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."

562 of 5,687 comments (clear)

  1. Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And let us move back to our normal bickering of Linux vs. BSD.

    1. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Laser+Lou · · Score: 2, Funny

      Amen to that. I'm tired of getting flamed.

      --
      No data, no cry
    2. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by johnkoer · · Score: 5, Funny

      What bickering? We all know BSD is dead.

    3. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Dante333 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I thought it was vi vs emacs...Or is that too geeky for /. Or was it resolved that vi was clearly superior?

    4. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by RealityMogul · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's because it conceded to a superior operating system... emacs.

    5. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Funny

      That was resolved ages ago. Emacs now has a vi mode proving finally that vi is the better editor, and emacs is the better operating system.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by aacool · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The mood with everyone I see - online & offline is Tired out, knackered and conflicted.

      The talking heads never stop! Make them stop!!

      Ref the Kerry concession,
      There is gracefulness under defeat, and there is a comparison to a similar experience 4 years ago - the Democrats come out stronger and the talking heads are silenced and turned topsy turvy.

      Everyone wins, but in the long term, a redefinition is needed of the rules of the game.

      I've been trying to update my blog for a while now - very difficult - traffic, etc.

    7. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by danheskett · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone wins, but in the long term, a redefinition is needed of the rules of the game.
      Bush got more votes than any American in history.

      No matter how you slice it, he won this election. Electorally, popular vote, plurality of states, plurality of precincts, plurality of counties.

      What exactly do you want to change in regards to the rules of the games?

    8. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by ch-chuck · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now if only Bill Gates would concede that Mozilla is a better browser than IE. Or RMS that vi is better than emacs. Or William Shatner that Picard was a better star ship captain. Or ....

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    9. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Hatta · · Score: 5, Funny

      Emacs is an all right OS, but it lacks a decent editor.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Frymaster · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Bush got more votes than any American in history.

      true. so, now when the american government makes aggressive and belicose blunders in the middle east the rest of the world won't just despise and deride the president. they'll hate the american people too.

      congratulations america! you've completely alienated yourselves from all of your former allies and friends and earned the distrust and emnity of the rest of the planet.

    11. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by flibuste · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bush got more votes than any American in history.

      Yes, but that doesn't mean anything, your comment is biased:

      • USA never had that much registered voters who actually voted in overall.
      • Because each year there is MORE people allowed to vote in USA (like normal population growth, immigrants becoming citizens, etc.), there are more voters.
      • and because what matters is the RATIO of voters (you know that bizarre % sign used all over the place).

      Number of actual voters many vary a lot depending on variables that has nothing to do with being electable or not: weather, current political context (like, people are generally enclined to not go vote when they are sure their candidate will win or there is not much at stake - check the last presidential election in France: a lot more people showed up when extreme right suddenly became a possibility - they blasted their number of voters for such an election.).

      Actually, the current mobilisation of voters shows only one thing: there is more people who doubt of the future, hence go to vote to secure theirs. So basically, there are a lot more people who are in doubt and do not know where to stand, which doesn't sound good for a supposedly "united" country.

      But /.tters and /statistics rarely share the same DNS.

    12. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by andrew_0812 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am glad the Popular Vote reflects the Electorial Vote. But the Popular Vote should be all that counts in ANY election. We have no need for the Electorial college any more. It is a deprecated system that is not needed in this day of information technology. Suppose the Popular Vote had gone the other way. If you voted Kerry in Alabama, your voice is not heard. The election is always decided in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida. Why let the few in these states decide the whole election. Use the Popular Vote, drop the Electorial College, and every vote truly is equal.

    13. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by EddieBurkett · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Kerry got more votes (55 million) than any other president in history too. (Previous leader was Reagan in '84 w/ 54 million.)

      Bush may have won a clear majority, but this election is still close, and there is still a large portion of the population that despises him. I'm sure Bush will interpret his victory as a mandate and do what he wants (not like his lack of a mandate was stopping him before), but this country needs some serious help closing the divide, and I don't see how Bush is going to address that.

      --
      The only thing I hate more than hypocrites are people who hate hypocrites.
    14. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Skjellifetti · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bush got more votes than any American in history ...

      for exactly the same reason that he also got more votes than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln combined.

    15. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps change so that either Popular vote decides the election, or in a compromise do it like Maine & Nebraska where it's by congressional district, so winner doesn't take all in a particular state. Seems to me to be a true representation of the people's will doesn't it?

      Saying Bush won with more votes in history is downright misleading(sp?). He won with more votes in history in an election with MORE VOTES CAST than any election in recent memory. Show me he got a higher PERCENTAGE than anybody else and I'll be impressed.


      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    16. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by jepe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You might be a whiny left winger, but as today as a resident from another country I can tell you you "whiny left wingers" are the only americans for which we keep some respect. Gosh... for the rest of the world your democrat party is right wing... so imagine our idea of who your people elected...

    17. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Methuseus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about changing us away from a 2-party system. How about counting *every* absentee vote, regardless of whether the race is close or not. How about not announcing even preliminary results until all votes have been made and all absentee votes have been counted. It's way too open in the US. People getting ready to vote at 3 or 4 PM may watch the news, see that one candidate is winning (when about 25% of the vote has been tallied, if that) and not go to vote when they could have possibly made a difference seeing as the votes they saw were from a different state or district.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    18. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Golias · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree. We are better off as a federal union of states in which the government of that union is presided over by somebody elected by the states. If Bush had lost Ohio and Iowa, then it should have meant a Kerry presidency regardless of the popular vote.

      Not that it matters this time around. The parent to your post is correct: By every measure, Bush won, so there is no case made by this particular election that there's something which needs fixing.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    19. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Zorilla · · Score: 3, Funny

      You forgot Greedo conceding that Han shoots him first.

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    20. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by minotaurcomputing · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Bush got more votes than any American in history."

      So I guess that means that Kerry got the second most votes than any American in history.
      -m

    21. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by bheer · · Score: 3, Informative

      I am glad the Popular Vote reflects the Electorial Vote. But the Popular Vote should be all that counts in ANY election. We have no need for the Electorial college any more. It is a deprecated system that is not needed in this day of information technology.

      Yes, so that a candidate can campaign in California and NY (and maybe the Lake states) and be done with the election.

      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".

      Pure popular votes are *always* skewed towards urban interests. (Incidentally the majority of /.-ers being urban no wonder this proposal is always very popular with the /. crowd. Also folk living in Europe find it handy because for the life of them they can't imagine a state larger than their frigging toy-size country).

      I hope never to see this proposal of yours accepted in my lifetime. I credit the founding fathers with more wisdom than you.

    22. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Thundersnatch · · Score: 2, Informative
      do it like Maine & Nebraska where it's by congressional district, so winner doesn't take all in a particular state

      THis is an extraordinarily bad idea. Congressional districts are routinely the victim of politically-inspired redrawing, a process known as Gerrymandering. If the election were decided by congressional district, the party in power in each state legislature would simply draw the districts to favor their own party. Both parties engage in Gerrymandering after every U.S. census to swing congressional elections; many congressional seats changed hands this year in Texas and other states because of the redrawing done after the 2000 census.

    23. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by jrexilius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I didn't realize governance and national security was a popularity contest. It is good to have trade and diplomatic relations with other nations and isolationaism isn't a good strategy but niether is focussing on the opinions of others. You would be a fool and a liar to say that other countries put global opinion ahead of their interests, why it is expected of the US I dont know.

    24. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by geoffrobinson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The electoral college ensures that a winner needs broad-based support throughout many regions of the country. The founding fathers knew what they were doing.

      What if Bush solidly won every state except for extreme landslides in NY and CA? Do you really want two states to rule over the other 48 states?

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    25. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that the current system actually resulted in neither candidate visiting quite a few undisputed states.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    26. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Kentamanos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the popular vote was all that mattered, why would any candidate focus on anything but the 10 largest CITIES in the US. Forget about states...

      And if population is so important, doesn't the Senate seem "deprecated". Why should Rhode Island have two seats?

      The most obvious good thing about a true popular vote election would be the incredible turnout. For instance, how many Republicans in California and Democrats in Texan would vote if it was a popular vote?

    27. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Proteus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Electoral College exists because the States are supposed to be relatively independant. It is the States that vote for the President, not the citizens. So, unless you want to radically change the framework upon which the US is predicated, we're stuck with the Electoral College.

      The problem is that the College no longer represents the population. I would favor the splitting of Electors based on the results of each State's popular vote. For example, in a State with 20 electors (like Ohio), each 5% of the vote would certify an Elector, with any remaining elector going to the winner. So, if the last count I saw of 51% Bush, 49% Kerry is accurate for Ohio, Bush would get 10 Electors, Kerry 9. Since Bush won the popular vote, he'd get the last Elector for a total of 11.

      Additionally, we need to expand the House (at minimum) to more fairly represent the population. In fact, it needs to be at least doubled in size. In that way, Electors will more fairly represent the will of the Citizens they are supposed to represent.

      --
      We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
    28. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      You really should study what the Electoral College is and why we have it. The states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida do not have just a "few" people living there. The number of electoral college votes is reflected by the number of US Senators and Representatives from each state. Population determines those numbers. That is why centers of population hold such a large number of electoral college votes.

