehere we think there might be a terrorist, we are almost gauranteeing a net increase in both number and motivation of terrorists.
We do need to kill those who are already in Al Queada, but we need to do so without recruiting for them at the same time.
Another thing we noticed is the Duelfer report. Iraq had no connection to those who seek to harm us (notice I did not say terrorists, I know about the palistinians).
We would have voted against Bush for his social policy, but his foriegn policy really hurt him too.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
You're of course right - the US & Britain did win against the Iraqi Army, just like last time. Where I think you are wrong is that the occupying army has the support of the populace. I think initially it was a little, but it's increasingly becoming extremely unpopular; in no small measure due to the tactics used.
I'm not sure how popular the Iraq war is in the US, but it's bloody unpopular with the one main ally - Britain. You should also not forget that the resistance to the Vietnam war took a long time to build up. Unless the US can get out quickly, the war could still get very unpopular indeed.
We could argue all we like - time will tell whos's right.
no taxation without representation!
Here's one for you:
Treisman, Daniel. "The Causes of Corruption: A Cross-national Study." Journal of Public Economics 76 (2000) 399-457.
"corruption will be lower in democratic countries and those with a freer press and more vigorous civic associations, [will also] be lower in more economically developed countries, where populations are more educated and literate, and where the normative separation between 'public' and 'private' is clearer.... Corruption will be lower in countries with higher relative salaries in public office... [and] will be higher where political instability is greater."
And please don't try and say that corruption and economic growth aren't inversely correlated. They sure are. If you want to argue that, I'll put up some sources there too.
I understand that you find the act of using drugs and homosexual activity wrong, but why do you find it necessary to control the activity of other people even when it does not affect you? Why is simply not engaging in the activity yourself unacceptable?
I just don't get it. My moral policy is "That which involves only consenting adults is noone's business but their own". I'm just trying to figure out why roughly 55% of this country finds it neccessary to tell other people how to live their lives when it has no effect on anyone. I understand it is against their moral code, I just don't get why they wish to force other people to live according to their moral standards.
I don't agree that failing to ban something which is against one's moral code is hipcrosy, at least when that something involves only consenting adults. I find anal sex as disgusting as you, and I would never consider doing crack... but I find the idea of forcing that on other people even more reprehensible.
Over 3000 comments? Let me guess, I can't believe you Americans voted for Bush! You must be nuts!
Well, allow me to respond. You voted for Jaques Chirac, Silvio Berlusconi, Gerhard Shroder, and Vladimir Putin. You call us nuts?
Actually, USSR's diversion into afghanistan is what broke their economy.
First, the Red Sox win.
Second, Bush the son wins a second term -- unlike his father, and unlike John Quincy Adams or his father.
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
I hope the rest of the world remembers that nearly half of the voters did not want Bush back in office. This was no affirmation that 'Americans' agree with Bush. This is proof of what strategic campaigning can do, and it is proof that our country is still rabidly divided.
Look at it this way. Out of 58 million people out of 280 million voted for G.W. bush or roughly 20% of America, or slightly under 1% of the worlds population. But look at what we have to look forward to as a result of this sub 1% voice from the planet Earth. Continued war with Iraq, perhaps even Iran and Syria. Oh, and Keneth Lay getting the Duhbya pardon. Oh less I forget, this election was about moral values, not about the fact we have so much might in the middle east our shore is totally defenceless from attack.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
> people who are attached to some other established religion.
"No faith" is indeed a faith for some. It is not for every atheist, though.
For many atheists, it's a simple statement of "I don't know". That version of atheism is very different from any established religion, simply because religions are predicated on the notion that they do know (at least partly). It's hard to have a religiously-motivated argument with someone whose beliefs are "I have no evidence on which to base a judgement".
(Of course, it's sadly true that there are a number of fundamentalist atheists whose belief is closer to "I don't know, and neither do you". Every big enough group has its share of arrogant fools, unfortunately.)
Then I humbly submit you didn't read what I wrote.
In what way is "very significant differences" the same as "almost identical"?
As I said: "Canadians and Americans are...less similar than Americans would like to think."
Where was Me inapropriate there? Stop being an anti-me nazi and learn the acutal gramatical rules for english.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
Wait a second.
Who claimed that letting people run around naked is okay?
And what sorts of psychologically scarring things are we talking about here?
Anyway, since it's the day after the election and you bring up Christianity as well as "hatred, death, and disease," let's look at the things the political party that strong Christians seem to overwhelmingly support openly stands for (either through actions or words, they both speak loudly to me):
Two wars, as well as naming things which are not wars wars, such as the War on Drugs. And if we aren't just counting the past for years, you can add several more wars. Some of those, such as the Contra war in Nicaragua, make Iraq look like a friendly game of monopoly in terms of sheer evilness of tactics.
The death penalty.
Pollution. (taking stuff like mercury off the list of toxic pollutants, scaling back legislation to protect the environment, etc.)
Denial of access to quality medical care and drugs to the poor and elderly. (Most of us, even the middle class, are really pretty darned rich, and as far as I'm concerned being opposed to expansion of health care just because you don't want to pay higher taxes is one of the vilest forms of greed, only a few steps below straight up killing for money.)
Backing away from the United Nations.
Assault weapons.
Putting weapons in space.
Exemption of the U.S. from the Geneva Convention.
So, you know what? You can talk about Christianity and how it preaches love and peace all you want. And that's fine, because I agree wholeheartedly. And I will be glad to try my very best to avoid making statements that suggest I think all Christians are immoral people because I do believe that that there are people who truly live up to the model Christ set forward. One of them is a close friend whom I consider my role model.
But until the Christian Right stops its wholesale and shameless support of greed and death, nothing will be able to convince me that its members are anywhere near the path of righteousness they claim to walk.
Guess what? I agree and could care less as well. I do however have a problem when two gay men want to adopt a little boy or girl. As this child grows up they will be so beat down mentally as they go though school (just to name one) it will warp their mind. Bullies are very brutal these days in schools and only getting worse because 'SOME' parents don't know how to spank their child.
I didn't vote for Mr. Bush and I was disappointed that he won (Nader supporter). I think the biggest problem that the democrats have is that their socially liberal message is not attractive to a majority of US citizens. Someone once said (I forget who), that outside of the coasts, USA is as religious as India and I think this election is good evidence of this tendency. I'm not saying that being pro-gay and pro-abortion aren't noble goals. Unfortunately, these items are hot button issues with a lot of people in the crucial swing states. You see those deeply crimson counties in Ohio? Those are the anti-gay, anti-abortion people coming out to prevent the further advancement of those agendas.
I don't think that Bush's victory is a total doom and gloom scenario. First, I think his re-election sends the right message to the islamic terrorists that USA is steadfast in the pursuit of our goals. This message will most quickly get us out of Iraq under acceptable terms.
Second, I believe Mr. Bush now understands the consequences of military action and will be much less likely to get involved in any other foreign adventures. Notwithstanding Bush's state of mind, the army doesn't have the manpower to do anything other than Iraq for remainder of Bush's presidency.
Third, I think that the neo cons at the DOD have been discredited by the Iraq ordeal. This means that Collin Powel and the state department are ascendant. They are more internationalist and more likely to work with allies and the UN. I'm betting that the army is going to get expanded and more troops sent to Iraq. This will be a direct rebuke to Mr. Rumsfeld, whose hi-tech warfare mantra is one of the major reasons that invasion and occupation were attempted without sufficient forces in the first place.
So despite the horrible record of the first term, I think things will be better in the second.
Now what we really should be afraid of is that rising interest rates which will pop our real estate bubble. Unfortunately this was going to be a problem no matter who won the election.
This election was more of an indicator of the sad state of liberal programs currently in schools and inability of the poor to access such an education than anything else. The poor in the South learn their lessons in churches, just as the poor in the Middle-East do. The language they hear it in is different, but the message is startlingly similar. God rules the country, not any Constitution or government.
I won't defend stupid decisions, but I will note that when people are hurting they turn towards religion. Shrub has sold himself as a religious man, and Kerry didn't. A defining and admirable aspect of born again Christianity is that the "sinner" can repent and absolve himself of all past sins by accepting Christ (however defined by the various sects and denominations). The Red states bought that Shrub is reborn. We know better.
I say that the Democratic party's best defense against religious fundamentalism is education. They need to start rebuilding the walls between church and state by winning current court cases and more of them. They need to start attacking at every possible opportunity rather than roll over and take it up the rectum like they have been from groups like Bush's "Swift Boat" Republicans. More importantly, they need to stop alienating the liberals who actually are fighting. The Democrats need to bring themselves back into the Liberal fold where Nader, Moore, and the Green party are waiting for them. They need to start backing up these fighters, instead of distancing themselves from them. The Democrats have forgotten how to fight, and need to start by liberating the minds of the young while the right-wing is busy liberating oil wells from their owners. They've got 2 years before the next elections, and they better have a "moral" center like the Red states do, but in defense of liberty, and not one particular religion.
"A liberal education ... frees a person from the prison-house of his class, race, time, place, background, family, and even his nation."
-- Robert Maynard Hutchins, The Political Animal
"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." - Thomas Jefferson
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be... " - Thomas Jefferson, from a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, Jan 6th, 1816
= 9J =
So you want to ban certain activities so that your children are not exposed to them.
But why do you find it moral to tell other people how they can live their lives?
I have a daughter who I'd prefer not become a drug addict, but I have no problem with people who do choose to use drugs (so long as they aren't selling them to minors). In fact I think all drugs should be legalized. I want my daughter to grow up without any drug addiction, but I also want her to grow up without feeling she should tell other people how to live their lives.
Homosexuality is another issue. I have no problem with it and I wouldn't be offended even if my own daughter turned out to be gay.
I will use my parental rights & control to raise her according to my own moral standards to be best of my ability, but I will never try to force others to accept a certain moral perogative, at least on things which don't involve unwilling participants (ie, murder...).
THIS ACCOUNT IS OFFICIALLY RETIRED/RETARDED.
Ummmm, how about Northern Ireland? A largely sucessful social/political solution to what used to be one of the prime terrorism hotspots in the world?
It takes a long time sure, but talking and politicking can work. Sure it takes a hell of a lot of time, and a f*ckload of courage (more than Dubya posesses obviously) to sit down with Israel, Palestine, Osama, et al and try to find a middle ground (yes, while suicide bombers and plane crashers continue), than it does to simply wade into another country guns blazing.
Don't try to tell me that the extremists are 'too extreme' to talk. Osama wasn't too extreme when the CIA were funding him against the USSR in Afghanistan was he?
gadgetophile.com
...anecdotal evidence of this coming out today. We AREN'T seeing the offical Dem party contesting ANYTHING. I was just watching the toob a little while ago, OBVIOUS very high Dem voting places with like TWO machines for the voters. Lines out the door and down the block. My little town, heavby duty in the middle of a redzone, has a bit over 100 eligible voters, that's it, and we had 5 machines. FIVE. E-voting machines that were recording R votes when they were cast as D votes. Networks changing exit polling numbers and projections for no apparent statistical reason. Allegedlyall the polls wrong. And the higher level Ds are all sitting down and shutting up about it, despite the pre vote rhetoric of having all these lawyers warming up in the bullpen, and etc. It's the great clam-up! It's like the "not me" ghost who ate the last cookies! Who did it? NOT ME!!11!! They are just gone, honest! I'm still standing here staring at the huge instant complete lack of interest being pushed by the Dem machine over this. Hence, my earlier conclusions. Had to be a very high level setup, which was suspicioned before, but I think the events of the last 24 hours prove it.
Great theater to watch really. I guess that's part of the entertainment export market. The *New* Economy!
. . .is shaking his Martini in anger.
...faith in the American public...
H AH A
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*wipes tears from eyes*
thanks d00d, you gave me the first good laugh i've had all day.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
This election should be the last red flag before the cliff for Democrats.
At some point the Democrat have to realize that there are a lot of people that disagree with them and most of them are not 'duped' by the media, they're not 'controled' by corporations, they're not mindless zombies, racist, or ignorant. They are normal, intelligent, considerate people that disagree with them. At some point the Democrats need to stop vilifying these people and politely ask them why they disagree and then actually try to convince them next time.
Democrats need to own this loss and they need to say "This is our fault. WE did not get our message to Americans, we were not sucessful at articulating our positions in a way that appealed to voters, and we fundamentally do not know how to appeal to slightly more than 50% of American voters." and then find a way to appeal to them. If they don't do this, if Democrats keep blaming corporations, the media, hurricans, a republican conspiracy etc. etc. they will keep loosing and loosing and loosing.
Please note that I did NOT vote for Bush. I am a Libertarian and I wanted Bush to loose. Most of the time I'm happy when Republicans win but I wanted Bush to loose mainly because of my dislike for Rumsfeld and his war and Bush's heavy spending.
-RB
Freedom in our Lifetime www.freestateproject.org
"As Christians, we are praying that God grant President Bush four more years because of his support for the sanctity of human life, his strong commitment to the protection of traditional marriage and his stance on religious freedom and liberty in the public square," said the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition.
Meh.
Aaah. So your argument against homosexuality boils down to the "proof" in the bible, yet your views on it have nothing at all to do with the only source of negative feeling that you have been so far able to provide. In other words, not only are you dogmatically upholding outmoded beliefs from an ancient text, but you are also denying that your grievances come from this source.
I obviously disagree with the "it's-disgusting-so-i-don't-want-my-children-to-se e-it" argument, but I find it more worrying that you do not seem to recognise that your prejudices against something that doesn't affect you in any way, could be coming from a more sinister source.
In closing, for the benefit of people who do believe that homosexuality is wrong solely on what's written in the Bible, I would like them (you?) to see a two and a half minute segment from a comedy series that screened in my home country some time ago. The segment is not immoral or in any way offensive to the Bible. It basically consists of an interviewer asking the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen a question about a passage in the Bible (using comedic devices). Note how the Archbishop refuses to answer the very simple question, and has to resort to a humorous retort to avoid the embarrassment from doing so.
Paste the following link into RealPlayer, or download Real Alternative if you don't like Real Player (as I don't). You will have to remove the space between "story" and "11.rm" at the end for it to work.
y 11.rm
rtsp://media1.abc.net.au/cnnnn/20031023_2100/stor
My point is that blindly following any source, be it the Bible, (a limited view of) the media, your mother, or your friend's cat is a recipe for unfounded intolerance and undue friction.
Only 1% of the population are now farmers, yet they somehow manage to overweigh their influence on the US government
Once they all go out of business or leave because of the government's ignoring them in favor of purely urban interests and we've paved over every last amber wave of grain, how the fuck do you propose we feed ourselves? Cows don't graze on asphalt, ya know. Large cities are shit anyway - they're ecological nightmares as well as festering pits of the worst human nature has to offer; we'd be so much better off if we nuked NYC and LA, I can't even begin to describe it.
Interesting factoid (from Eric Sloane, you might want to try reading some of his books...you might learn something or two) - up till about the time of the Civil War and the explosion of cheap factory-produced goods, farmers, craftsmen, and other "inbred redneck trailer trash" were considered among the noblest and most important of Americans; it's only been since the Industrial Revolution that we look at farmers as uneducated hicks that are only worthy of our ridicule.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Eight years is a blip in the history of the USA and an even smaller blip in human history. It is fun and fashionable to think you are living in "world changing" times, but in reality you are not. This election will be looked back on as only an interesting footnote.
There were about 309,000 violent crimes of all types in Canada in 2002, or about 1000 per 100,000 people. This total includes all forms of assault, and is about 2/3 "minor assaults" (no weapon, not serious - "aggravated" - assault). (Source: StatsCan)
The rate of violent crime in the USA in 2002 was about 2500 per 100,000 people. (Source: USA Today)
The rate of serious violent crime in the USA in 2002 was about 500 per 100,000 (Source: FBI). Note that this only includes murder and manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault ("a reckless attack with intent to injure seriously (as with a deadly weapon)"), and so does not include all of the "minor assaults" that made up the majority of the Canadian violent crime rate.
In fact, those "simple assaults" happen at the rate of 1550 per 100,000 (Source: USDOJ), demonstrating why the comparable US violent crime rate is indeed the 2500 per 100,000 reported by USAToday, and not the artificially low number you used.
As the site you pulled your numbers from stated:
Different nations use different criteria to define "murder" and "serious assault," therefore ability to use this data to compare between nations is limited...
Using more comparable numbers seems to give very different results than you had suggested: Canada's violent crime rate is 40% of America's.
I agree but I still think it's time Liberals go. They have been in power for too long and it shows. It wouldn't hurt to see some of them in jail (Gagliano, ...) to show the crime doesn't pay. Also, Bush being a Bible nut is a little over-played. Same for Conservatives here.
I never rant like this. And I'm going to use some harsh words, so those who do not wish to be subjected to my rantings need not read further. But, if you want to know why a pissed off New Yorker feels completely alienated from the "red" states, read on. I've tried to make my rant as entertaining as possible, and hope a couple people will at least glean some fun from it.
I can not believe that Americans were stupid enough to vote for this guy not only once, but TWICE. WTF, people?It boils down, in my mind, to a great quote from a some nameless NASCAR meathead driver when interviewed about who'd he'd vote for:
"I'll vote for Bush because I ain't much on the issues but I know I'll get a firm hand shake from him. A man's hand shake."
Dear god. I'm not kidding. This idiot said that. I'm sorry, but you should have to demonstrate a basic understanding of the issues to vote, and/or have an IQ above 90. If you THEN decide to vote for a dolt like Bush I will at least consider your vote valid. Sure, you'd be voting for a polar opposite ideology from mine, but at least it'd be informed.
I suggest sterilizing this man and his offspring so we're not subjected to this kind of blindingly ignorant crap again. The people who swung the vote were, in majority, people who voted on party lines based on very superficial terms. I wish we had a way to throw their votes out the window.
And while I'm on a ridiculous rant (admittedly), why don't we cover the fact that this a-hole president sent us to war on false pretense and 51% of the country finds that acceptible. Because, I just LOVE it when some ass from Wisconsin says they're going to vote for the president that will keep us SAFER when he's the one that got us attacked in the first place and my apartment was 20 blocks away. I think New York's electoral votes should have counted DOUBLE for this election just because of that. No, it's not fair... but neither was the fact that I saw the twin towers fall with my own eyes. The grain silo down the road from you ain't gonna attract the bombs. And this is coming from a person who grew up in the country and had great respect for rural america. I'm not condeming it. It's just simply not the target of terrorism.
I saw the interviews in exit polls and saw people voting for the "president that will keep us safer." Um, where are the terrorists bombing again? Wisconsin? Nope. Kansas? Wrong again. Ohio? Nope.... f***ing NEW YORK!!! My back yard, dip shit! Not yours. So the next time a president wins a popular vote in part of whole based on the premise that he's making the country safer, let's give him the boot in the ass he deserves. The people who voted for Bush, especially those in a "red" state, are NOT IN ANY DANGER, and they can bite me. The only places attacked... NYC and Washington DC voted 80% Kerry and 90% Kerry, respectively. That's right. The guy that will keep us safer managed an average 15% of the vote in the only 2 places attacked.
Now I'd like to cover the list of stupid things Bush has done, and will continue to do. The reasons why I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENT LIKE BUSH:
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
First off, I wasn't spinning anything. I think NCLB was an entirely unfunded mandate. Now Bush did start funding it later in the game, but I am very disappointed that he did not do so from the get go. But as I said, this is just one of many things that irks me about Bush.
As for the choice between a Bush and a Kerry presidency, most independents such as myself were quite pissed that we had to chose between two people few of us thought would be an excellent leader.
Don't fool yourself. It wasn't just the independents that were pissed. I voted for Kerry simply because I felt he couldn't possibly do worse than Bush. That certainly doesn't mean I thought he would be anywhere near tolerable.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
"We hate America and we want to leave."
I think America is going the way of Iran or the Saudis.
I am an EX-American, but was born a 4th generation northern Californian (Ohio before that, Virginia before that), and can highly recommend New Zealand if you only wish to speak English. I left in '85 during the "Evil Empire" days, and had a good look around before settling down here. Obvious trade-offs. I've been avoiding the US lately, but it is quick enough to visit if you want to. The Net means you can still be in touch as well, even work for US clients.
It was clear when I left that America had some big problems that no-one was interested in talking about let alone dealing with - runaway WMD, social security deficit, victimless crimes and the American class war. My simple answer was to vote with my feet, but I still have a soft spot for the Constitution, the Founders and much of the history (see Zinn) and end up defending Americans generally around the world. It really hurts to see what it has become - essentially a loose cannon and theoplutocracy.
I, too, am REALLY disappointed in this election - until now I was clinging to the "most Americans are really not so dumb and pretty decent" and "democracy works" memes. I could understand the citizenry getting fooled and railroaded a few times. Now I must consider the possibility that they actually want to enjoy the benefits of throwing their weight around, and then also have the luxury of protesting their innocence and good intentions (or a "higher purpose"). But in a democracy I don't believe that you have that privilege.
It also seems to me that at the end of the day Kerry was a quitter. He had a blank platform to beat GWB, yet he was willing to walk away stranding hundreds of thousands of Democrats in Ohio (perhaps millions nationwide) who been cleverly forced to vote provisionally by being illegally black-listed, profiled and challenged. That single act makes me seriously question whether he was ever really serious or just a Skull & Bones stooge to keep Dean and Kucinich at bay.
Talk about demoralising voters! Imagine having waited for hours in the rain and then only being able to vote provisionally - or struggling for weeks to get an overseas ballot - and then have Kerry walk away without even demanding that your vote be counted! I guess I'm sore because I still secretly hope that there WERE more decent and non-gullible people there who saw the damage that Bush was doing both inside and out.
Anyway, as I once told a US friend who regarded "overseas" as a Mars expedition - the food works; the air works; weather is the same.
All the best.
"Not all who wander are lost." (J.R.R. Tolkien)
If you are thinking of moving out of the country because George Bush won then please do so. I think that is a great idea because you aren't the kind of American that we need hanging around. I voted for Bush, but I was definately ready to live under Kerry.
I heard a quote on CNN last night that went something like "I promise to support our President regardless of his political party. I also pledge to criticize our President regardless of his political party."
It is your responsibility to contact members of government and let them know what you think. Write letters. If you feel strongly enough about something then go out and get other people to contact their representatives.
Moving out isn't the answer.
-It writes, rates, creates, even telecommunicates. Costs less, does more the Commodore 64. Compute's Gazette
No more Fritz Hollings(D-DIS)!
It's really urban vs. rural. Check out county by county votes.
Vote for Pedro
There are all kinds of sides, I am not a proxy for your assumptions. It appears you studied at the same monochromatic school of life as our president.
Democracy is tyranny of the majority. I hope now that Kerry lost, people will understand what this means.
Vote for Pedro
What is there to contest? Bush won the vote, both popular and electoral. What you can't understand is why the (slight) majority of Americans don't agree with you, so you assume something must be wrong with the voting process.
Vote for Pedro
Ain't democracy great!
You can be supported by the Wealthy et al yet after 4 or 8 years you have to give it all up.
Makes you wonder how easy it is to keep this process going year after year.
Here ya go:
n
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200411/gree
It seems George W. Bush managed to get himself re-elected, which is a pity, because most Americans will not know the trouble they've caused themselves for quite a little while.
Now Kerry may not have been the most clear-thinking person who could have been president, but there is still no doubt, in my mind, that he would have been vastly superior to Bush - if for no other reason, than his fresh overview of our current situations, many of which have gone out of hand. This includes the war, the deficit, and religious zeal, to name a few.
As for Kerry supporters, I hope you should all at least take some comfort in knowing... well... actually, never mind. You have nothing to take comfort in, except if you are rich, actually. The one thing Bush's reign is guaranteed to do is make the rich even richer, and the poor even poorer. So, enjoy it while you can!
Some folks I know think the Democrats are always out of touch with the people. Perhaps the real problem is that too many people are out of touch with reality. The reality, for example, that the rest of the world thinks we stink. Or the reality that God is not going to come down and give us all a heap of great miracles, because we decided to ban gay marriages and stop funding of stem-cell research under His name.
Bush fought a dirty war - a very dirty war that fed off of people's fears and irrational beliefs. Even though the most citizens may have really voted for him, I still say there was a sense of fraud at the polls. (I'm not just giving homage to Citizen Kane.)
In the war between the rational, and the irrational, the irrational will always win - because they can fight dirty!
(Like what you've read here? Visit www.MitchLampert.net for more such verbiage.)
Sorry. I was a rant after all...
But my point was basically the "square" states and their 3 electoral votes. I have friends from Wisconsin and I don't hate Wisconsin. Sure, everyone from Wisconsin is ugly and inbred, but I don't hate them for that. (joke... I swear...)
For the record, though, the woman I saw on CNN was from Wisconsin and that is what she said. So, in summary... no offense to Wisconsin-- the cruel mistress of my wrath.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
it would appear that you have made the basic assumption that democracy will still exist in the USA after another 4 years of George W. Granted, however, that there is a very good chance that the USA will be in one war or another in 2008. The question only is in regard to which country that will be: Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, or Venezuela (oil). This does present an opportunity to establish an on-line wager/pool regarding exactly which country the USA will be at war with.
I have to admit that at the time, I was not paying that much attention to campain issues - I believe around that time I thought Dean a sho-in for the nomination!
Was the microphone thing really the instrument of his downfall? I never did understand how Kerry pulled ahead of him, it always seemed like working of the Democratic party to me.
I would love to see an in-depth analysis of what happened to Dean in the primaries. I never really did get the full story there.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I must start by saying I love GW, now, hear me out, he is in fact brilliant. That's right, Bush, is a very good politician, I don't know about leader, but he's a great politician. Any man that can convince a poor working class guy in the south to give even more money to some rich guy is a brilliant politician as far as I'm concerned.
I've realized why the rural working class of the south and mid-plains (west) are the poorest Americans in the nation, it all came to me right after I realized that some yokal in west b'mble hills dumb state is more concerned with whether some gay man wants to but slam some another gay man, and he can go out and shoot the two of them with his new automatic AK-47, than whether he can provide a decent living for his family or take them to the doctors when need be and it not cost his family literally their arm and leg.
The whole lot of 'em are too busy toting a bible they can't read, screaming about the sanctity of life, while they wrap a noose around a tree limb or in more modern days flip on a light switch, as some dude who probably went crazy and stabbed and raped his sister, "after learning to kill some babies with a hand grenade or a tomahawk cruise missle in some war in some foreign country and rationalizing, hey murder ain't so bad", get's ready to fry.
When a man can make moral hyprocacy seem divine mandate, the rich getting richer benefitting the masses, and deny any fringe benefits like health care and proper education to the have nots seem as the way things should be, I can not help but applaud his brilliance. Subidize the rich but don't subidize yourselves? Any man that can make that point get over, we would have to say in conclusion is a great politician.
Where do you get the idea that I think something is wrong with the voting process, or that 'the (slight) majority of Americans don't agree with me'?
What in my parent post gave any indication of how I voted?
As I recall, Hitler and Stalin were also men of action. So is bin Laden. I must part company with you on respecting people simply for being men of action.
Bush is no Hitler, Stalin, or bin Laden, but his action is making the world safer for terrorists. That's why Al Qaeda endorsed Bush and why Iran's parliament just voted unanimously to go full steam ahead with their bomb project. Because Bush doesn't have what it takes to stop them.
In the 1940s, it took FDR and Truman three years to lead America to victory Germany, Italy, and Japan, bring order and stability to those countries, and make the world safer. In three years, Bush has managed to defeat the much less imposing armies of Saddam and the Taliban, but hasn't stopped bin Laden or al Zawahiri and hasn't brought order or stability to either defeated country.
As to removing dictators from power, Bush supports dictators, such as Musharraf of Pakistan, the Sauds of Saudi Arabia, or President Hu of China, when they suit his purposes, and supports pardons for those like A.Q. Khan, who sell nukes to terrorist states.
If Bush had the balls of a Churchill or even Maggie Thatcher, he'd take on major totalitarian states, such as China, or fight Putin's coup d'état in Russia, instad of farting around with pipsqueak nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
At least Dean would have been different though, and that degree of difference might have attracted more people. Kerry always seemed to be like "I would do the same thing, only better!!". Dean had spirit, and even if people agreed with some of his platform that might have gone a long ways.
I believe you are pretty much right about the majority of the public agreeing that Iraq, though messy, is OK by them (and also I do believe a lot of people were wary about changing over leadership at a crucial time as we move to elections and so forth). They had a sort of demonstration with elections going OK in Afghanistan, which I thought was oddly not mentioned much by either side (perhaps I missed those ads). So perhaps that would have derailed dean eventually anyway.
The bit about voting for hatred was not necessarily to imply Dean was better in that regard, just that Democrats were so focused on hating Bush they forgot to mention just why anyone should vote FOR Kerry. That was a huge mistake and I know the sheer degree of vitrol spread by some really turned off a lot of people.
I think the main thing I was trying to say was just that they needed somebody with more fire in them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That aside, I think that there were a number of fubar events by the Kerry campaign. If we can figure out what went wrong this time, maybe we can fix it next time. Note that I live in Southern California, and thus wasn't subjected to 15 political bullshit sessions an hour on TV (thank God). However, I think that Kerry screwed up on:
There are a handful of other things he could have done too, but I doubt they would have helped much. He could have tried to explain that trying to smash terrorist countries won't help, that you have to erode their base of support (*cough*Israel-Palestine*cough*) by addressing their 'issue', but I doubt that the average idiot would have understood, and Bush would have spun it was "Weak on terror!" in a microsecond. Another possible thing to go after would have been fiscal conservatives, on the basis that Bush took the largest surplus in history and turned it into a deficit that's growing at Warp 9. Didn't hear much on that either.
On the rather more negative side, he could have (long before 11/2) made a huge stink about e-voting paper trails. Beat the Diebold CEO horse ("Deliver Ohio's electoral votes to the President" sound familiar?) like Bush beat the flip-flop horse. In short, cast the legitimacy of e-voting precincts that went to Bush in doubt [One previous poster (unconfirmed) says that the exit polls and tallies were different by 5%+ for Bush in counties with paperless e-voting machines but not in those without or with paper trail. Can anyone confirm?].
I also feel that this election underscores a desperate need for election law reform in America. Why the HELL does a car commercial need to be more truthful that the campaign to decide who will be the most powerful man on earth? Of all the (thank God relatively few) political ads I saw, almost none of them offered anything positive about thier guy. All they did was slander the other guy's character.
Another thing that has to go is the goddamn electoral college. It does not execute the will of the people, as was demonstrated very clearly in 2000. Indeed, without the E.C. I wouldn't be writing an essay about how Kerry lost to Bush. Because of it's inclusion of Senators in the count, it gives a substantially inflated amount of influence to rural states (The vote of someone in Montana or Alaska is worth almost twice
Yeah, German and Russian are both awful languages. Possibly even uglier than English. I would gladly submit to French, Spanish or Italian-speaking overlords, though...
American action against the Axis didn't come until after the Axis had actively begun invading other countries with obvious intent to invade more. Not nearly the same situation as with Saddam. If our case to remove Saddam was put before our own court system, it woulda just been a mess of circumstantial evidence. A case against Hitler would have been an easy conviction.
To remove dictators from power means paying lots of money and losing lots of lives to scortch earth. To blow money on destruction. To expend energy to create entropy. There's plenty of governments doing bad things to people, but perpetually fighting them doesn't seem like a realistic proposal to me.
(And so maybe, then, I'm biased against war, but I frankly think that's the proper position to take as a human being. War itself is a bad thing, and its use should be reserved for cases where it's the only option.)
Facts:
1) Proportionally the poorest members of American society are in rural portions of southern states and rural areas in general.
2) Consistenly lowest scoreing states on standardized test are southern states.
So, yeah, I would say the education and wealth in the south is lacking, or disproportioned to an extreme small minority in those southern states who steer the lambs to slaughter. And I clearly understand why now.
Furthermore, what the f'k does the number of seats you won have to do with your intelligence. YOu only further prove my point. That would prove your consistent, not intelligent, consistently dumb.
I'm not a democrat, but I'll explain why they are losing, they have yet to realize that rational doesn't exist in the red states. Once they realize that gods, guns, and gays supercede education, health, and wealth than the dems can tailor a message to your stupidity. ATleast, you'll be sick, poor, and only confined to f'king barn animals but have your AK-47 to shoot them when the barn animals decide to press charges.
Manhattan results: 82% Kerry, 17% Bush I know its historically a very liberal area, but you'd think the terrorism threat is a lot more important there than anywhere else, and it was still a democrat landslide. Not that it matters now... all those people on farms in Nebraska were too worried about terrorism.
due to bush policies, there are over 1000 dead american soldiers from the war in iraq. this does not include the dead civilians who are over there rebuilding what we single-handedly destroyed without the backing of any other major world power, with the only exception of england (and poland, don't forget poland).
due to bush policies, the majority of the middle east continues to hate the united states, perhaps more than before.
due to bush policies, osama bin laden is still alive and kicking, probably planning another large scale attack on the united states, which will, no doubt, be carried through successfully.
due to bush policies, every american that died for the freedoms this country stands for died in vain as those freedoms are being slowly, but surely, taken away.
due to bush policies, iraq may soon have their first free elections... which will almost certainly be riddled with attacks on the "free" people attempting to vote for their new leader, assuming he isn't killed, which has happened already. this also doesn't include the possibility of the most heinous form of death given to the contractors helping out the newly "freed" iraqis.
i think the answer is pretty damn clear.
please me, have no regrets.