      If you get rid of the electoral college, then Presidential candidates will no longer even try to listen to issues facing voters in less populous states, such as Montanna, Wyoming, North and South Dakota. The electoral college ensures that Presidential candidates must address issues facing the entire country and not just those living in San Francisco, Dallas, New York City, etc.

      The electoral college is an important fixture in our political process and should not be dismantled.

    29. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Daengbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your view of "the rest of the world" appears to include only Europe.

    30. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by scotch · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If we worked it by popular vote, only fewer than 10 states would be needed to win the election.

      This assumes that everyone or nearly everyone in those populous states will vote the same way. It's a stupid assumption, and it's a stupid argument against proportional representation for the president. Keep in mind that we already have an extremely powerful arm of the government that represents states rather than people; the senate.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    31. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Atzanteol · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Good way to start a civil war actually. This is exactly the case of what happened in the 1800's.

      I think it was George Washington who expressed his fear that the country should be divided not only along party lines, but also along geographical lines.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    32. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      congratulations america! you've completely alienated yourselves from all of your former allies and friends and earned the distrust and emnity of the rest of the planet.

      Just like we did after WWII.

      There's a reason the people who started America were called the "Founding Fathers." If I gave my children the vote, it'd be candy for every meal, and staying up all night. Requiring vegetables and a bed time isn't popular, but it is the right thing to do.

      The reality is, when you are a leader, you are NOT doing what everyone else thinks you should be doing. You are doing what needs to be done. And sometimes it takes a while before those behind you realize you are doing what's best for all concerned (thanks Mom and Dad for the vegetables and bed time!).

      And one other thing...all you countries complaining about how Americans are just for world domination...where exactly in our history have we ever done that, especially when we were in the driver's seat (Germany and Japan weren't annexed after WWII)? Never, that's when. But YOU, you've done that many times (Hitler, Napoleon, Lenin, Stahlin, etc.). Perhaps you distrust us because you were corrupt in your own history. We may not be perfect, and there may be a few of us that are anarchists (Michael Moore), but we don't want to dominate you...regardless of what conspiracy theory you choose to believe today.

    33. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Mr.+Ghost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, that was extremely rude and narrowminded.

      Are you sure that isn't "hate speech" :-)

      To use your own argument, doesn't "your side" usually vote a single issue: evironment, abortion, welfare, same-sex marriage, etc... Logic and intelligence have no effect on these people.

      I thought "your side" was supposed to be much more open minded with respect to people who have different belief systems than you do, I guess I was wrong.

    34. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Pentagram · · Score: 5, Funny

      You might be a whiny left winger, but as today as a resident from another country I can tell you you "whiny left wingers" are the only americans for which we keep some respect.

      Damn right. I had twenty quid riding on the outcome of the election. I said that Americans weren't so brain-dead and masochistic as to vote themselves another four years of Bush. My friend said they were.

      I'm going to give up making bets whilst being stoned.

    35. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by EllisDees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > If we worked it by popular vote, only fewer than 10 states would be needed to win the election. That is not very representative either.

      And how is that any different than the situation right now? Instead of the 10 most populous states, they run around to the 5 or 6 'swing' states.

      >The electoral college assures that each candidate will visit every state, not just the ones needed to win.

      But they don't. At all.

      > 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.

      Umm, Bush *did* also win the popular vote this time, you know.

      >Fair would actually be like the Senate. Each state gets (1) electoral vote.

      So someone in Alaska's vote matters more than someone's in New York? If a state only has 1 million people, their vote is more valuable than a state that has 10 million.

      1 person, 1 vote is the only fair system.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    36. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Unfortunately, it's under 50%. Even with a record turnout, it was just too scary for many people to change presidents now. The status quo feels 'safer'.

      It's strange, but too many Americans no longer understand the strengths of the U.S. Constitution, and fail to realize that those strengths actually allow the country to function in a time of 'war', and change presidents.

      Well, guess what? They *WILL* have to do that in four years.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    37. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2, Informative
      No, the electoral college helps ensure that whoever wins the election is able to govern. Remember the county-by-county map of the '00 election? Gore won almost none of the US, but won a slight majority of the popular vote. It would have been very difficult for him to govern well without a widespread base (remember 1993?). The college gives the presidency to the candidate who is popular across the nation, not just in two small parts of the nation.

      I'm not necessarily opposed to two electors from each state voting for the state's overall winner, and each other voting for the winner in his district. I would prefer that electors be selected by state legislatures (and that senators be selected the same way: popular election of senators was a foolish change to the Constitution).

    38. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by yupie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First of all, popular vote causing a Democrat to win because of some states "having the most population" doesn't strike me as utterly unfair. More population equals more votes.

      But even if you want to respect the state-biased system, why not keep the actual numbers of "electoral votes" per state (e.g. 20 for Ohio), but dividing them according to state bound results (e.g. 55% for Bush => 11 electoral votes for Bush). This would remove (or reduce, at least) the unfairness of swing states calling the shots.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 120 chars)
    39. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by E_elven · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The reality is, when you are a leader, you are NOT doing what everyone else thinks you should be doing. You are doing what needs to be done.

      That sure worked well with Hitler, Napoleon, Lenin, Stahlin [sic], etc.
      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    40. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Le+Marteau · · Score: 4, Funny

      The popular vote should have been enough

      I agree. Also, in the World Series, they should just add up the number of total runs for all the games, and declair the team that got the most runs in the series the winner.

      Not "Team X won 4 games, Team Y, 3". It should be "Team X: 23 runs, Team Y: 24".

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    41. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by the+morgawr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      we need to expand the House (at minimum) to more fairly represent the population

      The problem with doing this is that as the house gets more representatives it becomes harder to get things accomplished. That's why Congress capped the number of seats.

      I would propose that the real solution is to reduce what the federal government does. If the individual states started doing Social Security, Welfare, Education, etc. and the national government mostly did foreign and monetary policy, I think there would be a lot less need for having "better" representation.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    42. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Glendale2x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bush may have won a clear majority, but this election is still close, and there is still a large portion of the population that despises him. I'm sure Bush will interpret his victory as a mandate and do what he wants (not like his lack of a mandate was stopping him before), but this country needs some serious help closing the divide, and I don't see how Bush is going to address that.

      I don't think hate is the right word. I don't hate Bush, and I don't hate Kerry. Just because someone voted one way or the other does not imply hate for whomever they didn't vote for.

      What I don't get is all of the "run for the hills" people. Why don't you want to follow up your vote? You know, there are more elections than that of president. For example, voting a majority of the Senate or House Democrat with a Republican president. By leaving, you're only giving the future of those elections over to those of us who stay. But people are led to believe those races don't matter, and it's all about the president.

      I think I got off track here... I replied on the hate issue. Hate is Moore and his movie; that's outright hate. Not everyone feels that way, however. I suspect most people went to vote to decide who they felt would be the best choice, not who they hated the least.

      Kerry supporters: besides, in four years, we all get to choose between two totally different people. Don't be dicks about losing.*

      Bush supporters: don't be dicks about winning.*

      * Vote counts are not signed, sealed, and officiated yet. There's still some outstanding deadlines for stuff like overseas votes.

      --
      this is my sig
    43. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by zephc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Having moved from California to Michigan, I can say that it is pretty accurate, but I would also add EAT in several places on that list.

      --
      "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
    44. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by jepe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually i am from Canada... And i dony know a single person who backed bush...

    45. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by bsane · · Score: 5, Funny

      Geez, looks like I won't be vacationing in California for another four years.

      Somehow I think we'll manage.

    46. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by ash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I can tell you you 'whiny left wingers' are the only americans for which we keep some respect. Gosh... for the rest of the world your democrat party is right wing... so imagine our idea of who your people elected..."

      What you have written above essentially translates to: "The most powerful and successful country in the world is further to the right than the rest of the world."

      While it is possible that political stance is not a statistical predictor of a country's success, you should take it into consideration that it could be. After all, the U.S.S.R. was left of the rest of the world and now is no more. China is communist, but is struggling to grow with it's own burgeoning capitalist economy. Is it not possible that position from which you are delegating this respect is akin to Karl Marx paying respect to an economic system?

      Also, I'm curious, how can you claim to speak for the rest of the world? Treating "everyone else" as a monolithic block with a mass opinion is the hallmark of stereotyping and short-sightedness.

      An opposing foreign opinion.
      http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/SunSpec/Oct04/ind ex145.shtml

    47. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Nope, it likely includes most of the rest of the world. It certainly includes Canada, the closest neighbour, ally, trading partner, and most culturely similar country to the U.S. Based on surveys, news, and workplace discussions, we can't understand how anyone could vote a major fuckup like Bush back in. On Sept. 11th, 2001 the U.S. had the sympathy of most of the world. Within a year Bush pissed off everyone and thumbed his nose at the international community. He's taken away freedoms of the American people in the name of security. He started a war for reasons that the world told him were wrong, have since been more than proven wrong, and it has turned sour just like everyone said it would (except Bush and friends). And he still says everything is fine. And the American people voted him back in.

      We could understand that Americans didn't know he was a fuckup when they first (barely) voted him in, but it's hard not to know he's a fuckup now. Although I work with a number of Americans I respect, I've generally lost quite a bit of respect for American "intelligence" in general.

    48. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by schuster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I know that in my case, I'm no "whiny left winger". In fact, this is the first time I've ever voted democrat in my life. There are a few things that bother me about this election. First of all, when we had 9/11, for just a moment, not only was our entire country unified, but we also had the support of our allies as well. As it turns out, in his campaign the first time, Bush had promised to be "a uniter, not a divider", which was what convinced me that he'd be okay to vote for. I confess though that I should have known better than the whole "compassionate conservitive" nonsense. So, he's completely failed in every campaign promise he's made. I don't even blame him for the collapse of the economy, although I don't support the way he's handled it either. The other thing that bothers me is that we've now completely lost anything resembling a balance of power in this country. Finally, as far as the allies go, it doesn't bother me that we've done what we've done, rather I'm bothered by the way we've been ass-holes to the rest of the world and I'm bothered by the inablility of both Bush and apparently the "Americans" who voted for him to admit their mistakes. So, as someone who voted for Bush the first time, I will tell you that I never even considered voting for him in '04, no matter who the Democrats put up and I'm extreamily depressed by the lack of any balance of power in this country and I'm certainly not in favor of the idea of what apparently is an even smaller percentage (land-wise) of the country running the rest of the world. I think the northeast should just secede from the rest of the union.

      --
      --- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
    49. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by zurab · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There was a _reason_ the electoral college came into being: so that populous states would not "drown" out the less populous ones.

      This reasoning fails to make sense since right now less populous battleground states are "drowning out" the bigger ones that lean one way or the other in a way that they are deciding who is elected. In other words, a more committed majority state can be disregarded for the benefit of winning the minority battleground states.

      Moreover, the federal elections should not be about states, but about all citizens in the country. You cannot make a compelling case to anyone that if you live in one state your vote = 1 vote towards presidential election, but in another state your vote = 1.2 votes towards the same election. And besides that, your vote will not count at all towards electoral vote because most of your *state* leans the other way.

      It should always be that 1 citizen = 1 vote towards the federal election, not a state all-or-nothing tally; no matter where you live. Sure, people living in more populated areas will have more effect on less populated states or counties. The principle here is majority rule, minority rights. The electoral college doesn't guarantee that.
    50. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by surprise_audit · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But neither Bush nor Kerry was able to win over a significant proportion of the voters that bothered to show up. Bush may win, but the popular vote is still quite close, which means that roughly half the voters didn't want Bush .

      CNN.com is still showing Ohio as "to close to call", so Kerry either knows something is going to push Ohio towards Bush, or he's a really dumb sonofabitch for conceding before the final tally.

      Which reminds me - if Kerry wins Ohio, and therefore the Presidency, does his concession still stand?? Or does Bush have to suck it up and start packing up his stuff??

    51. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by macdaddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm another midwesterner. I'm an actual midwesterner, not from the so-called Midwestern state of Ohio or Michigan (that always pisses me off). I'm from Kansas. Fortunately I'm atypical and don't match the other poster's list. Whew. We should start a support group for people who live in state's where their vote doesn't count. We might as be voting for Nader in these states because we'll never outnumber the people voting strictly down the party line. That has always disgusted me. I can't think of a more irresponsible way to vote than by voting down party lines. Toeing party lines is the ignorant man's game. It's easy for him. He doesn't have to pay attention to what's going on around him. He just has to remember which party he always votes for. People like that don't cherish their right to vote. In my honest opinion they shouldn't have that right if they misuse it. The whole system is screwed up. I don't know what a possible fix would be like but there's got to be some better way of doing things. Uh oh. There's a black hellicopter landing in my front yard; men dressed in black are heading towards my front door. I guess I shouldn't have questioned the status quo....

    52. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why America is the ONLY superpower left in the world... and why our economy makes the economy of your piss poor, back water, know nothing country look like piss in a bucket.

      I know this is a Troll, but this is EXACTLY the attitude that the scares the rest of the world. First off the grandparent didn't even specify what country he was from. Therefore we must conclude that you find all other countries besides america "piss poor, back water, etc". A scary thought indeed.

      If your way of doing things is so great, why do they ALWAYS lose out to the socialist-leaning countries in the UN Human Development Index?. Not to mention having the highest number of criminals per capita, the worst medicare in the developped world, rampant obesity, etc..

      Do yourself a favour. Buy yourself a plane ticket and see how the rest of the world lives.

    53. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by mozumder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The voting SHOULD be skewed towards urban interests, because that's where most of the people are.

      Do you believe it is appropriate for rural interests to overtake urban interests? Only 1% of the population are now farmers, yet they somehow manage to overweigh their influence on the US government due to our founding fathers lack of vision - they probably just assumed that the US was going to be a rural country forever. This is why we have a government that largely appears to be run by inbred redneck trailer trash that are proud of their lack of edumacation, because, the horrible rural population seems to get 5 votes for every one urban vote.

      The electoral college AND the senate have got to go, they're entireley inappropriate for this modern industrialized era.

      Besides, the proof of the failures of the electoral college system was clearly shown by the lack of any presidential campaigning in any non-battleground states.

    54. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by andrew_0812 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fair in what way? Is it "fair" that I actually research the candidates' positions, watch the debates, and make informed decisions, but then my vote is countered by some idiot who votes the party line because his Dad did the same? Or some idiot who just thinks one candidate is better looking than the other? What's fair about that?

      Yes. That is fair. Each citizen of this country deserves a vote. How or whether they want to use it it their choice. Is it "fair" to try to counter this by poll exams like we used to have? No. What we need to do is try to get more people interested in politics. Regarding the party lines, I hate party politics and think that it does more harm to this country than many other things. I never vote party lines, I vote for the person that I think could do the job better and has ideas more in line with my own. Democrat, Republican, Whig, or Hullavoo. It doesn't matter.

      I think more people would be interested in voting and politics if we had a strict popular vote election. I know that I would feel that my vote counts more. It doesn't matter if I vote in Alabama right now, because Alabama is voting Republican regardless of my vote. My vote for bush is irrelavent, and my vote for Kerry does him no good whatsoever. This is not true democracy. The electoral college had its purpose when determining an exact popular vote would have taken too much time, and would have been extreemly difficult/impossible to ensure that the numbers received in Washington were exact. That time has passed. We already give exact figures for the popular vote. Spend time and effort into ensuring its exactness, drop the electoral college. Do everything else just as we already do it. Except concentrate on making it more robust, error-free, and verifiable.

      1 person, 1 vote. Democracy.

    55. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by xThinkx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The most powerful and successful country in the world"

      Wow, those are some nice blinders you've got on, where can I get a pair? What standards are you using for power? We've got the biggest military, and that equates to what? Sure we could destroy the whole world, so could several other countries, are we more powerful because we could nuke the same area 7 times? What about diplomatic power, which is the way things really get done in the modern world, we're certainly not #1 in that category.

      Most successful eh? I guess all of those countries with lower unemployment rates, longer life expectancies, and shorter work weeks are just green with envy.

      Treating "everyone else" as a few countries that are easy to make examples of is a hallmark of stereotyping and short-sightedness.

      --
      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.
      "
    56. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by hb253 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're right about voting for someone new in 4 years, but my fear is the damage this administration (with the help of a right-wing Senate and House) will inflict that could last 20 or 30 years. This is what I foresee:

      • ultra conservative supreme court appointments
      • ruining of Social Security
      • relationships with allies severed
      • inability for Americans to safely travel overseas
      • the imposition of fundamentalist christian morality on all citizens (prayer in school, no abortion, discrimination and violence against gays, teaching creationism, etc)
      • bankruptcy of the Federal government due to grandiose overspending and insufficient tax revenue

      The list goes on...

      --
      Self awareness - try it!
    57. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Londovir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the point is being missed. Our country is a representative form of government, and more importantly, the United States is just that: a collection of united states. (50 of them, in fact, plus disputedly the District of Columbia, which should just be made a state and be done with it.)

      In any case, I totally disagree with your comment "If a state only has 1 million people, their vote is more valuable than a state that has 10 million." No state's vote should be more valuable than any other.

      Since what point have people forgotten that we are a collection of independant states that work together as a whole to form a country? That's why we have state governments, with state constitutions, state courts, and so forth. We're NOT a unified country, although we often work together for a common goal. Thus, when we elect a president, we are electing someone who will execute the Constitution of the United States, not the will of the people, per se.

      Thus, Alaska should be just as important as California when it comes to electoral votes. Why not? Just because people don't choose to live there en masse, does not devalue their importance as one of the 50 states of our union. They have an equal voice in our country, and deservedly so.

      The problem is the electoral college system has become unbalanced in its purpose. It was intended to give each state a voice, but when it became tied to populations, it lost it's whole value. What should be done is simple: make each state have 1 electoral vote. A president will win when they claim a majority of electoral votes. Each state's electoral vote will be decided by the winner of the state's popular vote. In the case of a national tie in electoral votes, rely upon the national popular vote to break the tie.