OK, it's been a long day, shoot me for the bad math :). Still you get my point. The beauty of the electoral system is that it requires Yankees in New York to cooperate with Yuppies on the west coast, and desert dwellers of Las Vegas and New Mexico. That sort of coalition requires far more consensus than simply rounding up all of the folks in the ten largest cities and promising that you will pass laws that favor city dwellers.
Consensus is good.
Think about what happened to Nixon after he won reelection.
Then again, that would put Cheney in the Oval Office. That's scarier than Bush.
McDonalds, and the republicans, have the decency to sell people what they want. The dems could learn something from that.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Before I say anything, I would like to clarify that I actually voted for Bush, but since I live in New York City, I might as well have voted for a bag of lettuce. In any event, I was actually a volunteer of Howard Dean, but in the end I simply could not believe John Kerry had the resolution to wage the war in Iraq Bush walked us into. It's very difficult for me to say this, but I feel that only Bush can possibly dig us out of the hole he got us in, assuming because he doesn't dig a deeper one. But that being said, I'm just as surprised by anyone that apparently we are in the midst of the Third (maybe fourth) Great Awakening. Religious issues now apparently dominate the political landscape, either that or the Bush played the electorate brilliantly this year. Personally, I really do think that most Americans are much more right of center than people in the blue states ever realize. Bush did a spectular job mobilizing this vote, and I say kudos to him for running a good campaign. I am, however, extremely disappointed by what the kind of "religious" values were afforded the most importance by the voters. Abortion I can legitimately see a religious movement having a point, but Gay Marriage? For Christ's sake, Jesus did not tell us to go forward and defend "traditional family values". "For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves his father or mother more than me isnot worthy of me, and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me..." Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 10, Verses 34-37, Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973/77. It's sad that many Christians would read the Bible every day but forget the context in which the true Jesus actually preached and what he actually preached. They would not be recognized by Christ if he should return today.
Youre right, just a little behind. There are not so many allies left to alienate (and yes, I forgot Poland) and the world watches its sole remaining super power`s failure live on TV every day. Add the threats the bushites emit on a daily basis to the danger the US deficit represents to world economy (and the unability of the US to sustain itself as the underlying econosocial reason): the US is a main source of instability now, instead of its guarantor. A change that took less than four years, creating enough reasons for about every nation on earth too rethink its position towards the US - its way more than mere antipathy. I wouldnt be surprised to see NATO (which is already irrelevant as a military alliance, as it is designed as a defensive alliance) fall apart soon. Of course that would mean nothing less than closer european-russian bounds... Bush may succeed, where Hitler and Stalin failed: in creating an eurasian powersphere from atlantic to pacific. They are a perfect match, from whatever side you look at it and all it may take is a perceived common threat. I dont think the average american has any idea how big a failure Bushs foreign policy is: nations tend to act based on their interests (an arguement usually brought on in excuse of Bush, so Ill hold the Bushites to that) - the art of diplomacy is to modify inconsistent interests of other nations, so they blend with your own. Instead he actively created interests that are contradictory to his goals. Given the stubborness demonstrated, hell continue on this path. Project for a new american century, well, there it goes down the sink.
Should have listened to europeans like this french guy. Its the same guy who correctly predicted the fall of the Soviet Union a decade before it happened.
Life has become the ideology of its absence - T.W. Adorno
Then why is everyone here depressed? Why are studies showing that depression is far worse in the US than elsewhere? And why is everyone here working non-stop? Why do Europeans get 3 weeks of vacation out of the year?
Obesity doesn't correlate to prosperity. Obesity correlates to eating too much fat. People in other countries have easy access to food, they just exercise self-control and have healthy eating habits.
And I see what you're trying to do there. But I think it is possibly to demonstrate significant differences between interracial heterosexual marriage and gay marriages. The reproduction argument, for one.
Again, I think we should allow gay marriage, but as a member of an interracial marriage I am a little yucked by your comparison.
I'm glad someone saw my point. Sorry to hear I yucked you out with my example though. It was meant to provoke thought in people, unlike you, who don't support marriage or civil unions between homosexual couples.
The interracial marriage substitute leapt to mind when reading Chemisor's comments, simply because my next door neighbors have a interracial marriage and they have tremendous intolerance issues in our neighborhood. I suppose I could have used some other example, but that situation is directly analogous to the debate on homosexual marriage rights. Sorry it yucked you out, but I was trying to point out why Chemisor's comments are not valid nor compelling to many like myself.
Concerning gay marriage and reproduction: A few years ago my wife and I attended a group orientation for people attempting to have children via Invitro Fertilization (sadly our last failed attempt to have a child together after 6 years of trying, but that is another story). In a group of about 30 couples, the majority were married heterosexual couples. There were a two unmarried heterosexual couples, one single heterosexual woman, and one homosexual female couple. Out of curiousity after the class, I asked the nurse-teacher if they had ever had any male-male couples using a surrogate mother. The nurse indicated they averaged about 2 per year at their hospital, out of over 1000 procedures every year.
Now my question to you is, what exactly is the reproductive difference between straight couples who need technological assistance to have children together and the homosexual couples, who also need technological assistance to have children together? Should childless hetero couples be denied the legal benefits of marriage? If not, then why should the homosexual couples be denied the same protections and privaleges? The only meaningful answer I have found is the one that Chemisor gave: it violates many people's moral beliefs. Homosexual marriages would have strongly violated my moral beliefs 20 years ago. It does not now, because I value stable family relationships, with children or without, gay or straight. I believe strongly in Family Values, but my concept of family is much more inclusive than the norm.
Cheers,
I.V.
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
Thank you anonymous coward for standing up for anonymity and blatant disregard for intelligent (albeit off-color) discourse.
I'm a little disapointed I bothered to respond to such drivel, but I wanted to point out that you are the redneck NASCAR analogy incarnate. Thanks for being an ignorant stereotype.
And for the record... I don't hate NASCAR either. I hate ignorant twats with or without a roll cage.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
Not sure what you are referring to.
Not willing to stand up to murderers
The murderers who had South American presidents assasinated? The people who financed Mr Bin Laden in Afghanistan?
Making others pay for your mistakes
Not sure what you are saying...
Trying to legitimize abnormal behaviors
If you mean by "abnormal" anything that you don't do, then you are not really saying much. If "abnormal" means what only a small group does, then parachuting would qualify as abnormal.
If you mean anal sex, then there are lots of hetrosexual people that do that. Do you mean oral sex?
Presumably you mean gay sex. Oh well, I suppose we'll just have to disagree as to whether that is bad or not. I don't mind if people do it, so long as they aren't in abusive relationships. I try not to have images of it much, but if it keeps people happy, and they aren't hurting anyone...
Valuing vegetation higher than human life
You need vegetation to survive. How much of it do you need? Do you think we need none (presumably not). Where would you draw the line and say "we've probably cut down enough trees". When they only cover 1% of the land mass? 10%? I suspect you'll agree that we need some, perhaps you debate the %?
Stealing wealth from the successful and giving it to the wasteful
Some people are wasteful with welfare. I would hope that the welfare that is handed out is given on a truly needs basis. Would you ever consider anyone to be worthy of welfare?
*sigh*
The point, my friend... was that it wasn't.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
Personally, I found it deliciously ironic that the swing state in this election was Ohio...
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
"Look at the postings from foreigners and the left, and all I see is pure hatred. These people must be mentally ill."
Your opinion on the subject of foreigners and "left" people being mentally ill and filled with hatred is just the type of ignornace that leads to world war. I'm pretty sure Hitler ran on that ticket.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
I heard a lady say on the news she used some kinda voting device to vote for Kerry and the machine registered her vote for Bush.
Computer glitch or election fraud?
You decide.
I have much more respect for those with truly American courage who are not afraid of taking the risk to remove dictators from power
The motto of the state of Virginia is "sic semper tyrannis". This appears on the seal, which depicts a man standing over the body of a deposed tyrant. If we held to this unfailingly, this would be a far better world, but unfortunately, far too many tyrants get to die of old age.
I regret that the USA, and in fact free people all over the world have often been so reluctant to stand up to dictators. Britain and France's hesitancy in the 1930's cost tens of millions of lives (but thank heaven for the RAF, and a British prime minister who wasn't willing to capitulate).
I'm disgusted by the fact that that the USA tolerated Marcos, Duvalier, Sukarno, Noriega, Palahvi, Pinochet, Peron, and many, many other dictators just because they were anti-communist. If we had pursued a consistent moral agenda throughout the cold war, I believe that the Soviets would have collapsed much sooner than they did.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Boy... the first time in my life I think about buying a gun, just in case you happen to live somewhere near me. And believe me, it`s not fear...
Life has become the ideology of its absence - T.W. Adorno
Is it just me, or is it just a tad ironic, that when I viewed the comments, the advertisement at the top was for Doom3... hrmm... Is this a sign?
I'm only paranoid because everyone is against me...
I admire your optimism. But I doubt any political education can ever get through the fog of misused patriotism clouding american minds, before some major slide down on the international scale. It's like telling the muslims the sharia needs some adjustments...
Life has become the ideology of its absence - T.W. Adorno
Crank up a LEFTwing propaganda machine.
What, Dan Rather isn't enough for you?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Now to the subject of this message: The real issue is the spending deficit, which is huge, and the economy, which is a freaking disaster. The last props of the latter being unsustainable tax cuts and foreign investment, we could see some serious shit hit the fan in the coming years, esp. as the baby boomers start to retire (tax revenues lost, gov't expenses go up) and (possibly) Europe and Asia start looking like better places to invest than the good old USA.
So let's see -- the dollar drops sharply, interest rates to go up, house prices go down, the stock market crashes, and in short we'll all be trapped in the US at the mercy of a fundamentalist religious wacko regime, freezing our asses off because we can't afford foreign oil or a ticket to get the heck outta here. (Oh, and no sex because you won't be able to get birth control or an abortion, not that this affects this crowds that much.)
Meanwhile, we're pissing not just our manufacturing and software jobs but also our basic know-how and innovation overseas. Witness the last 50 years of technological history: We are losing our edge as technological leaders.
Folks, this is not a good formula. The one thing that might save us is a cheap dollar, which could reduce our trade deficit but if we don't have anything of value to sell we're screwed. At best we can hope a cheap dollar will re-attract foreign investment mainly based on our track record last century or some glimmer of hope we'll stabilize above mediocrity (which I'm not seeing at the moment, but then I'm not a foreign investor nor, lately, an optimist).
What I'd like to see is some real thinking about where the heck we're going as far as our legendary American Ingenuity, source of all our current wealth and power. But in Washington I'm not seeing leadership, just fear-mongering and plundering.
You would benefit from a LOT more research, particularly regarding Palestine and the partisan Jewish politics, -and far less indignant proclamation.
Clinton was no hero, but to blame Palestinian leadership for the failure of peaceful agreements being reached is the result of a severe lack of attention.
-FL
Actually, the taliban are probably believe in more civil rights than the extreme right wing god/gun nut that voted for this time around. Remember, it was only 150 years ago that those same people were trading slaves. If you ever bothered going to the south, even places like Texas, you'd know that, if these nuts were given the choice, they would go back to enslaving black people. Heck, wasn't it only a few years ago that a black guy got lynched by having his body dragged along a rural dirt road for miles until his body disintegrated? Southerners completely fear black people. You would find very few of them in a republican convention, even though they comprise a large portion of the south, like 30%.
So, yes, what we are truly saying is, YOUR COUNTRYMEN are worse than the Taliban. They worship a god that rational northerners have genarally rejected, while at the same time remain a parasitic scourge to rich industrialized northern states.
We're better off without them. Cut them off. Let them fend for themselves. The north would do just fine without the American Taliban.
I certainly don't want to be associated with any red state at this point...
LOL.
... refers to the right-wing authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 ..."
_ Ge rman_Workers%27_Party
Oh, i forgot that medicare and social security are socialist... geez. Or how about health care? Socialism, right? Do you know the definition of socialism? Seriously? If you did, you'd probably realize that a Government handing out anything to it's citizens is a little piece of Socialism right here in the good 'ole USA.
So you must agree there is a grey area? Could you help me understand where that line is? I was under the mistaken thought that the President was trying to pass a federal law to limit people's rights (gay marriage) so he could think for them, too. Hmmm. Well, we all know how well Prohibition turned out.
As far as a history lesson goes, you might want to check out the defintion of Hitler's Socialist Regime, which was not socialist. It was much closer to fascism. Fascism is a right wing political movement. I'm not drawing a connection or even implying one... I just think you're trying to demonize a point of view without all the facts:
"The term Nazi is a short form of the German word (NA)tionalso(ZI)alist (National Socialist) - the ideology of the NSDAP (generally considered to be a variant of fascism under a misleading name)."
"Fascism
You can find the pages here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
You might want to head over to Common Dreams and read Sarah Anderson's Ten Reasons Not to Move to Canada, as well as Bryant Urstadt's Readers Guide to Expatriating on November 3rd.
Lefty Canadians like myself would love to have you, but it's important to think about whether jumping ship is a better alternative than staying on board and continuing to fight for what you believe in. And, for what it's worth, not all of us outside the US believe that everyone within supports the policies of the Administration. We might think little of your Government, but we still love you, even if a lot of your countrymen don't.
There is a spellbook here; eat it? [ynq]
I am speaking German you insensitive clod!
Free as in mason.
"there goes the planet"
Nothing will change until we get out of a two party system mentality. Nothing. I don't understand why people don't see that it's just too fucking easy for a powerful group of people to buy BOTH parties, give the general population the bone every four years, and say "just be glad you have the right to vote!" When was the last presidential election where we actually had someone we really wanted to elect? 1992 :-/? 1980 :-)? 1960?
If the Internet is supposed to be this massive force of change, why can't an internet based "popular" party nominate someone through the Internet, and then everyone can vote for that person to do an end-around this fucked up two party system? You know, I can just see all the fat-assed geeks say "well, just think of the fraud from overseas voters, and blah blah blah." Well, instead of just sitting there on your big fat asses and criticize, why don't you use your supposed massive intellect and THINK of a way to do a national based internet nomination of a candidate... Our only other alternative is for everyone to choose another party such as this or this.
I also think it's time for all the Democrat and Republican Koolaid drinkers to wake up from their coma and realize these two choices are actually more alike than different. They are in agreement with military issues, immigration, and other misc. topics. So what does that leave, abortion? Great, that's leaves a whole lot for me to pick from...
Until then, don't be surprised for another round of pick the worst of the two in 2008...
I would love it if the population could be liberalized first. Could the democrats start a campaign equating religion with atrocities? Christianity=bad? That it's OK to enjoy life every now and then? That the thing called "God" that you worship, not everyone believes in or cares about? That it actually doesn't affect you if gay people have sex? That abortion is a good way to have as much sex as you want without having to have a kid? That sex with reckless abandon is a happy thing? That drugs are fun for the whole family? That prostitution is a good way for ugly people to finally sex? That gambling is a fun and entertaining activity thats good for the economy? That porn is fun? That cursing is a good way to let your frustrations out? That breeding kids isn't the ultimate goal in life? That conservatives make horrible music? That there are better things to do in life than to worship God? That listening to a blue-polyester clad preacher for hours is actually creepy? The list of conservative-bashing could go on and on, and would be quite entertaining.
It would be great to fix the population first before having democrats attempt to gain any control. What good is a government if the population itself is horrible?
"In six days God created Heaven and the Earth. On the seventh day He rested...
...see you at the finals!"
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
To all the people who voted for Kerry because it was a vote against Bush and the Republican party (NOTE: not the same as liking Kerry), will another four years of Bush push you enough to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008, regardless of which Republican runs?
Who will bet that Hillary runs and gets the nomination for President in 2008?
It seems that you're saying that one makes a choice to engage in homosexual activities, and by choosing to do so, you violate a commonly accepted (heck, just say absolute) standard of decency/morals - you sin, in effect - and therefore should be condemned. We have free will, we can choose our behavior, and if we choose wrong (sin) we should be condemned and pay the price. Fair assessment?
OK, now we move on to what I think is the crux of this issue: choice. Can you sin without choice? Let's say you were standing on the 23rd floor of an office building, minding your own business, and suddenly the floor underneath you collapsed. As you fall to the 22nd floor, you happen to hit someone who had the misfortune to be standing underneath you, break their neck, and kill them. Sure, it's a ridiculous situation, but run with it - would you have sinned in killing them? You falling on them was the cause of their death. Killing is wrong, of course. But it's not like you chose to have the floor drop out underneath you - it just happened. I would say (and I imagine few would disagree) that no, you haven't sinned.
In fact, I would say choice is a prerequisite to sin - without a choice, one cannot sin. Do you agree?
That brings us to the matter of homosexuality. Specifically, does someone choose to be a homosexual, or is it just an accident of biology? I don't have the answer to this - I don't think anyone does. But let's say (hypothetically speaking) that tomorrow someone announced conclusive proof that homosexuality was entirely biological - a "gay gene" is found in 100% of people identifying themselves as homosexual, and 0% of the non-homosexual population.