      In this way, every single state is important to deciding the presidency, which is the way it should have been all along. How insulting is it to live in a state like Alaska, where your livelihood is made or broken in Washington, but candidates will skip you like a hopscotch board to concentrate on a "rich" state like California with it's 55 votes? Why do you think the Senate is designed with 2 candidates from each state? To make it even to all, that's part of the checks and balances. It is unfair to regard the popular vote as the only decider, for the simple reason that our country is a collection of states, not population, and that's the key difference. We might wish to feel otherwise, but the reality is that it's the states that are represented in government, not the people directly - we just serve to decide who will represent our state's interests in the government. That being the case, let the popular vote decide who the states vote for, not the president directly.

      As an interesting aside to this idea, this concept of elections would have kept the same election result all the way back to the 1976 national election, and it would have given Gerald Ford the win, as he had won 27 states to Carter's 24. An interesting thing to contemplate.

      Londovir

      --
      Londovir
    58. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Tailhook · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would favor the splitting of Electors based on the results of each State's popular vote.

      Colorado defeated this soundly. Amendment 36 would have split CO electoral votes proportionally. However, the collective voter knows better than to gimp their own vote by marginalizing their own state.

      If Amendment 36 were to apply nationally I think it would win. This requires amending the Constitution. Have we debated the inefficacy of the electoral college long enough for this to happen? I think so.

      Strangely I think Bush would be the right president to try it; the thought of a proportional CA has a lot of appeal; finally those 55 odd electoral college votes would represent beyond Los Angeles and San Francisco. The Republicans had a net gain of 8 electoral college votes between 2000 and 2004 due to pro-Republican state legislatures which, in turn, are the result of shifts in the electorate population and demographics. The Republicans should not fear proportional voting.

      Bush won a majority of 120 million votes, the largest turnout in American history. This is not a Michael Moore nation. If proportional voting were proposed at the Federal level I'd support it 100% and I think a lot of other Americans would too.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    59. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Analogy+Man · · Score: 5, Insightful
      A coworker was just moments ago saying that when he goes to India he tells everyone he is from Canada. A cab driver yelled at him all of the way from the airport to his parents home on a previous trip when he said he was coming from US.

      I don't know why folks get so down on Europe. They collectively looked at the 100,000,000 folks killed in wars in the 20'th century and decided there had to be a better way. Europe has successfully prosecuted more Al Quida than the US. They just happen to distiguish the murderous thugs from the millions of other folks knuckle draggin' Joe 6-pack wants Bush to "kick some ass" with.

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    60. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, as one of the apparently meaningless midwesterners, I will be praying for you and your ignorant view of the midwest.

      Well, my view of the midwest was that it was full of religious nuts with superiority complexes...

      That...sorta confirmed it.
      ;-)

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    61. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by greenrom · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There are a number of good reasons to keep the electoral college. Here are a few that come to mind. I'll leave out the ones about ensuring representation for rural states, since that one usually comes up in the discussion.

      It isolates voting irregularities to a single state. This can be important. For example, if Diebold voting machines showed 3 billion people voted in Montana, it wouldn't have a drastic effect on the outcome since Montana only has 3 electoral votes.

      It balances differences in voter turnout. New York is roughly twice the size of North Carolina. However, lets assume that New York gets hit by thunderstorms and has massive flooding on election day making it less convenient for people to vote. As a result, New York might have 30% voter turnout while North Carolina might have 60% voter turnout. This would mean North Carolina would have roughly the same representation as New York -- a state twice its size. The electoral college reduces the impact of weather, disasters, and even regional voter apathy on the final election results.

      Not everyone that lives in a state may be eligible to vote because they may not be citizens. If a state has a large immigrant population, it is important the state's interests are represented in proportion to its size even though many of its residents may be unable to vote. The electoral college ensures this since electoral representation is determined based on raw population data from the census. A nationwide popular election would short-change states with lots of immigrants, or lots of children, or any other sizeable block of ineligible voters.

      The electoral college ensures elections will always have a definite outcome. Even in 2000 when election results were unclear and court challeges delayed the outcome, the electoral college ensured we would eventually get a result that could not be legally disputed. Even if Gore had continued the court challenges and things were undecided until the day the electors cast their votes, once the electors voted, the outcome would be definite. By having the votes of a few hundred electors chosen by the states determine the final outcome, there is no room for errors in voting or tabulation. It is always clear how each of the electors vote.

    62. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by iocat · · Score: 2, Insightful
      That stock should surge: the CA initiative was a 3 BILLION dollar investment in stem cell research. The NIH typically invests far less than that nationwide over the same period (sorry, I'm unable to provide links or more evidence of that; just heard it on the radio).

      I voted against the initiative on principle -- I voted against all bonds this year, due to CA's already suffocating debt -- but I am not unhappy it passed. It will really give CA's biotech industry a great jumpstart, and maybe some great discoveries will come from it.

      Regardless of the national race, I am pleased with how the initiatives seemed to go across the country. The exception being of course, gay marriage. Against gay marriage? Don't have one! It's ridiculous that there are special legal benefits that can only be granted to a union of a man and a woman.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    63. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by isotropique · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It also includes Canada and Mexico which are the closest US neighboors. In Canada, the population was supporting Kerry with more than 60%. In Quebec, it was more than 80%. This morning, when I heard the result of the US election, I felt an headache. Just like when you drink too much ...

    64. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Schwartzboy · · Score: 2

      So what do we do if a left-winger is married to a right-winger? Move each half of the couple to adjacent cities along the border line? Do we get conjugal visits?

      Actually, this might not be such a bad plan after all...

      --
      "Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"- Kieren O'Shaughnessy
    65. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by SamSim · · Score: 4, Funny
      whiny left winger

      Left whinger?

    66. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by mks113 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And South America, and Africa, and Europe, and Australia, and don't forget the rest of North America.

      Bush would get the vote of 15% of Canadians (McLean's poll), and we think most of them are in Alberta.

      Soudi Arabia is firmly in the Bush camp. Funny thing is, so is Israel. Apart from that, it is pretty much an anti-bush world.

    67. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by 3terrabyte · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I knew this would be brought up. Your idea on how the math works on this is incorrect.

      Running around to 5 or 6 swings states after already securing the few larger states, is MUCH different than only needing to win the fewer large states.

      "The electoral college assures that each candidate will visit every state, not just the ones needed to win."

      --But they don't. At all.

      I agree with you 100% there!

      Umm, Bush *did* also win the popular vote this time, you know.

      What you have to remember is, that yes, Bush won the popular vote. But, to win back the popular vote, all Kerry would have to do is campaign in California to win some of the rest of the 30% that voted for Bush. Since even California's remaining 30% is such a huge population, we're talking about effectively wiping out the whole Mountain States that went for Bush. Campaign in New York to get the rest of those votes, and you've wiped out the effectiveness of the many southern Bush states.

      You have to agree that campaigning does affect voter turn out. If it was only popular vote that decided, the candidates would have campaigned differently. And they would have campaigned in only the big states. Every time.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    68. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by endoboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      you might want to consider a slightly broader historical context.

      the Mexicans, and the American indians would disagree that "never in our history" has the US been in the mood for domination....

    69. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by egriebel · · Score: 2, Informative
      today as a resident from another country I can tell you you "whiny left wingers" are the only americans for which we keep some respect.

      Well, let me be the first to commend you on your willingness to speak for the entire rest of the world. Hip-Hip-Hurrah!!

      It's nice to know that Americans don't have a corner on being pompous.

      --
      ACHTUNG! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
    70. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Dark+Fire · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When the country was first formed, our legislative branch was setup such that each state was permitted 2 senators regardless of size and a number of representatives in the house proportional to population size. Why would a state with a smaller population want to join together with larger states and be dominated over in the elections? The electoral college also reflects these early compromises. It represents the mortar of the compromises which built this country. Should California have the right to dictate who becomes president? Iowa, Nebraska, and other smaller population states don't think so. Oh, and it takes a 2/3 majority of the states to change the matter. Which means it won't be happening anytime soon. If you don't like who won, work to change people's minds, not the rules. Remember why such compromises exist, they made us a country and keep us a country.

    71. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by CheeseTroll · · Score: 2
      That's a very modern view of the purpose of the electoral college. But US demographics in the 1780's were far different than they are today, with the vast majority of people living in rural areas. Heavy concentrations of people in urban areas were not considered a threat in the way you describe.

      The electoral college was a compromise solution designed to balance the power of the states' legislatures with that of the people, to act as a sort of brake on potential irrational exuberance of the people (though this is probably overstated as a reason, these days), and simply as a practical method of coming to a consensus within a reasonable amount of time when you have a population spread out over a vast land area with crappy roads, no modern communications, and illegible handwriting (ok, that one's my bias).

      There's a great summary of electoral college history + it's pros and cons here.

      --
      A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
    72. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by jrexilius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      sadly, that is often the case. In the last election less then 9% of the San Fran population voted for Pres. Bush. The numbers were also very lopsided in most other cities.

      The demographics are just not evenly spread out. Some other posters have made the point that popular vote is popular vote but it would put the urbanists in the driving seat as far as driving the agendas and voting issues and many other things.