Under this circumstance (direct biological cause of homosexuality) - would you still feel that there is a moral prohibition against homosexuality? That homosexual acts should be considered a sin? That homosexuals had a choice in the matter? Or maybe would you argue that despite this (hypothetical) gay gene, one still makes a choice every time one has sex, and by choosing to have sex with a member of the same sex (even with the preference driven by this gay gene) one sins?
Your thoughts?
Of course it is one of the greatest aspects of my life that i greet my colleagues with "morgen!" instead of "heil !" or "dobroe utro!" and i know that i owe that - or at least a very big part of that - to the american people.
I still think that Iraq is worse off now than it was under Saddam Hussein, and will be for at least 5-10 years, if not longer.
Stabilizing the country will mean planes with soldiers going US-%gt;Iraq and planes with caskets coming back for a long time, which will be pretty hard to justify politically. I don't even want to think about what will happen when that effort can't be kept up for long enough.
I think invading Iraq was a very bad choice, leading to more hatred against the US and to more recruits for terrorists. Instead of making the world a safer place, it will be less safe for years to come. That alone should have been reason enough to vote Bush out.
Free as in mason.
Read up some history. Especially read beyond encyclopedia entries. Facism was a form of nationalist socialism. Mussolini started his political career in trade unions in Italy after the I-st world war. As to NSDAP - Germany ruled by them was the first country to introduce some of the solutions now associated with "welfare state".
I mean to put "representative democracy" in quotes. The idea being that we pick people to go out and vote in the electoral college, and those people do actually vote for the President, in theory representing the views of those who picked them (although they are not required to do so)
-------------------------------------------
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.
-- Dr. Seuss
Do you really really think there would be a significant difference between Kerry and Bush in real life? Isn't it obvious that there could be small adjustments here and there but the overall course of American policy has to remain the same since US interests and world challenges don't depend on who's in the White House.
Anyway - a word of advice from the distance (which gives some prospective). Democrats - cool down, this is not the end of the world as you know it. Republicans - rejoice, you won so you can have some celebration but don't stump too hard on the other side.
But both sides - remember, you are all Americans, you live in one country and would have to work with each other no matter how this or that election turns out. Too much wounded hopes on one side and too much triumphalism on the other lead to too much hate. And hate is not good for anyone.
I have a question for you: how many nations already have gay marriage so that the US is considered a cultural backwater not to have it? Does France have it? Denmark? Australia? ANYONE?
Sorry, unfair question. Let me ask another instead. Which Democrat politicians were publicly in favor of gay marriage before Gavin Newsome arrived on the scene? ANYONE?
Sorry, still unfair. Here's a trivially easy question: name one 2004 Democrat Presidential Candidate in favor of gay marriage? What's that deafening silence I hear?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Chemisor,
Your first argument is trivially disposed of by pointing out that gay people pay taxes, too. Your second argument, that marriage grants a moral sanction to homosexuality, is utter nonsense. Gay or straight, what consenting adults do in their own homes is none of your (or the government's) business. The real heart of the problem here is that government is involved in marriage in the first place, which should never have been the business of the state.
Marriage is a personal commitment, for some a religious sacrament, and many other things to many other people, but one thing it most assuredly is NOT is any of YOUR business if you're not one of the people in the particular marriage in question.
Incidentally, I agree that you should be free to refuse to do business with gays, just as I am free to have nothing to do with bigots. Frankly, I'd be a lot more comfortable if every bigot in this country wore his heart on his sleeve.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Ditto here in Europe (hell yeah, even France !).
I wonder if someday we'll have to send a hospital ship cruising in international waters near the coast of Virginia and Florida, to provide abortions and medical care to women when abortion is outlawed in the US...
A dutch NGO did this some time ago for Portugal (where abortion -- and even divorce -- is still illegal). The authorities of portugal were not pleased...
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
All three major network anchors (Brokaw, Jennings and Rather) show strong liberal bias.
Translation: if its not Rush, its liberal.
If that quote isn't glib and inaccurate (and Left), then I don't know what is.
What a surprise, you're completely wrong. One big reason why the poor vote for tax breaks that favor the rich is because they want to be rich themselves. And when that happens, they don't want to be taxed.
I don't wish to cite too many examples, but your argument about a Right Wing cabal controlling American media falls flat.
Its not so much that the GOP controls the media as that they are 30 years ahead of dealing with it than the Democrats are. They have an echo chamber to get the mainstream press to start parroting their stories, and they spend hundereds of millions on think tanks so they can field "experts" on any given subject to talk shows or reporters on a moments notice. The GOP had great success with this in 1994, so why the Democratic party leaders left it all up to George Soros in 2004 is beyond me.
Most of your points about the benefits of unionism and nationalized health-care should be tempered with their drawbacks
Okay, so all unions and government subsidized health care are bad because there have been some problems with them? Okay, lets take your logic and extend it. Because company's like Enron break the law and rip off their employees, investors and customers, we should get rid of businesses. All of them.
Left-wing propaganda machine: ...is a myth. Any more gems of wisdom?
What, NPR isn't enough of a LEFTwing propoganda machine for you?
Um, its not. Go find me a single media source LESS biased than NPR. I wont hold my breath while I wait.
and most of them were only able to say "he's not Bush"
True, and Kerry needs a good bitchslapping for that. The man had no platform whatsoever, just a lot of talking points. He should have come up with a list of 5 reasons to vote for him and 5 reasons not to vote for Bush, and hammered at them.
News flash. Constitution says: one person, one vote. Your vote isn't more important just 'cuz you were fortunate enough to attend college.
Assertion: Corruption interferes with economic growth.
Absolutely, no argument.
Assertion: Democratic governments show better economic growth, personal income, and education than non-democratic states.
Counter-example: 42 out of 48 African countries have held multiparty elections since 1990. Mostly they swap one set corrupt asset-strippers for a different set.
I wish you were right, I really do, but the facts just don't support it.
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
lets look at the number of thoses countries you mentioned and the number of citizen they had which renounced thier country of birth for the USA. Theses number are just for 2003, also the USA has a limit severly limiting the number of people immengrating from Europe so that is going to decrease the number who become citizens.
Denmark 197
Sweden 951
Norway 93
Belgium 295
France 1476
Now for the opposite.
Could not find numbers of US citizens that did the same for thoses countries but the total number, and this is worldwide, was less then 600.
I'm commenting specifically on your second point:
1. Al Qaeda didn't attack Australia (trust me, I live here). I presume you're indirectly referring to the Bali bombing (in Indonesia) in which Australians died (among many other nationalities). There is no evidence that it was an Al Qaeda plot, although much like the Iraq-9/11 connection, it's been inferred so many times that it has become "truth" in the eyes of the uneducated. The supposed perpetrators (Jamah Islamiah [sp?]) claimed they were trying to kill Americans, not Australians (we look the same I guess, both nations being predominantly white caucasian in nature).
2. "Congratulations to our law enforcement and intelligence organizations for keeping the homeland safe."
Are you familiar with the protective rock analogy (see Simpsons for good example in the Bear Patrol episode)? It goes something like this:
Lisa - This rock in my hand keeps tigers away.
Homer - But there aren't any tigers!
Lisa - Exactly.
Homer - I wish to buy your rock.
Do you see why your analogy that Homeland Security must have prevented an attack is flawed? Absence of an event does not prove your prevention is working, because there may not have been any event planned in the first place. This is the "logic" used to hoodwink the American populace into believing you are somehow "winning" a war on terror that cannot be won, because terrorism is a technique, not an enemy state that can be defeated.
Al Qaeda (a group essentially made real by the US in the first place) has won hugely by the election of Bush - now they are assured that the US will continue to attack defenceless countries for oil, which will give Al Qaeda much greater recruiting numbers than they ever could have hoped for. They have gone from lucky criminals to a legitimate rebel group in the eyes of large percentages of the Muslim world, precisely as Osama has intended. He's much smarter than people have given him credit for, and even if he was captured or killed tomorrow, will have forged a force to be reckoned with in the coming years. No, Al Qaeda didn't lose by a long shot.
Visceral Psyche Films
Its true, europeans despise Bush - but maybe more than one european government will (secretly) be more than relieved. Bush's second term will be more beneficial to esspecially France and Germany than many would think. Struggling for support at home due to domestic problems they'd have faced a severe dilemma with a kerry administration. With Kerry returning to multilateral commitment their involvement in Iraq would have been more or less inevitable, while sverely hurting their chances of reelections at home and interfering with european plans of building a cooperational sphere around the mediterenean (btw maybe more of a reason to Libiya's recent chance of policies than fear of US intervention) and the ongoing expansion of the EU (turkey!). Considering further the ever increasing anti-bushism of broad fractions of european societies, the anti-bush ticket may see somemore use before the next US-elections, providing a promising ticket to run on in european elections during the next four years. Many think-tanks already regard the US as the primary source of instability in their direct neighborhood and question a continued commitment to NATO, favoring closer relations to Russia instead. The former Soviet Union has lost its terrifying image in the eyes of many europeans and they might be tempted to regard both (ex-)superpowers as equally democratically impaired; while european interests lost their link with american interests and are increasingly in match with Russia, esspecially regarding a commitment to stability in their respective neighbourhoods and a shared exploitation of siberias vast resources. In 2008, a (hopefully democratic) new administration might pretty well find tradional alliances shattered beyond repair, instead facing a eurasian coalition with potential economic autarchy. Aint gonna happen? Well, three years ago the US had unparalleled support worldwide... its a slippery slope.
Life has become the ideology of its absence - T.W. Adorno
Well - I for one - do NOT welcome your Texan Overload
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
Let's just assume for the moment that I agree with everything you just said. So you may be asking "Why are Americans voting for Bush again?" It's rather simple really. It's not your message that's the problem, it's how you deliver it to the public. Case in point, liberals have alway been the most elitiest bunch of aristocrats to grace this great nation of ours. And that being said, people by virtue of human nature despise being looked down apon and mocked.
As a republican (part libertarian) myself, I have some advice for the democrats.
1. Stop the hate, and stop foaming at the mouth.
2. Educate and hold civil debates, do not bash.
3. Treat people with respect, even if you know them to be morrons in your own mind.
4. Most important, get stop it with this elitiesm crap. It's a MAJOR mental turn off to those you wish to engage in a debate.
Life is not for the lazy.
So I really don't understand what you are aiming at.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
>>Sincerely, I would be delighted if Bush was killed with a bullet in the head during one of his retarded speeches I fear that the bullet would go straight through - when referring to a void, it's hard to strike anything vital.
@peetm
Because he asked his secret friend Osama bin Laden to appear on TV for a little bit of extra fear in the hearts of the voters. Voters choose hardliners in case of danger, voila!
By not chasing Osama bin Laden (a family friend according to Fahrenheit 911), there is a perfect excuse to invade countries with oil at random in the name of fighting terror.
The real problem is that the US taxpayer will carry the bill for this. Couple that to less tourism to the US because of childish and time-consuming border security, tourists everywhere else switching to Euro currency, and open source software cutting off the lucrative income from software licenses, the US ends up with a large debt and a US$ devaluating faster than Banana Republic money.
Being big does not make friends, being friendly makes friends.
The democrats need to start presenting canidates that people like (Dean), instead of canidates that they think will "win" (Kerry). And don't ask me why the democrats don't think popular canidates with a large grass-roots movement behind them won't win, because I really don't know.
But that's what most analyses came up with after election day - maybe that particular wisdom will not be forgotten three years from now. Having someone, preferably a Southerner, who will appeal to the large demographic that is not comfortable with a supposedly snobby New England liberal like Kerry. Hillary Clinton will have a hard time in 2008 for exactly that reason.
> why do you find it necessary to control the
> activity of other people even when it does not affect you?
First of all, I don't find it necessary for the government to control undesirable activity if I can avoid people who engage in it. If I dislike someone, the world is big enough that I don't have to be around them. If this person lives next door, I don't have to go see him. But the problem is that by its "equal rights for every pervert" stance, the government makes this impossible in many cases. Suppose I own a company and have a job opening; an openly gay man applies for the job. In a small company I would have to work with him on a daily basis, spend days in his presence, and try painfully hard to forget what he is. Therefore, if the government does not force me to hire him, I'll politely tell him to look elsewhere and look for someone I actually can like. But if the government officially accepts gays as "normal" and forbids discrimination against them, it really would affect me very negatively, as I just described.
> I'm just trying to figure out why roughly 55% of
> this country finds it neccessary to tell other
> people how to live their lives
The purpose of government is to tell people how to live their lives. You can apply the same argument to any behaviour and against any law. "There is no reason to outlaw murder, if nobody wants to kill you. There is no reason to outlaw theft, if you have nothing worth stealing. There is no reason to outlaw child pornography if you have no children. There is no reason to outlaw drugs if you are not using."
> I find anal sex as disgusting as you, and I would
> never consider doing crack... but I find the idea
> of forcing that on other people even more reprehensible.
What you actually mean to say is that you don't think you should be allowed to pass any sort of judgement on other people's activity. These days it is considered a blasphemy to have a moral code and to judge other people's actions by it. "After all, his ways are as good as yours. Who are you to judge?" But some people, like me, believe that there is such a thing as an absolute moral code. That some actions are wrong no matter who is looking at them. That it is possible to be right regardless of anybody's opinion. And that one's moral code should be a logical certainty rather than a "feeling" for the expediency of the moment.
In 2000 the difference in Florida were ~500 votes.
In Ohio the difference was almost 200000.
Gore had all the right to ensure the counting was accurate. Kerry clearly lost this time.
Completely different circumstances demand completely different actions, in both cases the Democrats follow the path that needed to be followed.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
> The real heart of the problem here is that
> government is involved in marriage in the first
> place, which should never have been the business of the state.
I agree completely.
> Marriage is a personal commitment, for some a
> religious sacrament, and many other things to
> many other people, but one thing it most
> assuredly is NOT is any of YOUR business if
> you're not one of the people in the particular
> marriage in question.
If marriage were only a personal commitment, and I were not required by law to recognize it as such if I did not want to, then I agree that it would be none of my concern. I could then refuse to acknowledge any gay marriages and my life would be completely unaffected by some gay people living someplace I never have to go to. So get marriage out of the law and I will agree with you.
> Frankly, I'd be a lot more comfortable if every bigot
> in this country wore his heart on his sleeve.
Which would be quite impossible if you outlaw bigotry, would it?
Why would Texas want Kerry?
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Neither the Islamists or Reagan stopped the USSR in AFghanistan.
The corruption, cynisism and croniism prevalent in the USSR made the country implode. They simply were not organized enough and lacked the morale to confront a widespread guerrilla war with some support from the US.
Had the USSR been a cohesive society there would have been no way they would have been kicked out of Afghanistan. They hung to half of Europe for 45 years, but they stablished their stronghold when the people and leadership in the USSR believed all the propaganda that was been generated by the system.
By th early eighties no sane Soviet believed in the Soviet state, and young soldiers in Afghanistan knew the enterprise was doomed to failure and made the best to get some scraps from the table.
The Neocon propaganda that somehom Reagn dismembered the USSR is fantasy: the USSR's contradictions would have killed it without any helping hadn from Reagan and Co.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
> It seems that you're saying that one makes a
> choice to engage in homosexual activities, and by
> choosing to do so, you violate a commonly accepted
> (heck, just say absolute) standard of
> decency/morals - you sin, in effect
I will correct you only by emphasising that I really would say "absolute". I believe that there is an absolute moral code and that it can be used to judge anyone's actions, regardless of their own opinion of them.
> I would say choice is a prerequisite to sin -
> without a choice, one cannot sin. Do you agree?
I agree.
> Under this circumstance (direct biological cause
> of homosexuality) - would you still feel that
> there is a moral prohibition against homosexuality?
Whether homosexual preference is biological in nature or a choice, is completely irrelevant. I would not condemn a gay man's preference if he can not help it, just as I would not condemn a man who is suffering from diarrhea. But the actual homosexual act is always a choice. Nobody needs to have sex to survive, and there is no "I couldn't help it" argument possible here. Sex never happens accidentally.
Germany and Mexico just for starters are Federal Republics that are democracies.
One thing does not exclude the other by any means.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
> Aaah. So your argument against homosexuality boils down to the "proof" in the bible.
Go read my comment again. I only made the argument that God would be against homosexuality based on the "proof" in the Bible. Because the Bible is the only source of information about God, no other argument is possible. My own views on homosexuality have nothing to do with the Bible.
Given the margin of difference Gore was confronting (~500 votes) and the enormous irregularities in the Florida process only somebody politically irresponsible would have not looked into making completely sure, by any means necessary, what was the real result of the election.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
> From the "inalienable rights" referenced in the Declaration of Independence
You may decry that your rights are "inalienable" all you want, but unless the government forces me to grant them to you, I do not have to.