      You could argue that democracy is democracy and if 51% says that its OK to mary gays, gas jews, murder babies but not criminals, plunder the environement, invade countries or any other issue that is really repugnent to you then you are out of luck. But our founding fathers did not create a direct democracy for precisely that reason. We have a republic and the attempt was to not setup a system that could be too easily dominated by a slim majority.

      The electoral college, for all its faults, is still a better solution then straight popular vote. Worst still would be a popular vote with a multy party system. Then you would only need 34% in a three party system to elect a Hitler or Stalin.

    73. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or horsemen mid-apocalypse.

    74. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I gave my children the vote, it'd be candy for every meal, and staying up all night. Requiring vegetables and a bed time isn't popular, but it is the right thing to do.

      You can't *possibly* be arguing that the US is a "grown-up", and the rest of the world's countries are children, can you?

      Perhaps it's *you* that needs to get some historical perspective.

      The reality is, when you are a leader, you are NOT doing what everyone else thinks you should be doing. You are doing what needs to be done.

      The thing is that the US is *NOT* a leader. In the context of your analogy above, it would be like one of your children being a 3-meter tall, 500KG mutant spoiled 6-year-old, and *TELLING* you that they want candy for dinner, and beating the shit out of you when you try to tell them to eat their vegetables.

      And the sad fact is that you *think* that invading another country for no reason is "leadership".

    75. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful
      By every measure, Bush won, so there is no case made by this particular election that there's something which needs fixing.

      Yes, it seems to be the democratically correct outcome. But some would argue that it demonstrates that the critical thinking skills of the voters themselves need "fixing".

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    76. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Skjellifetti · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the rest of the world does not like what we do then take care of your problems yourself and stay out of our way.

      To expand on the parent's theme, why did Dutch "peacekeepers" stand aside and let the Serbs massacre Muslim Bosnians in Srebrenica? What has Europe done to solve the civil war in Rwanda and the Congo? Why has Europe has nothing to stop the rapes and killing in Darfur? I don't know which pisses me off more -- unilateral US intervention and our pretensions of moral superiority or European complacency and their pretensions of moral superiority.

      1. I did not vote for Bush. I do not even like him.
      ditto.
      2. I am not a Republican.
      ditto.
      3. I do have a passport and it has stamps in it from the EU to asia.
      ditto.
      4. I did server in the millitary and have seen combat.
      Fortunately, I never saw combat.

    77. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by EinarH · · Score: 5, Insightful
      But some would argue that it demonstrates that the critical thinking skills of the voters themselves need "fixing".
      First let me say that allthough I had hoped that Kerry would win, Bush victory was the most likly outcome. Disappointed? Yup. But it's _not_ the end of the world. USA will continue to be a somewhat decent country to live in compared to many other countries, even if the differences among people within USA will increase as well as the social mobility. Some folks may get insanly rich other might get a job in growing areas like small bussiness, debt collecting, flipping burgers, homeland security and security personell in the next rouge state to be liberated. The big losers will be those in the middle class that don't get to participate in the party and get their share of the economic growth.

      The most disappointing thing though with respect to critical thinking, and the part I must addmitt I don't fully understand, is the irrationality and shortsightedness of US voters. According to the CNN exit polls (off by 2-3%) the most important issue for voters where Moral values 22% and Economy/Jobs 20%. If I understand US politics right that "Moral values" here means issues like Abortion, Gay marriage, christianity/religiousness, "family values" and and qualities like steadfastness and itegrity as well as "trustworthiness". How peolpe manage to prioritize these areas above Economy/Jobs, Iraq and terrorism is beyond me. Some of them are classic conservative areas but historically not to the extent that GWB has campaigned on them.
      And those few qualities that I find magnetizing; fiscal responisbility and a small to medium sized effective non-intrusive non-religious state, they are _completely_ abandoned.
      Do people expect a second Bush administration to win the "war on terrorism" on these qualities? And do they belive Bush can create a stronger economy while at the same time winning the "War on Terror" _and_ keeping the deficit from sliding into an almost unrecoverable state?
      The voters will get what they requested on the "Moral value" issue essentially on gay marriage and abortion but my prediction is that they will _not_ get what they want on Economy/Jobs and "War on Terror".

      The fact that people are voting increasingly on "values" leaves little room from critical thinking, unpopular/controversial choices and nuanced viewpoints. Among the people that said "Will bring change" (25%) is the most important quality Kerry got 95% of the votes. But among those that said "Strong Leader" and "Clear stand on Issue" are important Bush got 86% and 78%. So people voted for Bush because they belive he is the right Leader. To me as a foreigner that looks like a classic case of a country both divided and unsecure about the further course. People belive the President as a Moraly and Strong Leader can accomplish things that realisticlly are unlikly to happen.
      Througout history many citizens have voted for the strong commander to miraculously lead them out of the trouble and a lot of the times it has only brought the into more problems. (To avoid long flamewars I will avoid naming any specific country and leave that to the historicans.)

      I have seen this for a long time that USA is turning more right than the rest of the world. I will expect to see even more focus on the Wars (Crime, Drugs, Terror,), increasing amounts of security and surveilance creep and religion afflicting more of the public life. Bush needs to cut somewhere in order to finance the war on terror and my bet is on either health care or social security. Not drasticaly, but steady. Civil liberties will remain mostly intact but will have to cease in those areas where they threaten to disturb important policies. I'm not looking forward to the USA Bush will create as it's clarly not in the interest of most americans nor the rest of the world.

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    78. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Golias · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it seems to be the democratically correct outcome. But some would argue that it demonstrates that the critical thinking skills of the voters themselves need "fixing".

      Good point! It can't possibly be true that reasonable people can disagree. It must be that all of us who voted for Bush are short-sighted idiots. Thank you for contributing so much to the sensible dialog between political viewpoints.

      It must be nice to know for certain that nobody who disagrees with you could possibly understand facets of our national debate which have eluded you, because you are so wise, and we are so incapable of thought and reason.

      It must also be nice to be so sure that the problem with us is that they simply have not been made to understand your arguments yet. If only you could find a way to enlighten the poor, misguided boobs from their prison of ignorance. If only we could just glimpse the light of left-wing thought for the obvious One True Way that it is, perhaps there would be hope for America!!! What more can you, the elite, possibly do to raise us from this morass of childishly thinking that low taxes, limited government, and an aggressive offense against terrorism are good ideas!?

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    79. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by ash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What standards are you using for power?
      Economic, as that underlies all else. Gross National Product and Gross Domestic Product. If you're unfamiliar, GNP measures total money value of products and services produced by a nation in a year; GDP is similar but limits to production done within the country.

      As of the most recent measures (2003) not only did the United States have the largest GNP, but Texas by itself ranked #8, right behind China.
      http://www.window.state.tx.us/news/303148theconomy .html

      For GDP, the United States again tops the list easily.
      http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko rder/2001rank.html

      Most successful eh?
      See Conductor's response; I'm not going to point out the error of your social state panacea, but again, I submit the above. Perhaps it can be argued we're not as our GDP per capita is 2nd behind Luxembourg. But I would argue Luxembourg cannot scale to match the U.S.
      http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_de sc.php ..all of those countries...
      What is your measure of power & success? You mention diplomatic power. Do you have a metric by which to judge this? Are you aware that the coalition of countries that the US put together for the Iraq war was larger than that for the Korean War, and this was done without the UN's backing? After the invasion, the UN then gave its permission for the continued occupation of Iraq, after initally opposing it. For that matter, who funds the UN? Or that the US was able to hold the first democratic election in Afghanistan just recently? I think the US has far more diplomatic power than you speculate.

      Please submit 1 country who you believe is more successful and powerful, and what measurements you use to determine such. Take into consideration whether that country could have accomplished even one of those items I just listed.

      Finally...your knee jerk reaction of "military power" tells volumes about how you perceive both power and those on the other side of the political spectrum from you.

    80. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by zxnos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i know i am going to get pounced on for this, and i am not trying to start a fight, but here goes... ...i am one of those 'ignorant' people who votes down party lines. i do this because in the u.s.a. politicians form their coalitions before running for office. for me, party trumps person. when it is all said and done the party that has the most 'heads' gets to chair committees etc. i would rather have the party that most closely matches my philosphy heading up committees.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    81. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by SoTuA · · Score: 2, Funny
      But does BSD have an exit strategy on Irak?

      How can we vote for a candidate who is dying. And that's the truth. Don't take my word for it, ask netcraft.

    82. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by dtfinch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a lot of anger out there. Republicans see that they won the popular vote, and Democrats see signs of widespread election fraud. I think Kerry believes that an early concession would prevent an already bad situation from escalating.

      Half the country has just entirely lost its representation in the US government. The House, Senate, and Presidency all belong to the Republicans now because of this election, soon to likely include the Supreme Court, and there's good evidence that we won't be able to change that. This kind of shift in power is what led to the bloodiest war in US history. While I doubt we'll even come close, the next 4 years doesn't look good. Anger won't solve anything, even though justified. Prolonging the election dispute will only help that anger to grow.