> the American tradition is that all rights not explicitly prohibited are allowed.
You need to add "by the government" here. The constitution specifies only what rights the government can not deny you by law (and the government has to date found ways to do it anyway). It says nothing about what rights other people must grant you.
> you should have to come up with a reasonable and
> compelling argument to bar behavior you don't like.
Why don't you come up with a reasonable and compelling argument why the next man to come to your house should not kill you? Remember, personal opinions of your own worth, commands of Zeus, Thor, Ra, the Easter Bunny or YHWH do not meet the standard. Sorry.
... that
-Killing 100000 Iraquis (and counting) based on lies.
-A horrendous deficit
will not come back to bite you in the ass, then Bush supporters are more delussional than I thought.
You may not have to pay anybody else's healthcare bill, but you will be financing the oulandish adventurism of the scaremongers you have chosen to govern you.
Every single civilian death in Iraq has been financied with your tax money. I hope you are happy with your money to be wasted that way (in the mean time real terrorists keep sending videograms like if they were you old looney uncle).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Yah, we might elect fewer gun-control proponents (see #5 & #7 above)
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
What I don't get is the Christian evangelical connection with Bush. I must be reading the abridged version of the Bible.
I don't get this connection with Jesus and war. Or the Jesus connection with discrimination against minority groups. The connection with Jesus and denying your neighbor what they themselves claim as their own. I personally despise abortion but what's this connection with Jesus and plucking slivers from neighbors eyes.
I can only guess they've chosen the deceitful one as their moral leader or my Bible is missing entire sections. I don't see the same connection they do.
It's called splitting the atom. Power to the bomb baby!
Now, what's this fuss about a draft now?
Life is not for the lazy.
You know, one of the biggest arguements against Bush is his actions in Iraq and with the UN, but realistically speaking, would Kerry have done much different? I never see anybody comparing what could have been done differently with any realistic ideas.
Sure people claim going into war (both "on Terrorism" and in Iraq) was wrong, but what could have been done differently?
Yeah, Bush may of alienated a good portion of the UN when they refused aid, but did anyone happen to notice the UN didn't speak up until after the worst was over? I'm not going to claim Bush couldn't have been a bit more diplomatic, but does that excuse the UN from staying quite when it counted, and then opposing the US when it seemed safe to do so?
And with all the acts on the home front, again, would Kerry have done something else? We're not partial to the information the President has, it's very possible that Kerry would have reacted in the same manner dependent upon the intelligence reports he got.
Did I suggest outlawing bigotry? It would be as futile as trying to outlaw any other form of idiocy.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Please go and try to find some evidence that Al Quaeda is this highly organized network that your Orwelain reelected masters say it is.
Try to find a single shred of evidence.
LEts stop giving credence to this myth, AL Quaeda is just a political puppet brandished with outstanding success by people that lacking any idease about how to better society are pandering to the fear of the masses.
Whe wolf is comming! The wolf is comming!
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Actually, I meant that the Democratic leadership showed itself to be a bunch of left-leaning nutjobs. Kerry was not a nutjob, but merely moderately leftward-leaning. He was certainly not a "centrist".
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
It would be hard to find a single source which is less biased, but NPR does have a relatively strong liberal/progressive bias with regard to social issues, and an internationalist/UN bias with regard to foreign policy issues.
To highlight a specific issue, examine the variety of coverage of Israel:
From the truly antisemitic (The Guardian, UK)
to the strong anti-Israel bias (BBC)
to the somewhat anti-Israel bias (Washington Post, New York Times, NPR)
to the somewhat pro-Israel bias (Wall Street Journal)
to the strong pro-Israel bias (Washington Times, Jerusalem Post)
If you look at coverage of any specific event, you'll see a wide range of perspectives on the same "facts" with some groups being more willing to challenge the "facts" than others.
Also, Morning Edition and ATC try to be fair, and do better than most at it, but many of the syndicated shows (Diane Rehm, the World, etc) are strikingly biased.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
I have a question for you: how many nations already have gay marriage so that the US is considered a cultural backwater not to have it? Does France have it? Denmark? Australia? ANYONE?
For the record, I believe Denmark was the first country in the world to allow same sex marriages. That was back in 1989.
In fact, most countries in Scandinavia allow this.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
Excuse the subject typo ... I meant sex, of course. :-)
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
Impossing your way of life and values into others.
That is why you and your lot are so dangerous, I hope more people, including decent religious ones, come to realize this on time.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The question is one of whether you consider the entities of States to be important or not. Most people I talk to who believe the EC should be abolished in favor of a direct popular vote seem to believe that there are no real distinctions between the states, that the country really should be treated as a uniform whole.
That's not quite what the founding fathers had in mind. Originally, the country was a loose conglomeration of mostly independent States, where the borders between them really did make a difference. However, in consideration of population differences, all States cannot be treated equal in terms of representation, which is why we have the EC. It's a nice compromise between the ideas of equal States and proportional population representation. Basically the same compromise that forms the balance of the House and the Senate.
I'm certainly not arguing that the EC is the best possible system. I'm arguing that it's better than a direct popular vote. I provide that URL as a mathematical basis for further debate and discussion.
1. I don't know, but someone else who replied to you does.
2. I don't know.
3. None that I know of.
I have only one question for you:
Could you supply a quote from anything that I posted where I said I am a democrat?
I disagree, I feel better when I hear why 51% of voting Americans chose Bush. It helps me to shed my sympathy for the people of America when I can hear their ignorance.
Standard American reasons for voting for Bush:
- Abortion
- Tax
- Defense
Reap what you sow, enjoy the next 4 years(the people would rather have a man who kills over 15000 Iraqi civilians than allow women the right to choose)
(the common man - which the majority of voters are - supports a man who introduces tax cuts for the rich and is in favour of outsourcing Amreican jobs)
('Bush makes me feel safe' - Ah yes, a leader who starts illegal wars and breaks the Geneva convention must make you feel real safe)
Keep an eye on MN in two years, it will probably continue in the same direction it has taken this election, completely opposite of the the Republican move of the rest of the country.
Just because you can, does not mean you should.
I agree with you there.
That's affirmative action, which I'm not a big fan of either. I'd rather you and the gay man just stay away from each other than breed more hate.
The purpose of government should be to defent people's rights. That is the consitutionally defined function of the federal government.
In each of these examples the rights of an unwilling participant are violated, so following the above, those things ought to be illegal.
Even if you are, you aren't affecting anyone else.
Passing judgement is one thing, forcing others to live according to it is another.
But the fact that only people believe it and the fact that it is a belief, not a provable fact implies that it is not absolute. You may believe that it is absolute, and other people may believe theirs is absolute, so by definiton they are not absolute. You can't prove a moral code is the right one like you can prove the earth is round.
Well just remember 140 years ago, the kickball players were playing 4-square and vice verse. The kickball players(140 years ago) decided to go off and play kickball by themselves and the 4-square(140 years ago)players forced them to come back and play 4-square, soon after, they discovered that kickball was better and the former kickball players decided to like 4-square out of spite.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Aperantly famaly values were a determining factor
Gay people have no rights
You cant get an abortion but your on your own if you get pregnant
why do you expect us to pay for your child care, get off welfare and work at a job that wont be enough for your child care
put all the people you dont like in jail
health care is not a famaly value
the people that got bush into office are roughly the same people who wanted america to keep slavery.
America is a contry filled with ingorant warmongering bigots who believe in gay bashing, and neglecting its own population this is a sad country and it is a matter of time before the world gets together and fuch us like the bich we are. I wouldnt be surprized if the middle east alies together and kicks us off of iraq and settles the isrealy problem itself. we are so screwed.
you're absolutely correct, that's about as fair as that process gets: over long periods opinion may shift. still, though, doesn't that leave something to be desired? shouldn't the kindergarten be playing both games in different proportions?
by left-wing nutjobs
This is the problem. The Democratic party is too far right for most Democrats in the population, yet the Republican population thinks that the party is much farther left than its base. Most Democracts I know think only "right wing nutjobs" would have voted for Bush, and that any moderate conservatives should have voted for Kerry, who they saw as too conservative for Democrats and a poor choice for that reason.
In truth, the Democratic party is too conservative for its base. Most of the nearly fifty percent of the people in this country who reluctantly voted for Kerry are the "left wing nutjobs" of which you speak. They want national health, strong unions and labor rights, guaranteed social welfare (i.e. food, housing, entertainment enough to have a "good" life), gay/lesbian/transgendered rights, legalization and regulation of drugs, an end to the war in Iraq and a restoration of Palestine, etc. The right loves to call them the "fringe" but they really aren't; they are nearly half of the country--the liberal half. If the Democratic party goes any farther to the right, these people are going to gravitate toward other farther left parties that more closely represent their views, and, in a few more elections, we'll have a 50/50 split again between whatever the new left is called and the conservative right.
This split in the votes really does represent a clear split in ideology in this country. Somehow the right seems to think that the Democratic party is made of ten Marxist-Leninists and fifty million sheep. Not so. There really are nearly as many people who are ardently left as there are people who are ardently right in this country (even though both groups somehow seem to want to defensively claim that they are ardently "center"). What we have is essentially a secular humanist versus evangelical christian conflict, and the two really are completely incompatible, not just ideologically, but also behaviorally, judicially, and financially.
If the US were two nations, one made of the liberal coastal areas, and one made of the conservative central and southern areas, we wouldn't even have diplomatic relations. The conflict would be as hot as the conflict between Israel and Iran is, and the relationship just as cold.
Any Democratic candidate that is acceptable to even the leftmost 25% of the Republican base is going to be too much of a "right wing nutjob" for the leftmost 75% of the Democratic base. Similarly, any Republican candidate that is acceptable to even the rightmost 25% of the Democratic base is going to be too much of a "left wing nutjob" for the rightmost 75% of the Republican base.
Neither view is insane; it has to do with the differing lifestyles of the areas. In Urban areas, the average citizen can not be self-sufficient or live "off the land" since population density is very high and the nearest "land" may be hundreds of miles away. There is little in the way of entertainment or behavior of any kind (i.e. even going to the park in some areas) that does not require capital (i.e. dollars) to experience. There is no natural way to obtain food or water or to dispose of waste; these things must be bussed in and out, also requiring infrastructure and dollars. The greatest danger is from crime--the fact that if you walk out your door at 2.00 in the morning, you have a good chance of getting shot, knifed, mugged by someone who isn't well off enough to be supporting themselves. This, danger, too, can only be mitigated by government intervention: cops to look out for and arrest criminals and welfare to provide such criminals with enough help that they don't need to be on the streets any longer. You can't defend yourself because a) most of the criminals are better armed than you are [hence the desire for gun control] and b) population density is so high that any gunshot in self defense, in any direction, will likely go through ten or twelve apartments at least--potentially killing someone else's mother, fath
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
This is a essay that Dan Hoak, a physicist currently in Irvine, wrote this morning. I thought it sums up the feelings many people have about the politics of the 2004 election, and have included it here:
"America, Have You No Decency?
It has become clear after reading articles and listening to NPR that the factor this year was the Christian right. I would like to claim that this occurred to me even before the CNN analysts started pointing it out. Gore up by 500,000 votes in 2000, Kerry down by three and a half million in 2004. Florida not even close. Where does this silent majority come from? Well, in between, Karl Rove built a database of four million frequent churchgoers, the Bush administration pandered to voters who would follow him even if they disagreed with the war in Iraq, and conservative groups put gay-marriage questions on the ballot in eleven states. Coupled with a strong effort to remind these people to vote, and bingo bango, the biggest concern of voters wasn't Iraq, it wasn't the economy, it wasn't education. It was moral issues. And on and on; you can read about it in Newsweek.
The gay marriage proposals went down by large margins in all eleven states, including Ohio. Some of these states were battlegrounds and shouldn't have been, like Oregon and Michigan. Others weren't battlegrounds and should have been, like Arkansas.
Survey says: Americans don't like gays, or at least not enough to treat them with dignity. To a very liberal American like myself, who just watched Tony Kushner's play "Angels in America" and thoroughly enjoyed it, this is disheartening. But it is not the last word: the gay rights movement is still in its infancy, and has gained much ground in the few decades it has been active. Forty years ago, would any politician have been openly gay? Any movie star? Now they can marry in Massachusetts and vote for Barney Frank. The world has failed to end. No fire and brimstone have rained down from heaven. The efforts for gay rights will move forward.
Far more troubling is the continued ability of the religious right to act as kingmaker in American politics. This has been going on, dramatically, since Reagan, and it doesn't look like it will stop soon. Karl Rove has clearly demonstrated to Republicans that if they want to win, they must choose candidates that speak to frequent churchgoers. It's been shown that candidates like Bob Dole and John McCain don't energize this base, and lose. Moderate candidates like Giuliani will likely have an uphill battle if they want to run for national office. The effect of this demographic on policy is clear and long-lasting. The Supreme Court already leans more conservative than the general population, and will likely lean more after the next four years. Legislative attempts to erode abortion rights are ongoing, as are attempts to teach creationism in schools. The conservative movement behind these two issues in particular is tenacious and in for the duration. Their strategy is to pass many small laws in lots of states, often using confusing and misleading language. They seek to win the battle in steps, over time.
When Americans talk of religious fundamentalism, they are referring to Islamic extremists. But when Europeans talk of religious fundamentalism, they're referring to both Islamic extremists and the Christian evangelical movement in the United States. This kind of religious upsurge in this country is not unprecedented. Between 1800 and 1845, the United States experienced the Second Great Awakening, during which time the number of preachers per capita tripled. Alexis de Tocqueville found in the 1830s that "There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains greater influence over the souls of men than in America." Mormonism, Universalism, Unitarianism, and the African- American church all emerged during that period. Policy was affected, especially views on race and ethnicity; many of the prominent American naturalists of the time firmly believed that
Unfortuntely, it works both ways. It is many times hard for Americans to understand the world and just as hard for the world to understand Americans. But to respond to your post, Americans voted for a President that was against Gay marriage. The issues that concerned you the most were not as important to many Americans (I think the Iraq situation was only listed as the third most important issue behind "moral values" and the economy.)
Hope this clears things up a bit.
Little Bricklets
I'm just pointing out that the last time playing both games at the same, or near the same time was proposed a war was fought over who got to pick the next game.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Yes, thank you for being pety and ignorant.
... moral reasons. Decoded that means they liked his stance on gay marriage, which is the stupidest reason to vote for a leader in the history or history.
You ignore the fact that 48% of the people who voted, people NOT from rural America, people NOT from the far Christian right, did NOT vote for Bush.
That's right. The exact number escapes me, but something like 45 million people wanted Bush out of the office. 48 million voted for him which is sad, I agree.
But thank you for assuming that all Americans want this. Thank you for missing the fact that nearly half of America is upset at how things turned out. Thank you for assuming that any American you meet is one that voted for Bush.
If fact, if you meet an American who is traveling, odds are they voted for Kerry. Why?
1) Rural America likes Bush due to
2) Rural America doesn't travel abroad. That takes money and generally intelligence. Most of rural America has neither.
3) People from cities like Chicago, New York, Boston, SF, LA, Miami, etc... These are the people that voted for Kerry. These are the people more apt to travel. These are the people you will most likley meet.
So instead of making a broad judgement on all Americans realize that the USA has never been so split in its history (except perhaps the civil war). This split will not be healed easily.
Place you hatred where it is due. You hating all Americans is equivolent to me hating all Muslims because of 9/11 and other terrorist acts.
Please get all the facts before making up your mind. That is all I ask.
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
kerry doesn't support writing discrimination into the constitution. i think that's a big enough reason to write out all of yours.
kerry doesn't treat the south with disdain as his running mate is from north carolina.
kerry supports increased education spending and reduced military spending.
please me, have no regrets.
Our money and power has loaned your country more than 300 billion dollars which you can't even begin to pay back. You don't have 'war crimes' because you are too weak to protect even yourselves. However, you have plenty of crimes against humanity. Your police are nothing more than common criminals who murder people they think are a burden on your society. Face it, the world needs a strong US whether you or anyone else likes it. Without the US, there would probably hundreds of wars raging all over the planet. Most countries think twice about war because they know what the US reaction would be. North Korea would have long ago invaded South Korea. North Korea would have nuked Japan, it has the capability now. Kuwait would be Iraq. Iran would nuke Isreal the minute they had the capability. India and Pakistan would already have traded nuclear vollies. China would have taken over Taiwan and Hong Kong. Ethnic cleansing would be going on in Bosnia, Chechnyia, and probably about 10 different countries in Africa. Civil wars would be raging all over your continent, Africa and Central America. The only place there would be any semblence of peace would be western Europe and North America and Australia. You want that? If the US stops handing out cash to damn near every country in the world and returns all of its armed forces home, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WILL GET.
And why is it that so many people immigrate to the US? Because it's the best, most powerful, richest country on earth. And why is it that so many people hate the US? Because it's the best, most powerful, richest country on earth. I bet you'd ditch your country in a second if you were granted US citizenship. And if you wouldn't, I bet it wouldn't take 5 minutes to find 10 of your neighbors who would. You might read posts on Slashdot about people who say they are going to leave the US, but that is crap. None of them are going to leave (unless maybe they have AIDS, which is one of the few things your country has done right.) When foreigners come to this country, they fucking love it. Every foreigner I know who has come here to go to school, or do something like a post doctoral fellowship or for a job has ended up staying. They love this country. In your case, Rio might be a nice place to visit but no one wants to live there because when you set aside the hotels and the beaches (which is why people visit), it's a SLUM.
The fact that you put The Telegraph as left wing propaganda (amongst others in your list) shows just how completely to the right is politics in the US and how uninformed and parochial many of you are, in spite of managing to quote some foreign publications.
I would laugh if it was not so tragic for the US and the rest of the world the de facto baning of any social polieies in the US.
The XXth century brought rights for the working classes, the XXIst will bring the dismantling of those rights by means of relnetless propaganda an indoctrination.
Humble people in the US (and if we are not careful, in many other places) will be exploited and may even be thankful for the oportunity these gives them...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Morality and diplomacy are rarely bedfellows. Because we _can_ affect governments does not mean we _should_. Our intervention in Iraq was driven by certain special factors that made the outcome in Iraq vitally important for the US' future.
In regards Iraq, this post is pretty much my viewpoint on the operation.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
... to judge if a homosexual way of life is better or worst thant a Christian way of life?
In a free country, children would be presented both wolrd views and let them make up their minds (under the wise guidance of their family and community).
In the US gay bashing is a national sport and the "Christians" don't have the moral stature to live and let live.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And rabidly so, in spite of being mostly Catholic.
Why? Because the religious nuts had always been against the aspirations of the populace and ther was a need to get them out of politics. It was a matter of national survival.
That is a lesson the US may do well to learn from their Southern neighbours.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Yea what are the odds that a poll would have a mirgin of Error or 3%, I mean that would be unheard of amount of error...
Oh Wait What is the Margin of Error for an exit poll? Every number estimated from a sample may depart from the official vote count. The difference between a sample result and the number one would get if everyone who cast a vote was interviewed in exactly the same way is called the sampling error. That does not mean the sample result is wrong. Instead, it refers to the potential error due to sampling. The margin of error for a 95% confidence interval is about +/- 3% for a typical characteristic from the national exit poll and +/-4% for a typical state exit poll. Characteristics that are more concentrated in a few polling places, such as race, have larger sampling errors. Other nonsampling factors may increase the total error.
It is an invention of the Neocons to keep you fearing for your safety.
Educate yourself, the Neocons are of an Orwellian quality that knows no limits.
No, I am not a conspiracy theory nut, the Neocons have been inventing enemies for the last 30 years and the puplace becomes ever more credulous with the latest incarnation of the enemy to be defeated.
Google for "The Power of Nightmares" and learn.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Hold the door for others moving..
Show us where a Democratic politician calls electors like that...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Put yourself in the shoes of someone whi believes human life begins at conception. I am not asking you to agree with it, just pretend you do. Ok you there? Now knowing that more that one hundred thousand children are killed every year and John Kerry would not even ban Partial Birth Abortion (something many on the left voted to ban) how can you vote for Kerry?
Tax: (the common man - which the majority of voters are - supports a man who introduces tax cuts for the rich and is in favour of outsourcing Amreican jobs)
Its plain fact that the lower brackets (those making less money) got a larger break than the rich (the high bracket got 3 cents on the dollar and the lowest got 5 cents on the dollar. If you want to ignore this because youre lazy, biased, or stupid be my guest..
Defense: ('Bush makes me feel safe' - Ah yes, a leader who starts illegal wars and breaks the Geneva convention must make you feel real safe)
A war that Kerry authorized and touted when trying to beat Dean and condemed when trying to win ex Dean Supporters. Both Kerry and Bush are equally responsable for the idiotic way in which Iraq went down.
Me I voted 3rd party, I had no dog in this race but its great seing so many anrgy Liberals..
Let me try to rephrase this.
What the majority of people believe != the smartest idea.
The majority of people on earth follow Buddhism, instead of Christianity. If you held a world-wide "election" tomorrow, Christ would lose. So that, by this flawed reasoning, would make Christianity "wrong."
There are more Chinese Communists than Americans. The Americans must be doing something wrong, yes?
I am already anticipating what you will say in response to this, and because I am sportsmanlike I will warn you in advance it is a trap for you.
Take the legend of Jesus, if you like. The majority of people in the city were happy to throw a stigmata party.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
... I will give your cool down message to the families of the estimated 100000 (or 15000 if you refuse to extrapolate) Iraqi civilians killed during the invasion of your Orwellian reelected overlords.
Shame on the US, to reelect a liar, it is beyond belief.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Actually we do, I dont think the world realizes how little we care. When I walked in to vote the last thing on my mind was "what will the aussie's say?", I dont have a wweud (what woould the Europian Union do) Stickers on my car..
Alot of people were reserving their hatred for the American people because they believed no one in their right mind would vote Dubya backin
Well that was nice of them, I mean there is nothing like the smug feeling of giving somebody a pass because they are ignorent..
Well you proved them wrong, though i don't agree with this mentality. I can see alot of people worldwide now hating you the people....
Well I care i drop of urine more about their opinion of me than I do our President..
Right now there is a Priest in prision in Norway for reading certain parts of the Bible (ones that call Homosexuality a sin), Canada is Leaning the same way. France bans people from wearing their required religous garb...
Compared to all this handywork you think Bush is the big problem???
Kos http://www.dailykos.com/ points out an article in Harpers http://harpers.org/ElectingToLeave.html on the logistics of becoming a non-US citizen. Not as easy as you might think; although they leave out the most pleasant method of gaining citizenship elsewhere - alien matrimony ;-)
"Not all who wander are lost." (J.R.R. Tolkien)
.... will piss and moan later, when they have to pay for the economic and military adventurism of their Orwellian reelected overlords.
The bill will come, we will talk again then.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Sea ports in: VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX, AK, OH (Via the St Lawerence Seaway),
AirPorts in: Every other damn state in the Union I am willing to bet more come by air than come by sea.
The Geography Thing breaks teh way is does because of the major urban Areas (look at a county break down instead of the state). Urban areas go Blue and Rural Areas go Red..
let's see how you laugh when ralph reed and the wildman of tupelo have rewritten the fucking constitution.
.... is a minuscule group of disjointed individuals that manage to strike ferociosuly very rarely because it is impossible to stop 5 or 6 determined individuals wanting to inflict harm.
If it is worth reelecting a confirmed liar and mass murderer in order to send a clear message to a group of bandits, then your democracy is not worth the paper your Constitution is written in.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... when the action of the man had spoken already?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You are stalking me with your words, they ring in my brain after I read them I get no sleep and I'm in a psychotic ferver over this!
You're seeking out my postings in threads in which you are not even involved. If my postings bother you that much, then just stop reading them. It's that simple. I'm not the President. I'm not the Attorney General. I'm not a Justice on the Supreme Court. I'm not a Congressman. I'm just a private citizen who happens to hold beliefs which differ from yours. That we disagree should have very little bearing on your life.
http://69.242.135.143/misc/blog/bush.html
Thats all I have to say for now.
The Property of One's : "The Oneitude is directly proportional to the Colditude of the one." - S.B.
one reason to vote for the other candidate is to remove someone for office. change is a good thing. i am not obligated to vote for someone because i like him.
how about this one...
kerry said he will not amend the constitution with something that removes rights from the states, keeping the government less centralized.
that doesn't reference bush, sure it's the opposite of what bush would do, but i don't think the constitution should be touched. and yes, discrimination is the gay marriage thing. why should only heterosexuals get the benefits of being married?
please me, have no regrets.
Sorry, Denmark allows civil unions, but has not legalized same-sex marriage.
Alright then. "Union", "marriage" ... these are but relative terms. What really matters are the rights that you benefit from.
Actually, in Denmark it's termed a "registered partnership", and it has the same legal consequences as what we term "marriage", except with regards to adoption of children - the registered partners can't (yet) adopt a child together, however one can adopt the other's child. Granted, the last part about adoption was a later amendment, and not part of the original law as of 1989.
The point of my questions is that people are demanding the US be not only in the vanguard of gay marriage, but are demanding it be so "enlightened" as to make such nations as Denmark, France, Sweden and Germany seem like backward troglodytes.
That far, huh?
Is it really that urgent of an issue if no one else in the world is clamoring for it? Perhaps we have time to sensibly discuss the issue and government's role in marriage before we rush unthinkingly towards bad solutions.
Isn't it just that most of the debate in the US has been too preoccupied with the religous aspects of this (ditto for abortion), instead of the real practical benefits which transcend both religious and legal aspects? Is it really that big of a deal? After all, we're only talking about granting legal rights to couples who live together - they just happen to be of the same sex.
Numerous posts in this discussion have already argued how some votes in this election have been decided based solely on religious beliefs. I'm wondering, what if you just called it something else than "marriage"? Would people still be focusing on labeling these couples as sinners? Would you then be able to focus on actually finding solutions, and move on to more pressing issues?
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
The purpose of government is to tell people how to live their lives.
No. No. No. The purpose of government is to make sure that adults who have chosen different ways of living their lives can live in peace and harmony with one another despite how much they dislike the other's lifestyle. The government's job is to protect people who either 1.) can't make their own decisions or 2.) have decisions unlawfully made for them. If you want to be told how to live your life, there are many people who are happy to give you pointers. You can go to a church, you can ask your family or your parents if you have them. You have friends you can ask. But when it comes down to it, an adult has to decide for themselves where the line between right and wrong is. Drawing that line is an adult's right and duty. That's what being an adult means. An adult should have the right to make this choice for themselves, and consenting adults should be able to enter into relationships with one another that are consistent with the values that they have chosen for themselves. The reason we have government is to defend adults' rights to live according to the rules which they choose for themselves.
There is no reason to outlaw murder, if nobody wants to kill you. There is no reason to outlaw theft, if you have nothing worth stealing. There is no reason to outlaw child pornography if you have no children.
There is a reason to outlaw murder, theft and child pornography, but not gay marriage and drug use. Listen carefully. When I murder someone or steal from someone or make or watch child pornography I am not interacting with other consenting adults. They are either not adults (in the case of child pornography) or they are not consenting (in the case of murder or theft).
That is the difference between those three things and gay marriage, drug use, sodomy, etc. Marriage, regardless of who is being married, is a relationship that exists between two consenting adults and no one else. You can not get married to someone who is not an adult (although the ages vary from state to state), and you won't get married to someone who does not want to be married to you. If you were to marry someone against their will, most people would consider it a crime. Why do you think that is? As for drug use: when I use drugs in the safety of my own home, it is my own decision. As an adult, I should have the option of making that decision for myself. If I hurt myself, that is fine. It was my choice. I should be able to live my life the way I wish. The second I hurt another person, it stops being something I do for myself and could potentially become a crime.
It does not matter how you feel about gay marriage, drug use or whatever. Many people feel very differently about those issues, and that's fine. But the self-regarding vs. other-regarding action distinction is essential to being able to talk about them.
Some people in America feel that no one - not even the president himself should be allowed to draw their moral line for them. No one. Not parents, not friends, not the legislators in the House or Senate. Those very same people also believe that is it reasonable to make laws regarding things that affect non-consenting people or people not old enough to make decisions - these laws are about things like murder, rape, theft, etc. Drug use and gay marriage do not fall into that category, and many people are angry that the people in our government want to legislate those things since they are self-regarding actions.
These days it is considered a blasphemy to have a moral code and to judge other people's actions by it.
Everyone has their own moral code, and everyone makes judgements on others using it. That is fine. That is the way things are. But we have a different situation when one person tries to make a second person's personal actions adhere to their moral code. Adul
Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
A large percentage of people in this country see gay marriage as a government endorsement of a religious value and therefore a violation of the seperation of church and state. Before your head explodes over the obvious contradiction, let me say marriage is both a religious institution and a state institution which we are not suppose to have in this country. That marriage has become both of those is kind of an accident. On one hand not having gay marriage is a government sponsored religious decision against gays. It prevents gay partners from visiting each other in hospitals, getting insurance coverage, and getting tax benifits. On the other hand as previously stated government sponsored gay marriage is seen by many people in this country as a government endorsement of a religious value. Probably the best solution consistent with our separation of church and state doctrine is to pass civil unions for homosexuals and eventually turn all marriage licenses to civil union licenses, leaving marriage as an institution to the churches. This will take a long time, but I think we will ultimately do the right thing.
The successful passment of state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage can be seen more as a reaction against judicial activism more than against gay marriage, excluding Ohio of course where the amendment included civil unions. It even passed in Oregon for God's sake, hardly a bastion of right-wing thought or gay-haters. Just because people voted against gay marriage doesn't mean they hate gays. It doesn't mean they think gay partners shouldn't get to visit each other in the hospital. It doesn't mean they think gay partners shouldn't get insurance benifits. It doesn't mean they think gay partners shouldn't get tax benifits. Granted some people may hate gays, but I really doubt it's upwards of 60% of mid-west voters.
You can kiss our collective ass.
You can stop speaking for me.
Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
Take a look at the exit polls. When the results were broken down into categories by demographics, in most cases it was a 60/40 split or closer than that. There are some demographic groups that showed a much stronger correlation, but these groups are too narrow for the absentee ballots to be entirely made up of these people. Plus, at least a decent chunk of the absentee ballots are from people in the military which can be expected to be made up of more Republicans than Democrats.
While technically the popular vote is irrelevent, many people do take it as a guideline toward who deserves to win. If Kerry challenged the results he would greatly anger the majority of Bush voters in addition to angering some of his own voters. If he challenged the results he would face massive public resistance and might even destroy his career.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
Thanks for the swift reply. I know it must be hard to find the time when you're busy torturing Iraqis and imprisoning people in Guantanamo.
It isn't usas job to save the world. It's a joined effort of the UN.
Electing Bush isn't the best thing you could do. It's like pouring petrol on fire.
Should we make Hillary the Queen for life
No no no.
Phase one: Murderous facist dictatorship.
Phase two: Bloody revolution, eliminating all the facists.
Phase three: Anarchist eutopia.
The tricky part is pulling off phase two correctly...
You can't take the sky from me...
The reason republicans are saying this is to reinforce the point that W has a "legitimate mandate" this time. Remember all that talk about him being an illegitimate president back in 2000 because he didn't win the popular vote? This is to controll the attack that you know will be coming from the left as they position themselves to deny his agenda. This is presidential politics. You gotta understand the game at hand.
This space intentionally left blank
Jimmy Carter was the first national figure to say "nukular" instead of the correct "nuclear".
Since we've been told for almost 30 years that Jimmy Carter is the smartest President ever
First time I ever heard or read that.
your moronic contention that Bush is just stupid.
You're making stuff up again.
I'll say it again: He's stupid AND evil.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to correct one small bit of partisan idiocy on your part.
First of all, making stuff up is not "correcting" anything.
Secondly, I'm not partisan. That would mean I'm a member, or supporter, of the Democratic party. I just think 90% of republicans are cretins, like you.
You can't take the sky from me...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As to your racist comment, here's some news for you: The entire world is racist. More people than not on this planet are racists. White people are racist. Black people are racist. Asians are racist. Muslims are racist. Jews are racists. Indians are racists. Russians are racists. Tribal people are racists. You give me an ethnicity and I will give you instances of racism. Racism is everywhere, comes in all forms and subtleties, and will never go away. It's nice to wish that it would, but that is a pipe dream.
As to corruption, sure your government is corrupt, our government is corrupt, but again, here's some more news for you: All governments are corrupt.
As for the US not protecting other nations? Sorry but we protect them all the time, at a huge monetary cost. You think those US military bases in the Korean DMZ are for show? You think the US Military bases in Saudi Arabia are just for fun? Do you think the US Naval presence in the Gulf is there on a holiday (it would be there even with out the war in Iraq.) Those forces are there for protection. We are protecting those countries from themselves, of the stupid things they might do if we weren't there.
Anyway you look at it, the US can't win in the eyes of the rest of the world and be popular on top of that. Look at Darfur, Jamaica, Cuba - people bitch because the US does nothing. When Iraq took over Kuwait, people still bitched that it was none of our business. If Paraguay suddenly decided they wanted to annex a nice chunk of your country stretching to the Atlantic and you couldn't stop them (just a scenario, not saying they could or would), and no one would help you, you'd come running to the US in a second. And you can be damn sure, half the US and half the world would bitch about it. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
As I said, without the US, this planet would descend into lawlessness. Of course I have no way of knowing, but if Kerry was elected, I bet North Korea would perform an underground nuclear test within 6 months. I can pretty much guarantee that won't happen under Bush. Same goes for Iran, because Bush would support a preemptive strike by the Israelis, regardless of what the rest of the world thought. And that is the right move. Kerry would wrap it up in the UN, nothing would happen, and Iran would go nuclear. And they are so full of ideological hatred they would nuke Israel, most likely with the secret blessing of every Arab country in the Middle East.