      If the vote turns out in Kerry's favor, then all will be well. If it doesn't, litigation is unlikely to change the outcome. And neither will protests. The best we can do is work to educate the other half of the country. And eat less. That'll teach them.

    83. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I live in Toledo, Ohio. Let me tell you about it:

      ...

      Well, you can see what I think about that. Less amusingly, I can say with all honesty that all decent folk should stay away from Midwestern places like Toledo. A very real, cultural undercurrent of absolutely insane patriotic-religious fundamentalism is rising here, much like what has happened in the Middle East for the last 50 years in all their poverty (and for the same reasons). Those who speak sense in the Midwest today are under a rising threat of a lynching. There's no hope for it. Just stay the fuck out, as I work to save money and get the fuck out myself.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    84. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by fritz1968 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it was George Washington who expressed his fear that the country should be divided not only along party lines, but also along geographical lines.

      Right you are. Take a look at this link for more information:
      http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac /49.htm

      I fund this paragraph most interesting:
      Two-thirds of the Address is devoted to domestic matters and the rise of political parties, and Washington set out his vision of what would make the United States a truly great nation. He called for men to put aside party and unite for the common good, an "American character" wholly free of foreign attachments. The United States must concentrate only on American interests, and while the country ought to be friendly and open its commerce to all nations, it should avoid becoming involved in foreign wars. Contrary to some opinion, Washington did not call for isolation, only the avoidance of entangling alliances. While he called for maintenance of the treaty with France signed during the American Revolution, the problems created by that treaty ought to be clear. The United States must "act for ourselves and not for others."

      --
      It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
    85. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by number · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Nobody is pushing for compulsory prayer. Just the freedom to pray. That is an exercise of religion. Congress shall make no law prohibiting it.

      I have no issue with allowing prayer in (public) school, as long as all religions are allowed - with say excerpts from the Koran on the wall alongside the 10 commandments. Time in the day allowed for prayers towards Mecca, etc. If all religions (wicca, satanism, etc.) are given equal time things could become unwieldly. Which is why it would be stupid for the school itself to conduct prayers, but let kids do whatever religious activities they want outside class time so as not to take time out of the other student's learning time.

      Creationism is a widely held, not disproved, and scientifically sound theory. Teach it as a theory. Teach the other theories as theories as well. Show how they may coexist and how particular theories conflict with each other.

      I suppose you could teach it as a theory. But how would you fill a lesson? "Some people believe that an invisible being created everything, by methods we do not know or understand. Any questions you have about this process cannot be answered because we don't understand the invisible being's methods. Lesson over."

    86. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've generally lost quite a bit of respect for American "intelligence" in general.

      that's ok. so have many americans.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    87. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by danbeck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is so typical of the Bush hating crowd. Another individual that has a different opinion, outlook on life or moral compass is an idiot who couldn't think their way through a Taco Bell drive through.

      What kind of balls do you have to have, in order to be so arrogant as to think that your opinion is the "correct" opinion, simply because it's yours?

      No doubt, our fair moderators here at slashdot will mod me down as a troll or flamebait when this buffoon got a +4 Insightful for his narrowminded, fascist comments.

    88. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by jayemdaet · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The most disappointing thing though with respect to critical thinking, and the part I must addmitt I don't fully understand, is the irrationality and shortsightedness of US voters. According to the CNN exit polls (off by 2-3%) the most important issue for voters where Moral values 22% and Economy/Jobs 20%. If I understand US politics right that "Moral values" here means issues like Abortion, Gay marriage, christianity/religiousness, "family values" and and qualities like steadfastness and itegrity as well as "trustworthiness".


      I think this is an interesting point. I think people actually want to be able to trust their President and his integrity and they look to a man like that. Because once that is in place, you can trust he will make the right decisions in the economy and trust in his integrity to defend the nation. Personally, I would rather have a God-fearing man in office than one who isn't.

      I have seen this for a long time that USA is turning more right than the rest of the world.


      I would say the US has always been more right than the rest of the world. But more recently, we have been seeing a movement leftwards. Take for instance what life was like 40 years ago as compared to now in the US.

      One note to Slashdot, I am sure this won't be scored high cause of this note, but can Slashdot not be so left-winged. I mean every Score:5 is something against the President or the election. I would appreciate some balance. But then, maybe I am asking too much.
    89. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by divisionbyzero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know the attitude sucks but your point about the social programs in other OECD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OECD) countries just encourages this kind of attitude. Do you know why you have these nice social programs? Because we have subsidized the military budgets of all of the other members of the OECD for the last sixty years.

      Many ignorant people in the OECD have criticized the United States for having such a huge military budget while having no social programs. Well guess what? That is another sacrifice that America has made for the past sixty years for Europe. We had to invest all of that money in to our military after WWII in order to deter Stalin because Europe was too poor to defend itself.

      Eventually, when Europeans could afford to defend themselves, they let Americans continue to defend Europe so they could spend the money on social programs. So we became the most powerful country in the world. We prospered economically from the military industrial complex and all of the industries that it spawned. Many people got rich from this process and eventually these people decided that we don't need social programs. These people are now called Republicans.

      There is no doubt that helping Europe and Japan after the war was the right thing, but when Europe took advantage and America (i.e. those who were in power due to the benefits that accrued from the military industrial complex) let them take advantage America's fate was sealed forty years ago. The American people missed out on the benefits of social programs, corporations took over politics, we became the most powerful country in the world, and the modern Republican party was born.

      All of these things were affected by our relationship with Europe. Americans let it happen and deserve most of the blame, or praise depending on how you see it, but Europeans also share some responsibility for the state of things. Sure, we could have raised taxes, but our taxes were already relatively high until Ronald Reagan and since Ronald Reagan we have been running a deficit (that will necessitate a tax increase in the future) in order to afford a $500 billion/year military budget. The only thing that can stop this unsustainable and self-destructive trend is for Europe to develop an army that can address all of its securty needs and doesn't require the United States. There is movement in this direction but not enough.

      Eisenhower saw it clearly (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/ indust.html) and he would be horrified by George Bush, which is why his son supported Kerry. This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. This trend has 60 years of momentum behind it.

      So do yourself a favor. Learn some history, get some perspective, and don't be so hasty to reach for those Leftish cliches and prejudices to condemn an attitude and a situation that you, yes, you, helped create. Don't worry though. You aren't alone. Most Americans have no idea why we are in the position that we are in. The Democratic "strategists" seem to think this last election was lost due to a tactical error and most don't get the fact that a new strategy is needed. They need to use conservative (and I don't mean religious conservative) means to attain liberal goals, but that's a whole 'nother post.

    90. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by EinarH · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Kerry lost this election that day in 1970 he appeared before congress spewing that bilge about American war crimes.
      I don't think it made him unelectable but it certainly made it harder as some people were willing to create the Swift Boat Campaign and attack him on not his claims on war crimes but instead on medals and actions.
      We could have endless discussions about how telling about war crimes ain't "spewing bilge" but let just agree to disagree on this one ok?
      Except for Israel, Spain, and Russia, the rest of the world have not suffered terrorist attacks. The rest of the world seems far more interested in restraining American power than fighting terror. That is their perogative, but our interests are not aligned.
      Apart from Western Europe and some other rich countries the rest of the world do have _far worse_ problems than terrorists attack or the war on terror. In many of these countries people are dying at the rate of hundreds each week. I don't think they care much about some islamist blowing themselves up even if they take with them some rich europeans or americans.
      In Europe and the rest of the world many rich countries are interested in fighting terror. Most of them have forces in Afghanistan. Most have enforced legislation to track down terrorist funding. And most of them have helped USA diplomaticly or with intelligence. Apart from the Iraq issue I don't think European countries oppose the "War on Terror". We do however have some itches with that "we have the right to attack and reform any country if we suspect that they have WMD/support terrorists/is evil" attitude.

      I belive that the long-term interests of Western Europe and USA are aligned, because the similarities exceeds the differences, but only if USA understands that it's not some unique country above everyone else.

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    91. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by wilsonjd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      * ultra conservative supreme court appointments

      The senate majority is not big enough for this to happen. The 44 Democratic Senators will make sure that Judges are (relatively) moderate.

      * ruining of Social Security

      It was ruined in about 1964 (under a Democratic president.)

      * relationships with allies severed

      Strained, maybe. Our allies understand that administrations are temporary. Money talks.

      * inability for Americans to safely travel overseas

      Neither party has a viable solution that will improve our safety.

      * the imposition of fundamentalist christian morality on all citizens (prayer in school, no abortion, discrimination and violence against gays, teaching creationism, etc)

      Move to New York or California, or another "blue" state.

      * bankruptcy of the Federal government due to grandiose overspending and insufficient tax revenue

      Both parties are working on this quite well.

    92. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by ash · · Score: 2, Informative

      The US currently has military presence in almost 130 countries, deploying approximately a quarter of a million servicemen in support roles for combat, peacekeeping or deterrence. That doesn't include roughly 100,000 non-combat personnel in Germany, Italy, Japan, and the UK.

      Your sarcasm blindly simplifies our current military operations to 2 countries. It also takes the common liberal spin on Afghanistan and Iraq. While Iraq continues to be the focus of terrorist attacks, they are also enjoying refurbished schools, utilities, road systems, and a host of other benefits lacking under Hussein. Most notably, an operating democratic government with scheduled elections and a leader who is not practicing genocide. Afghanistan has already had its elections--something you don't see heavily publicized.

    93. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by NoGuffCheck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Except for Israel, Spain, and Russia, the rest of the world have not suffered terrorist attacks"

      Lets not forget Egypt, England, Northern Ireland, Indonesia, Japan, Germany, to name just a few off the top of my head, but if you like im sure I could put together a list of at least 50 other countries who have had terrorist attacks if you feel it neccessary.

      " The rest of the world seems far more interested in restraining American power than fighting terror"

      Have you somehow found a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, that the rest of the world is unaware of? Iraq was a Blood-for-Oil campaign, nothing else..

      --
      serenity now!
    94. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that it is proper for the U.S. Government to levy taxes in order to fund programs that promote the general welfare. Let's also set aside what the nature of those programs are, and whether broad categories of programs like military spending, welfare, humanitarian aid, environmental regulation, transportation infrastructure, etc., actually live up to the ideal of "promoting the general welfare."

      Now, what's your beef with a progressive tax code?

      Say the government decides to get the money it requires by taxing everyone at 20%. A person making $10,000 a year pays $2000, while a person making $200,000 a year pays $40,000. Sounds perfectly fair, right?

      But it isn't. Taking $40K from the rich guy causes relatively little hardship, while taking $2K from the poor guy causes a great deal of hardship.

      Why? It's the very basic economic law of diminishing returns. It's rather straightforward economics to say that people spend their finite reserves of money in such a way as they believe will maximize their own happiness. So each additional dollar you earn will be spent on something that will do less to add to your own happiness than the dollar before it.

      In practice, this means that the rich guy might have to buy a new car less frequently in order to pay his $40K tax burden, or go out to eat less often, or live in a somewhat smaller house. Meanwhile, the guy who is scraping by, in order to pay his measly tax burden of $2K, has to decide whether to turn off the heat to his apartment, or walk three miles to work instead of renewing his bus pass.

      Taking the "shiny-car money" from the rich guy does far less to hurt the overall happiness of the rich guy than taking "bus pass money" from twenty poor guys.

      Those who argue against a progressive tax system are basically arguing that it is somehow "more fair" to take more from those who are most hurt by the taking. Meanwhile, those who are more able to pay more without a significant impact to their quality of life are relieved of even that minor sacrifice.

      I don't get it. I mean, when people call for a repeal of all welfare programs, it makes a twisted sort of sense because they believe that the recipients are just leeches on the system. But calling for a return to a simple flat tax is nothing more than asking the government to make the hard-working poor give up necessities so that the rich can have incrementally more luxuries.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    95. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by xtort17 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm interested, what are these countries with lower unemployment rates, longer life expectancies AND shorter work weeks? To my knowledge, there aren't any...

      It may be true that there are some countries with at least one of these, but there is not a single country in the world that has all three, because they're all trade offs. Countries that have shorter work weeks have higher unemployment. Countries with longer life spans are less industrialized and have lower GDPs.

      The US isn't the most powerful country because of its military. You're wearing the blinders if you think that's why people think the US is powerful - anyone with a few hydrogen bombs has the power to destroy most of the world, and it's been a few decades since the US held the monopoly on that.

      What the US does have is one of the strongest economies. She has low inflation, and a strong exchange rate. She has one of the world's lowest unemployment rates, She has amongst the highest life expectancies, and She has (barring the Vatican and possibly some other very small countries with few inhabitants...) the highest GDP and GDP per capita in the world. It's not the military that makes the US the most powerful, it's Her economic power.

      Assuming everyone who thinks the US is the most powerful feels that way because the US has a decent military is a hallmark of stereotyping and shortsightedness... Isn't the pot calling the kettle black?

    96. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Alsee · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yet another Bush vote based a lack of information or on false information deliberately spread by the administration. The majority of Bush supporters get the facts wrong. They have been deceived by the administration.

      In fact the populations of the UK, Canada, and Mexico have had some of the most severe shift of oppinion AGINST the US. How the hell are we supposed to hunt down and catch or kill terrists now that Bush has alienated the entire world and lost virtally all international support? General public support and police support and intelligence agency support and military support.

      How the hell are we supposted to keep out terrorists when even Canada and Mexico have turned against us?

      BUSH IS BAD ON FIGHTING TERRORISTS because he has RUINED our international capacity to get at them and shut them down.

      Note that most people in the world don't know much about Kerry, they simply want Bush gone because he's a lying jackass, and because under Bush it's US acting like a rogue nation:
      Argentina 43% Kerry 6% Bush
      Bolivia 25% Kerry 16% Bush
      Brazil 57% Kerry 14% Bush
      Canada 61% Kerry 16% Bush
      China 52% Kerry 12% Bush
      Colombia 47% Kerry 26% Bush
      Czech Republic 42% Kerry 18% Bush
      Dominican Republic 51% Kerry 38% Bush
      England 47% Kerry 16% Bush
      France 64% Kerry 5% Bush
      Germany 74% Kerry 10% Bush
      Ghana 48% Kerry 24% Bush
      Indonesia 57% Kerry 34% Bush
      Italy 58% Kerry 14% Bush
      Japan 43% Kerry 23% Bush
      Kahzakhastan 40% Kerry Bush 12%
      Kenya 58% Kerry 25% Bush
      Mexico 38% Kerry 18% Bush
      Netherlands 63% Kerry 6% Bush
      Norway 74% Kerry 7% Bush
      Peru 37% Kerry 26% Bush
      Russia Kerry 20% Bush 10%
      South Africa 43% Kerry 29% Bush
      Spain 45% Kerry 7% Bush
      Sweden 58% Kerry 10% Bush
      Tanzania 44% Kerry 30% Bush
      Turkey 40% Kerry 25% Bush
      Uraguay 37% Kerry 5% Bush
      Venezuela 48% Kerry 22% Bush
      Zimbabwe 28% Kerry 6% Bush

      The administration is trying to use the "Oil for Food" to cover up world how WORLD oppinion has turned against us. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with oil for food. The fact is that the administraion lied in justifying the invasion of Iraq. The President KNEW the forged "yellowcake" uranium documents were bogus when he presented them. Our own intelligence KNEW the aluminum tubes were unsuitable for uranium enrichment. We KNEW there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam and Al Qaeda hate each other.

      The problem is that ever since the 9/11 attacks and our time of "unity and support", the Amercian media has been unable to effectively criticize the administration, to expose the lies deceptions and coverups. Immediately after 9/11 it was unthinkable to publish anythign that reflected badly on the US or the administration or the president. It was "unpatriotic" and "unamerican" and "divisive". That effect has certainly diminished since 9/11, but it is not gone. In fact that effect was reinvigorated when our troops were fighting in Afghanistan, and when our troops were fighting in Iraq.

      The Whitehouse has been deceiving the American public, and the US media has been failing in their job to adaquately inform the public about the facts.

      The international media has accurately covered the lies and deceptions of the administration, and accurately covered our appalling behaviour under Bush.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    97. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it seems to be the democratically correct outcome. But some would argue that it demonstrates that the critical thinking skills of the voters themselves need "fixing".

      True. It does seem that the reliance on paperless systems in key areas are problematic. This will be fixed if the Help America Vote Act is not overturned.

      There are many things that need to be changed. Just not necessarily anything which *might* have made a difference this time.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    98. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by dcmeserve · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I put it squarely on the shoulders of the Democratic party that they lost. All that talk, all that supposed Rock the Vote and similar campaigns, ad campaigns, moveon.org...

      Actually, the Democratic party really did get out the vote. The specific example I heard was in Ohio -- all the Democratic Party operatives met their targets in achieving voter turnout.

      It's just that the Republicans did even better. Handing out leaflets in churches is apparently very effective. So is lying.

      You picked a candidate without a backbone...

      Kerry's biggest problem wasn't a lack of backbone -- remember this is the guy who voluntarily went into hot combat zones in Vietnam -- it was a lack of ability in generating sound bites, and a lack of ability in telling the really good lies. He was also missing an evil campaign-genius on the scale of Karl Rove.

      But more fundamentally, I think the Democratic Party lost the Idiot Vote when it started to engage in more-responsible fiscal policy. The people who reflexively voted Democratic suddenly didn't see a big difference between the two parties in economic matters, so they fell back to Religion as a disambiguator.

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
    99. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by mzieg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Now, what's your beef with a progressive tax code?

      Say the government decides to get the money it requires by taxing everyone at 20%. A person making $10,000 a year pays $2000, while a person making $200,000 a year pays $40,000. Sounds perfectly fair, right?

      Yes, it does.
      But it isn't. Taking $40K from the rich guy causes relatively little hardship, while taking $2K from the poor guy causes a great deal of hardship.
      I hold that the purpose of taxes is to fund the provision of fundamental government services that everyone requires and benefits from. It is not the purpose of taxes to "levy equal hardship." Nor would I trust you to define what constitutes "hardship" for me.