As for you're remarks about fat people, you're right, there are tons of fat people in the US and it sickens me. My personal racism is against fat people, I hate them for their lazy, slovenly fatness. I'd like to point out one of Kerry's few attacks on Bush outside of Iraq was on health care cost going up in the US. Well, they went up because of the epic number of fat people in the US. Kerry would have been more correct in blaming fat people on Bush rather than rising health care costs.
One final thing, when a country gets hit by a 9/11 type terrorist attack, or repeated terrorist attacks, they act. Isreal acts and they will preempt if necessary. Russia, with all its corrupt opposition to the invasion of Iraq, announced they will perform preemptive strikes against terrorists. This came just days after the massacre in Beslan. If it happens to you, and you have the power, the choice is pretty damn clear.
It would seem to me the fact that he did win the popular vote this time is good enough. Saying he got "more votes than anybody in history" is pretty stupid and unnecessary.
Despite being a Libearal, I have to say that it only took about 1 day longer for me to see a Democrat saying something exactly as stupid. They said "Kerry got more votes than any other opponent of an incumbent in history". This is of course exactly, precisely, the same level of stupidity demonstrated by our Republican friend above. Everybody is the same, it seems...
I'm disgusted by the fact that that the USA tolerated Marcos, Duvalier, Sukarno, Noriega, Palahvi, Pinochet, Peron, and many, many other dictators just because they were anti-communist. If we had pursued a consistent moral agenda throughout the cold war, I believe that the Soviets would have collapsed much sooner than they did.
Excuse me? "TOLERATED" you say? What happened to 'BROUGHT INTO POWER'?
With great power comes great electricity bills.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm not hiding.
I'm not slapping stickers on my car, true, but I'm not hiding.
BTW...50% is a misunderestimation...
Writers imply. Readers infer.
Naw, man.
Letting "them" kill "us" in exchange for a seat at the table while slowly cutting off their money and support...I suppose that works when the "us" they kill can be written off.
Fuck that.
What if those who died mattered to you instead of being abstractions?
Imagine I've got a knife to your throat.
Now, instead of opening your neck I kick your mother to death.
Awhile later I kick your father to death.
Then your brother.
Then your sister.
Then your neighbor.
And so on.
Then, eventually, you convince me to put down the knife.
I've still got a pipe in my other hand, but that nasty knife is forgotten.
Did I forget that I've got two hands or did you?
Writers imply. Readers infer.
What you say is all true, and well said, but you must also examine the other perspective. Of the 10.5 million voter increase over the 2000 election, bush got roughly 9 million more votes. Kerry got roughly 4.5 million more than Gore. SOURCE
/. this past year.
What this basically means is that yeah, we (the nation in general, not a particular party) got out a lot more vote, but the increase in Bush's popular vote count absorbs most of that new vote above and beyond his numbers last election.
Kerry's increase over Gore's numbers has two components. First, his 4.5 million vote increase gets 1.5 million left over after you take Bush's votes out of the new voter total. The remainder of Kerry's bump over Gore's numbers seems to have come from the third-party contingent. Most of the third party vote went to Nader last cycle to the tune of about 3 million votes and this year those same people probably voted Kerry out of the "At least he might beat bush" mentality. You know there were lots of those folks out there. We certainly saw enough of them on
I think my analysis is probably fairly accurate given the conspicuous absence of nader voters this year. If that's the case, then the "new voters" broke nealry 9 to 1 bush. So Yeah... the margin was 52/48, but for the first time in 12 years the third parties were nowhere to be seen and came in at "nearly one percent" instead of the 3% of 2000. If my analysis is anywhere near correct regarding the new voters, that would have been a 52/45 split had the third parties made even a respectable showing. So yeah. That's pretty darn respectable and indicates that the people did speak loudly for Bush. Getting 9 million new voters out to the polls to vote for you is outstanding. When was the last time a Democrat ever increased their margin from 47.8% (yeah, I guess we'll make do with this guy) to 52% (Heck yeah! Give us more of that guy!) by absorbing almost the entire block of new voters?
Clinton increased his margin by a good percentage in the only election this past 20 years to actually see a drop in voter turnout. (republicans stayed home) He only got an additional 2.5 million votes his second term but increased his margin by 6% with 8.8 million less voters than the '92 election. To find a democrat who's made a showing like Bush's you have to go back at least to the forties. Maybe farther back than that since FDR was a fluke.
It's not that hard to find republicans who've done things like what bush has done. You have four examples after world war two. The lesson to be learned here is that while the democrats might have gotten lucky once or twice, conservative politics resonates with the majority of this country.
Ike, 2 terms. Increased popularity second term. Kennedy barely wins over Nixon, Johnson takes Kennedy's second term in a landslide (first lucky postwar democrat riding public sympathy for Kennedy into office) Nixon, two terms with massive popularity increase second term. Nixon gets the boot and nobody'll touch Ford with a ten foot pole. Carter, the second lucky postwar democrat can't scrape up a second term against the powerhouse of Regan after riding public distaste for Nixon into office. Even with hatred for nixon as high as it was, Carter barely got 50% of the vote. Regan's success was phenominal and anyone who denies it need only look at the blue/red map of the US from his reelection bid to see just how popular he was. Bush (HW) is somewhat of an anomoly being the only post-war republican to not get re-elected. You can thank Perot for that. Clinton never got half the popular vote. Being the third lucky postwar democrat, he had Perot running defense for him and won a second term without ever scoring 50% of the popular vote. He eeked out 49% when 9 million republicans stayed home out of disgust that Perot was going to spoil it for them anyway.
So yeah. It's worth noting that Bush did really well in his second election.
This space intentionally left blank
Correction: the fact that only some people believe it.
Sorry I didnt realize that killing INNOCENT CIVILLIANS from another country in an ILLEGAL war was ok, are you saying this is ok? I am assuming you think it is (no doubt in 'revenge' for 9/11 - which was funded, organised and executed primarily by Saudis)
Really? I thought it was Bush, Wolfowitz et al? With this statement you are just highlighting your lack of understanding of what I assume is your OWN country (thankfully it is not mine)
Ah, misuse of the word liberal, what is a liberal? Are the Democrats liberal? I dont think so
Take it easy,
C
1. Stop the hate, and stop foaming at the mouth.
Kenneth Starr, Swift Boat Vets for Truth..... no the Republicans are never guilty of any hate or foaming at the mouth.
Guilt by tenous association.
Blimey mate, that is fucking conclusive.
Hussein knew and met Rumsfeld, I supposse that cast a shadow in the Neocons as possible associate of Hussein and Al Quaeda.
Hussein was completely against the religious nuts (for selfish reasons certainly, but to even suggest a connection knowing the history of Hussein secularization of Iraq is absolutely ludicrous).
Get "The Power of Nightmares" and check how the noecons will fabricate evidence as and when they need it to convince an unsuspecting public of thatever they need.
Crimental, doublespeak, 1984 is here.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And what have I said to give you that impression? I do think that a nation violating the terms of a cease fire and plotting to kill an ex-president. Now Bush did the war all wrong and so did Kerry (voted for the war).
BTW nice try to ditch the question, if you thought that life started at conception could you understand why people make it such an issue.
Really? I thought it was Bush, Wolfowitz et al? With this statement you are just highlighting your lack of understanding of what I assume is your OWN country (thankfully it is not mine)
Really, you think you understand the US Government more than me... Answer this: who has to declare war? Ill give you a hint John Kerry is a member and George Bush is not. After you figure out that one go look up how John Kerry voted.
At least try to refute his points.
Or perhaps you can't.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Your way to speak reminds me East Germans before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Always the fault of their woes was elsewhere.
So many of you just don't get it and never will. Untill it is too late that is.
As horrendous as 9/11 was, it was an isolated incident due mostly that the complete disregard for security by US aviation authorities. I flew several times in te US pre 9/11 and to say that people were cavalier about security is an understatement.
In other places (for bunny's sake, like Mexico that had almost no problems with terrorism) security was taken seriously.
So keep your lip service to yourself and your incompetent politicians, they were the ones doing nothing to keep you safe, no wonder the terrorists chose local flights, not international ones, to inflict harm.
Talk about shooting the messenger. Your legitimate concerns have been turned into a travesty not by people in other countries, but by your re-elected Orwellian overlords. It has been probed beyond any doubt that this bunch lied to you. It has been probed that they had an agenda years before 9/11 (Google for "American Century" and learn). Oh no, but is the outside world that did not come yo your aid (chekc the coallition assembled to rid AFghanistan of terrorist training camps, you will see that French and Germans, amongst many others, extended the hand of friendship).
But friendship is not unconditional. If a friend questions my friendship because I don't want to jump into the abyss with him, I am not to blame.
You are blinded, and willingly jumping. The rest of the world is staring in amazement, pain and disbelief.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You have a left wing propaganda wing - It's called the Main Street Media(especially CBS). They couldn't blow enough sunshine up our butts about how great sKerry/Edwards was and how EVIL W was.
Now we get to hear all the MSM eating their young by saying how much of a lightweight Edwards was. Gee, the old media couldn't tell us this before hand. The new media already clued most people in on this fact already.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
I also understand that these 'conservative christians' are total hypocrites. The kind of faux-religious politics that you have in the US absolutely disgusts me. Politicians exploit the Bible when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't.
What about the death penalty? As far as I can recall Jesus wasn't really a fan ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"). I could go on and on...
GWB used abortion as an issue because most anti-abortionists are such zealots that they vote based on that single issue. I bet he is laughing all the way to the white house at how easy these 'christians' are to dupe.
BTW I dont think Jesus would be up for calling the french people monkeys like you do.
God Bless
Well... yes. I also think I'm a little more worldly. In case you hadn't noticed the Bush administration tricked America (and most of the rest of the world) into believing that Saddam had WMD.
Than answer the question, who has the authority to declare war in the United states?
When they couldnt find any, they lied to the people (Kerry included) - who believed them. It was from THAT time that Kerry 'did' the war.
Kerrys vote was a cowardly one (and BTW Kerry and Clinton *ALSO* believed that Iraq had WMD's and used that as an excuse to bomb Iraq in 1998 w/out massive protest from the left). If Kerry had voted for a declariation of war and then played the 'I was lied to excuse' I might give him some slack. Kerry and Bush ignored their constitutional duties and neither deserves an office.
What about the death penalty? As far as I can recall Jesus wasn't really a fan ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"). I could go on and on...
I am against the death penalty, and I could just as easily point out that Liberal humanist are ok with killing unborn babies but dont want to kill a spotted owl or a mass murderer.
GWB used abortion as an issue because most anti-abortionists are such zealots that they vote based on that single issue.
See you dont understand their point of view. If John Kerry was 100% with you on every issue except he wanted to give mothers the right to kill a four year old kid, or re-institute slavery would you vote for him? does that make you a single issue voter?
I am not continuing this flame war any longer.
anybody who disagrees with him look like an anti-patriot
There are worse things than being made out as an anti-patriot (If that is true). How many people around Clinton wound up dead?
> testimonies of those attrocities and said to the world "we won't stand for this."
I agree - many, many more people would have supported a war in that case.
The problem is that was not the stated cause for the war, leaving Bush looking deceptive and war-mongering. We shouldn't have believed the WMD story; why should we believe the current story?
It's hard to use lies to justify a war for moral principles.
Tell that to the Hilton chain of hotels.
> 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Tell that to poor, starving Paris Hilton.
> 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a
> national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Tell that to CitiBank, Citizen's Bank, Wells Fargo, BankOne, Sovereign Bank, ...
> 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
Tell that to Fox News, ABC, and Rush Limbaugh, or to USAirways, Ford, or Greyhound.
> 8. Equal obligation of all to work.
Tell that to Paris Hilton.
> 9. ...gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by
> a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
Tell that to vanishing small towns in Kansas.
> Here's Marx's 10 points from his Communist Manifesto:...
> We are so there.
You are so deluded.
There is a fundamental difference between the abortion and death penalty issues. The state does not perform abortions, but it does (at least some do) perform executions. Whether a person CHOOSES to have an abortion or not is THEIR OWN CHOICE. If you dont believe in abortion, fine, dont get one! But dont expect everyone else to believe that life begins when you believe it does.
You are consistently ignoring my points and concentrating on your own little subset, perhaps because Fox (or your religious leader) has only given you a certain number of prepackaged answers?
Your continued misuse of the word 'liberal' amuses me. Your continued abuse of the French does not. I dont abuse your Church because I find its ideas to be distasteful and primitive, why do you abuse the French? If if if, if only my auntie had boll**ks she'd be my uncle
God Bless
There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I'm not asking for acceptance.
Do not touch -Willie
If your country is the hero of the world why don't you put armed forces in Dafur? I'll tell you why. Because there's no profit. That's what I mean regarding usa being the locust of the world. Yet again I say; FUCK usa!
Actually he (Bush) got 51% of the 50% of people elegible to vote so around 25.5% in reality. If that isn't a mandate what is? Lol, I guess it is better than last time getting less votes than your opponent. What drew to opponents (republicans) out to vote was the "We hate faggots" theme. I love the rural boobs in my state. Ignorance rules in the land of Greed, Guns & God.
No, Bush requested the "authorizeation to use force" not a declaration of war. John Kerry and the democrats could have blocked it like they did judges. But being afraid for their political lives they sold out.
Do you deny this? Do you still think Bush and Kerry were equally responsibile even though Bush et al knew that there was no proof of WMD yet told everyone that they had proof? An answer would be appropriate.
I have never seen proof he did not know, only wild speculation. If John Kerry had not ignored his constitutional duty to control the military use of force we would not be in Iraq..
You are consistently ignoring my points and concentrating on your own little subset, perhaps because Fox (or your religious leader) has only given you a certain number of prepackaged answers?
What makes you think I voted for Bush or watch Fox?
If if if, if
Way to ignore it... You can accuse people of being single isue voters and zealot because you disagree with them and then try to turn it on its head. YOu dont agree with someone when they consider something Murder and becuase you disagree with them you peg them zealots and ignorent single issue voters...
BTW where are the survey results showing Republicans and Conservatives are less informed than Liberals and Democrats?
You are becoming ridiculous. You refuse to admint that Bush tricked congress, will you not admit that he tricked them? Im going to say that again so that when youu ignore it AGAIN it will look bad. DO YOU NOT ADMIT THAT BUSH TRICKED CONGRESS INTO AUTHORIZING HIM TO USE FORCE? I made the comment about Fox because it is statistically likely that you watch it. Your tirade about 'the left' and 'liberals' sounds just like excrement that gushes forth every time Bill O'Reilly opens his mouth. I never stated that you voted for Bush, you should read my post again. I think single issue voters, in particular anti-abortionists are extremely easy to dupe, and I have been proven right. Dont be so naiive. You dont know my opinion on abortion at all (you might think you do but you do NOT).
Again I notice you refuse to acknowledge my comments about France. Why is this?
I'm not expecting you to answer (or be able to satisfactorily answer) most of my points, again.
adieu
Thanks for the interesting feedback and analysis. I really appreciate it when I can throw out some of my opinions -- not for the sake of starting a flame war, but to provoke conversation -- and get some meaningful thought thrown back at me. We're both better off as a result.
I got my very first "foe" in this thread. That's sad, because I was actually trying to be constructive this time. I think my words might have hit a little too close to home...
I'm fiscally very conservative, but socially, I'm slightly to the left. This surprised me when I took the politicalcompass survey. As is probably apparent in earlier posts on this thread, I don't know that I've quite figured out my position on the foreign affairs spectrum. That's fine; I'm not in any danger of being called upon to opine on Arab-American relations any time soon. I've got some time to figure myself out here.
I've voted Republican or third party for as long as I've been able to vote. But in the days after this election, I find myself melancholy -- I don't feel that the country has "won" by electing Bush. While I firmly believe that, had we elected Kerry, we'd be worse off in 2008 than in 2004, I'm not confident that, under Bush, we'll be any better off, either. I can only hope that, in 2008, we're not all still bitter, petty, whining, partisan political snobs.
Conversation is nice for a change.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
I don't think that they pay federal taxes so they don't get votes in the electoral college. DC does and should get electoral college votes.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Why on earth do you say that?
"Socially liberal" covers issues like gay marriage and separation of church and state that are fiscally neutral. "Socially liberal" sometimes includes issues like universal health care, which are potentially expensive (although the amount paid per person by countries like Canada, UK, and Australia suggests otherwise).
"Socially conservative" also includes issues that are extremely expensive, such as the War on Drugs, as well as more modestly expensive programs like FCC obscenity monitoring.
Both "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal" are popular policies. While any other policy does require some compromise when paired with fiscal conservatism, I agree with you that the Dems could gain significant ground by hammering away on these two points, particularly the former. "It's the economy, stupid" worked before, and would probably work again.
> as an American. The other half is trying to put aside your differences and
> making an attempt to work with the person in power.
Then how do you explain the amount of time and energy purposefully wasted by Republicans trying to impeach Clinton for having a shady private life?
You may realize that putting aside differences and working to get the job done is crucially important, but Republicans as a whole clearly have no idea. (Not that I'm going to argue Democrats do either...)
> last 18 months. We lost 3,000 of our citizens in 12 hours on 9/11/2001.
And we lost 40,000 of our citizens in car accidents in each of the last 4 years. If that's not a reason to declare a War on Cars, then losing 800 people per year to terrorist attacks over the last 4 years isn't a reason to focus on terrorism to the exclusion of all else.
There appears to be a lack of rational threat assessment in society today, and the Bush administration either seems to have fallen prey to the same flaw or (worse) is actively exploiting and even encouraging it (bouncing threat colors).
For that reason, I very much disagree with you that Bush is likely to ask the question "Is this threat severe enough to warrant immediate action?" Based on the Iraq war, it doesn't appear that this administration thought hard about any of the questions in your first group, which is---frankly---one of the main reasons I view the Bush administration as dangerous.
The Bush administration has a track record of not asking these crucial questions---or not listening to the answers, at least---and dropping someone who has failed to ask them for someone who might fail to ask them doesn't seem so absurd.
Worse yet, the Bush administration seems hampered by an intense unwillingness to admit when it makes a mistake, which impedes the learning process. I'd be very happy if the government learned from its mistakes and thought much more deeply about your questions in the future, but the unwillingness to take responsibility I've seen ("we didn't say it was about WMDs, we said it was about freedom!") makes me concerned.
> bothered by, is that the rest of the civilized world did not want to do a
> damn thing to help shape what is normal seen as the humane thing to do.
Frankly, the rest of the world doesn't believe that the US has such pure and noble intentions.
The rest of the world believes the US is waging this war for purely selfish reasons, be they oil or the security of US citizens, with little or no regard for the effects of this war on the rest of the world.
The rest of the world thinks the US doesn't give a damn about anything but the US, and isn't convinced that it should spend its own blood and money doing the US's bidding.
Given the available evidence, is it any wonder the rest of the world thinks this?
> Bush got more votes that REAGAN!!!
So did Kerry.
From the link you gave:
Kerry 2004: 55,638,551 votes
Reagan 1984: 54,455,472 votes
Reagan 1980: 43,903,230 votes
That correlation between post-graduate education and Bush support could be attributed to high income tax brackets and a class immunity to military service.
There are biological reasons to support traditional marriage that are simply undeniable. That's why proponents of gay marriage try to make it a rights issue.
It's not just about rights.
Many people in exit polls supported some level of legal protection for gay couples, but "marriage" just isn't the word to describe what they're doing.
--Tony
Correction : that should read :
Now that the electronic voting machines in this country have soundly rejected the leftist agenda,
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
"marriage" just isn't the word to describe what they're doing.
People have been getting "civil unions" forever. People who for whatever reason choose to go to town hall and receive a non-religious marriage from a judge or other official. Civil unions are, and have always been, marriages. You are perfectly free to call them whatever you like, but for ALL LEGAL PURPOSES there is no distinction between marriages and civil unions.
There are biological reasons
Then post menopausal women have no right to get married, and infertile couples have no right to get married, and couples who for whatever reason never had sex and never will have sex have no right to get married.
Some people who get married certainly happen to have children, but the law does NOT prohibit people from getting married when cannot/willnot have children. There is no legal connection between marriage and sex, some married couples never have sex at all.
It's not just about rights.
I will consider believing you if you can show you actually understand and explain a case which indisputably *IS* about rights:
Some years ago there were a large number of people who said the definition of marriage was one man and one woman of the same race. States had laws refusing to grant/recognize marriage for interracial couples. People who did not want interracial marriage imposed on them. People outraged at such an attempt to redefine marriage. Such states certainly could have gone so far as to pass states constitutional amendments defining marriage as only being for one man and one woman of the same race.
I presume you agree this is a "rights issue". I ask you to explain the legal basis and legal reasoning to EXPLAIN why these states were UNABLE to do what they wanted. Not a fuzzy rant that they were wrong, but the reason it was IMPOSSIBLE for any law or state amendment to accomplish what they wanted. An actual legal basis for overruling their desires and imposing interracial marriages against their will.
I can give that explanation, and I will gladly do so if you ask me to do so. If you understand the issue and can provide that explanation then you have shown that you can reasonably make judgements about what is and is not a "rights issue". If you are UNABLE to provide that explanation then you have to admit that you realy do not adaquately understand the legalities well enough to credibly assert that gay marriage is NOT a right issue.
Go ahead, show me you understand the legalities you are talking about. Either that or ask me to explain it to you.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Anti-Bush is not the same thing as Leftwing. Neither is pushing people to vote for Kerry!
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
Just as I would not approve of him molesting children, having sex with cows, performing satanic rituals, torturing animals, or having sex with other men. If he wants to do it anyway, let him do it cowering and hiding, in shame and regret. Then maybe he will eventually stop.
So how many more centuries before this starts working, exactly? I don't see signs of any of these stopping anytime soon (except "performing satanic rituals", which I assume is just a joke).
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
though i decided it was time to change it, being that the sig was almost 10 years old.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
We are called the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence doesn't forget states. The concept of independent states is embedded in every article of the Constitution. Our country is a federation, or union, of states. That's why the President gives the State of the Union address every year. Union of what? States.
Yes, every vote does count, and each vote counts for its respective state's choice. A Vermont vote counts for Vermont's choice. If Vermont has more pro-Democrat votes than it needs to choose the Democrat candidate (i.e. over 50%), its votes cannot spill over into other states' vote counts to influence their choice.
WTF??? What does Clinton have to do with this? Just because I voted for Kerry 04 does not mean I voted for Clinton 96
Who are you?
I would think that being one of the least biased and having a "relatively strong liberal/progressive bias" would be a contradiction in terms. That or we are in a dark age of media impartiality. In any case, NPR is not a great progressive voice compared to the likes of Salon.
Not a contradiction, because other outlets have stronger biases. I agree that NPR != Salon, but that doesn't mean that they are bias-free.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
100 % flamebait. I guess someone took it personal.
1> There's more than one bible.
2> People have visions and hear voices of god all the time.
3> Your own conscience is the most direct source of information about god.
Lots of arguments are possible. Even the bible's monopoly on information about god is argueable. The bible remains a very effective prop in humanity's ongoing controversy about god, but it is definitive only when we are taught it is. And even those who define it as definitive rarely are defined by it themselves, at least that they would admit.
--
make install -not war
That skit is pretty funny. I suppose that countries which haven't pretended to separate church and state as much as we have in America have had to actually separate them, to remain "modern" and free. Eg. making laws protecting churches as special cases, citing "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" backwards, has interfered with Americans actually shaking off the tyranny of the church, because we think we already have. Laughing at hypocrisy is much more effective than outlawing it - the hypocrisy industry thrives on hypocrites being tolerated and sympathetically misunderstood.
--
make install -not war
Actually to show how stupid your statement is I can point out that one of the 'uber elite smart' states (California) put 45% of its vote to Bush, and one of the 'backward hick states' Iowa gave 49% to Kerry. So no your simple little world view of red states bad dumb bush supporters, blue states nice loving kerry supporters does not fit.
DO YOU NOT ADMIT THAT BUSH TRICKED CONGRESS INTO AUTHORIZING HIM TO USE FORCE?
Two reasons: I have never seen proof he was trying to 'trick them' and according to you Bush is an Idiot and he tricked a smart senator from Boston. Fact is the measure itself was a foolish and unconstitutional one, and Kerry / Bush should be ashamed that they are in any way tied to it. But because you hate Bush you'll give kerry a pass for playing politics with his vote for 'force'.
I made the comment about Fox because it is statistically likely that you watch it.
Based on what, you still cant produce a study showing bush voters are stupid, now you want to start digging another hole by saying statisticaly because I am conservative I watch fox?
I think single issue voters, in particular anti-abortionists are extremely easy to dupe, and I have been proven right. Dont be so naiive.
Yea like those pesky single issue voters who wanted to end slavery, they should have seen the bigger picture..
From those lefties in the Washington Times: [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041109-12275
Wow you are comparing anti-abortionists to those who struggled against slavery, how noble a quest. You clearly have a very high opinion of yourself.
Your continued misuse of the english language merely confirms my suspicions of you.
Like this map Its a bit more telling when you look at a county map than the state maps. 45% of California voted for Bush, thats not some little statistic to be ignored. Kerry beat Bush by less than half a percentage point in WI the fact is the nation is not divided by state its divided by Urban Vs. Sub-Urban. If thats too complicated a world view for you im sorry.
Ninety percent of the red states are welfare-client states of the federal government
Now whos pulling meaningless stats out of nowhere? Fact is if you look at a county map of the 'red' states you see that the large population centers (in AK look at little rock, in LA look at NO) voted for Kerry. So once you step out of your three year old mind set that California is Blue and Missipi is Red its not so simple to say that. That being said I dont know if red counties, and neighborhoods receive money but neither do you.
Wow you are comparing anti-abortionists to those who struggled against slavery, how noble a quest. You clearly have a very high opinion of yourself.
Yes I consider Killing babies to be *at least* as bad as slavery, and no I dont have a high opinion of myself.
If you wish to continue to delude yourself that there are not 'educated' and 'redneck' states then be my guest. You ARE incorrect. The majority of more educated and wealthy states just 'happened' to vote for Kerry, while the fetid, backwater, racist, bible-bashing states 'happened' to vote for Bush.
I really dont understand you and your 'Christian morals'. You think that giving parents the right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy or not is as great an injustice as stealing humans from their homeland, then forcing them to work for nothing while murdering, raping and torturing them.
How can you say that. I think its an absolute disgrace.
So I see you know as much about Jesus as you do the US political landscape.. Jesus threw over tables and attacked people for changing money infront of the temple. Just because 'Buddy-Jesus' is the current fad does not change anything.
You think that giving parents the right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy or not is as great an injustice as stealing humans from their homeland, then forcing them to work for nothing while murdering, raping and torturing them.
Lets see Would I consider a law letting people kill a 2 year old as bad as slavery? yes I do. If you are so obtuse that you cant even try to see it from another point of view you're beyond all hope...
I say this because I believe human life starts at conception and its wrong to kill human life. And killing babies is as bad as slavery. By the way current abortion law in the us does not giev 'parents' any say, fathers have no rights in the abortion decision.
You ARE incorrect. The majority of more educated and wealthy states just 'happened' to vote for Kerry, while the fetid, backwater, racist, bible-bashing states 'happened' to vote for Bush.
Actually in some of the states a plurality, not a majority voted for Kerry (WI for example). And if you think the deluded one is somebody who would rather look at a state map than a more accurate county map have a nice day..
Well... thats not what I was talking about. I was talking about ABORTION, I know thats a big word but Im sure you can go find out what it is. So you think that the State allowing people to do what they want with their own bodies (neither condemning nor condoning abortions) is as bad as a state that sells, tortures and rapes people based on their skin colour.
How civilised.
And the difference is when Life begins, if you say its not life until the age of reason (7) whats the difference between killing a two year old and a baby two months old in the womb?
I know thats a big word but Im sure you can go find out what it is.
So you got over your hurt feeling long enough to throw some mud of your own eh?
So you think that the State allowing people to do what they want with their own bodies (neither condemning nor condoning abortions) is as bad as a state that sells, tortures and rapes people based on their skin colour. How civilised.
Well considering the southerners used arguments like 'they are not human', and 'its our property well do with it what we want' it seems to compare very well with the pro-death crowds 'its not human' and 'its my body ill do with it what I want'.
The huge moral outrage you feel over slavery is because you define African Americans as human beings, southers slave owners did not. The outrage I feel over Abortion is because I consider *Human* life to begin at conception, you do not.
You use words like 'pro-death' and 'pro-life' as if you are a force for good and people who have different beliefs to yours are a force of evil. This clearly illustrates your lack of objectivity and inflated sense of self-importance.
Pigs are alive two, they are not afforded human life. Obviously an unborn baby is alive the question becomes is it human life? Southerners did not consider slaves Human, the pro-death crowd does not consider unborn babies Human.. For both parties that opinion makes it easier for them to look into the mirror. That way slave owners and the pro death crowd can look at themselves and feel so gosh darn superior to those ignorent folks who want to 'impose' on them.
You use words like 'pro-death' and 'pro-life' as if you are a force for good and people who have different beliefs to yours are a force of evil. This clearly illustrates your lack of objectivity and inflated sense of self-importance.
I use words like pro-life, and pro-death because thats what its about. I myself am too unimportant to be a 'force' for anything. God will use me as he will use me and if that means I am to sweep floors for the rest of my life and never be know so be it.
Different beliefs do not justify stripping away human rights. Many Muslims believe that women are property, that they can be killed for having sex outside of marrage, do we respect those beliefs? The question is when does human life begin, and the only solid scientific answer is either conception or birth, and as one can hardly say a baby two minutes from birth is fundimentally different at a biological level than one two minutes after birth I choose conception.
Btw nice ignoring of my question about why you dont behave like a christian.
Really? and when exactly is that? Who makes that decision? It took mankind more that 1500 years to overcome the church and take man kind out of the center of the univers, now we are going to put him right back in the name of secular humanism?
Tell me when you think it begins and why..
Btw nice ignoring of my question about why you dont behave like a christian.
This coming from the man who *still* has not posted a link showing that those who voted for Bush are less intelligent than those who vated for kerry..
Perhaps you would like to explain where this 1500 year number came from? Or you could just ignore it and move on to something else, perhaps a rant against Darwin's theories or a nice explanation of how the story of Adam and Eve is actually true. I'm sorry for not being more clear about it, that was wild conjecture on my part, based around the utterly moronic reasont that Bush voters gave for their presidential choice.
Btw nice ignoring of my question about why you dont behave like a christian should.
Well that nice and specific enough to make a law, thanks. Its nice to know that when it comes to killing a human being you feel comfortable pullnig the trigger when you have not even decided when life begins.
maybe around a time when there would be a chance that the baby could live on its own if it was born (and obviously fed and taken care of)
In 1972 this would have been 32 weeks, today babies as young as 21 weeks are born and survivce (without ill health) so does you definition chage with every single scientific advancement? We define a human being as someone healthy enough to live with todays technology? So a Roe V Wade Victim in 1973 is justified but a Roe V Wade Victim today is not?
And I hate to tell you that the time period between Copernicus (1473-1543) proposing an alternative to the Ptolemaic model and Newton (1643-1727) convincing the Church that we were not at the center of the universe is FAR less than 1500 years.
Early maps from the christian church put earth at the center of the universe with the sun rotating around it, from that time to Newton was around 1500 years.
I'm sorry for not being more clear about it, that was wild conjecture on my part
Yes it was
Btw nice ignoring of my question about why you dont behave like a christian should.
Hey if someone does or says something stupid as a Christian I can take them to task on it.
And I am assuming you have something to demonstrate this? I would also put it to you more people agreeing with you does not make it right, in 1800 most people in the US agreed slavery was OK.
It's hard to say exactly when it begins because it's a gradual, organic process.
Conception is not gradual, one minute you have a sperm and an egg the next you have Human life. The problem with saying I dont know so lets ignore it is that in the meantime people are dying.
I think it is silly of YOU to try to paint ME as a barbarian here, so please desist.
Perhaps if you were not so calous twords abortion I might not have to point out youre acting like a barbarian
Interesting, whats your point. What I took issue with is quoted below
Because geocentric theory predated any of the scientist you mentiond, it stated about 1500 years before it was debunked..
Just a few fun questions for you, do you believe in darwinian evolution as an explanation for how mankind came to be? And do you believe that Adam and Eve actually existed? Why dont you give me your opinions on these matters.
No, I don't.
And do you believe that Adam and Eve actually existed?
Yes I do, Nobody expects the slashdot inquistion. So I guess because I have different beliefs than you I am barbarian. But you can kill unborn babies so long as you believe evolution?
I did say that your country is barbaric, and in my opinion it is more barbaric than any other country in the developed world. I didnt say or imply that, I was just curious to know what you thought about those two issues. I think it would be interesting to see statistical data reflecting the amount of people who have your beliefs (regarding the bible and evolution) that also believe that abortion is murder, and vice-versa for the people who do not share your beliefs.
You didnt want to answer my question about the church v science issue? No matter.
Just out of curiosity (and I'm not trying to score points off you on this) If you believe in a rigid interpretation of the Adam and Eve story, dou you also believe that the serpent could talk? Also do you think it was a fitting punishment for the serpent to be made to crawl on its belly?