      That's like the Oracle pricing model: every customer receives the same product, but they try to price it based on how much money they perceive you to have. That's how used car dealers work, where the value of the product is only ephemerally connected to the price they set for each customer. I don't buy from those kinds of companies, and I don't want my government to use that model either.

      You and I are using very different definitions of "fair". My version is strictly quantitative, based on an unbiased application of an agreed-upon percentage to a known quantity (income). Yours seems to be biased on subjective assessments of "how much pain a recipient can/should bear." I don't trust that subjective aspect, for the normal "three lions and a lamb" reasons.

      Please don't take any of this as arguing heavily for a flat tax. Although I regard a flat tax as less-evil than the current progressive tax, I would much prefer a consumption (sales) tax. That's how pretty much everything else in capitalism works, and I like it.

      I like the incentive structure (discouraging overconsumption rather than discouraging productivity, success, and promotion); I like the intuitive "fairness" of "paying for what you use". That definition of fairness goes beyond human ideology, and resonates profoundly with our most fundamental understanding of physics: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is the toll-road model, and I believe it to be both fiscally and morally sound.

      I am aware many Americans -- generally those below the $200K "rich folks" threshold -- hold the opposing view, that it is both right and proper to extract an equal level of "pain" from every taxpayer. (Rather like the educational idealistists who continue to clamor for "equal outcomes" versus "equal opportunity".)

      I can only say that I will continue to use my vote to resist the economic policies of socialism and communism, which I believe are absolutely irreconcilable with America's capitalist foundations.

      Cheers, and thank you for your thoughtful and courteous reply. That is the real mark of distinction between /. and Freepers/DU/Kos/etc.

    100. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by n-baxley · · Score: 2, Informative

      Read this ... and shut the fuck up
      Very elegant indeed, but if you're going to make claims it's your responsibility to back them up. Now you have quite a nice map there, but lets look at the top 20 "needy" states: (http://www.nemw.org/fundsrank.htm)

      (removed because of lameness filter SEE URL)

      Of these, I think that Oklahoma and Missouri qualify as "Midwest" states. Looking at the other end of the spectrum, the 20 most "generous" states:(http://www.nemw.org/fundsrank.htm)

      (removed because of lameness filter SEE URL)

      Of these I'd say Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsoin, Colodado, Minnesota, and my own state of Illinois would be considered midwest.

      Sure NY and CA give more than they get overall. There are many more people there and no matter how efficient a state is, there is a certain amount of overhead wether you have 200,000 people of 20 million. Let's look at the federal money spent per capita in the midwest versus your beloved NY and CA. (http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm)
      NY $6,733
      CA $5,878
      Midwest Avg. $5,614

      But, since you seem intent on claiming that you're dragging our good for nothing ass along for the ride, let's see what you're getting for that. If we look at the top trade surplus products in the US you'll see (http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/industry/otea/usfth/agg regate/H03T25.html) that in the top 5, only 2 have significantly increased their surplus in the last 4 years. Those would be Cereals and Cereal Perparation and Oil Seeds and Oleaginnous. Translated to "city speak" that would be cotton, wheat, corn, and soybeans.

      I think that you've made a very common mistake of "coast dwellers". You've confused the midwest with the south. Oh, and just in case your superior mind didn't catch them those things I placed in parens next to my claims, those are URIs and you'll find them very handy for backing up your point without making people search for them.

    101. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Dr.+Transparent · · Score: 2, Informative
      Just a small clarification. There is not, nor has there ever been, a ban on stem cell research in the USA.

      The only "ban" (if you can call it that; it's just a refusal to pay) is a "ban" on federally funded stem cell research done by using new embryos.

      This has been a minor clarification. Thank you for your patience.

    102. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Alsee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's promoting the false sense that it's better to have anyone else in office rather than the current representative. WRONG

      By your logic you shouldn't bother voting against Hitler just because his opponent isn't Mother Theresa.

      When you've got a lying ass like Bush in office it is indeed better to vote for anyone even half-way reasonable.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    103. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by eco2geek · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Many ignorant people in the OECD have criticized the United States for having such a huge military budget while having no social programs. Well guess what? That is another sacrifice that America has made for the past sixty years for Europe. We had to invest all of that money in to our military after WWII in order to deter Stalin because Europe was too poor to defend itself.

      As "mzeig" put it so well above, in post #10716763:

      I voted Bush, and did so for primarily moral reasons, but didn't give a thought to any of the examples you listed. Rather, I (and others) consider the current "progressive" tax code to be innately immoral ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his need").

      IMHO, there is very little welfare in the US as it is, especially compared with the enormous amount the US spends on the military. And IMHO, even if the US didn't spend that much on the military, people would still think it "immoral" to have the same kind of "socialist" welfare programs common in Europe.

      You see, here in America we don't give handouts, we pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, and we believe wholeheartedly in stories by Horatio Alger. It's social Darwinism in action. Anything else is seen as immoral.

      The idea that we're "sacrificing" for the sake of Europe is curious, but disingenuous.

    104. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Snaller · · Score: 3, Funny

      Karl Rove is that you?

      (Because its strawman argumentation which is not relevant)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    105. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by Joshua+Green · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Some thoughts on these:
      It isolates voting irregularities to a single state.
      The trouble with this argument, as pointed out at http://www.electionmethods.org/college.htm, is that a small irregularity in a single state which changes the result of the election there is magnified by causing all of the state's electors to be changed! Small amounts of voting fraud in a few close elections could completely change the result.
      It balances differences in voter turnout.
      You're assuming that the people in New York who were prevented from voting would have voted the same way as those that did. If the storm prevents people in one area (who may be likely to all vote for one candidate) from voting, then the fact that their opinion isn't being heard is magnified by giving all the state's electors (instead of, say 30% of the electors) to a candidate selected by the other areas. This artificially raises the national importance of those who were able to vote by giving them more electoral votes/person.
      If a state has a large immigrant population, it is important the state's interests are represented in proportion to its size even though many of its residents may be unable to vote.
      This cuts both ways. The electoral college does indeed help states with a large perecentage of people who are ineligible to vote. But that only means that the (relatively) small percentage of people in those states who are able to vote are getting more national importance than those in other states (similar to the case above).
      The electoral college ensures elections will always have a definite outcome.
      The last argument isn't very convincing--an accurate vote that is eventually agreed upon is much better (in my opinion) than a quickly counted vote that is just a guess of what voters want. If the popular vote isn't entirely one-sided, that is all the more reason to be sure that every vote is counted! Of course, the election must be decided before the new president must take office, but I don't see why the electoral college is necessary for that to happen.
    106. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by n54 · · Score: 2, Informative

      AC raises an important point in:
      "The US is number 8 on the list ahead of most of Eupope aside from Scandinavia. What point are you trying to make?"

      Some more info from a norwegian (me) in support of AC's scepticism against such lists:
      - Norway is high on the list largely because our enormous oil income have made us able to spend a lot on a "welfare state", as it is it is not sustainable
      - Denmark is high because they pay about 50% income tax (and that's not all forms of taxation)
      - all scandinavian (and nordic) countries have small populations, size does matter within system complexity
      - all scandinavian (and nordic) countries have generally high direct and indirect taxation, mostly on common individuals
      - all scandinavian (and nordic) countries have fairly serious problems sustaining their notion of a "welfare state" (and many in each country would say that the notion has in practice already died)

      I'm sure there are lot's of other things that could be listed as well. So the question becomes to what degree the UN has managed to compensate for such differences in each country throughout the world. It is obvious to me at least (as a norwegian) that they haven't taken all of the aforementioned into account and even if they did they suffer from all the problems of measuring intangibles as well which makes any such list more or less worthless for anything but political manipulation.

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
    107. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by kelnos · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It isolates voting irregularities to a single state. This can be important. For example, if Diebold voting machines showed 3 billion people voted in Montana, it wouldn't have a drastic effect on the outcome since Montana only has 3 electoral votes.
      No. That's not how you fix problems like this. That's a band-aid. You fix the root of the problem, you don't patch the symptom.
      It balances differences in voter turnout. New York is roughly twice the size of North Carolina. However, lets assume that New York gets hit by thunderstorms and has massive flooding on election day making it less convenient for people to vote. As a result, New York might have 30% voter turnout while North Carolina might have 60% voter turnout. This would mean North Carolina would have roughly the same representation as New York -- a state twice its size. The electoral college reduces the impact of weather, disasters, and even regional voter apathy on the final election results.
      If there's a state of emergency in New York, likely they'll just postpone the election in that state until after the emergency subsides. And besides, why design a complex system that has many present-day flaws just to account for the _possibility_ for a disastrous event?

      A specific point on regional voter apathy: if people are too lazy to vote, they don't get a say. Period. There's no reason whatsoever to balance for voter apathy.
      # Not everyone that lives in a state may be eligible to vote because they may not be citizens. If a state has a large immigrant population, it is important the state's interests are represented in proportion to its size even though many of its residents may be unable to vote. The electoral college ensures this since electoral representation is determined based on raw population data from the census. A nationwide popular election would short-change states with lots of immigrants, or lots of children, or any other sizeable block of ineligible voters.
      No again. There's a reason why they're ineligible to vote: either they are deemed unable to make an informed decision, or they are legally not allowed representation. If a large portion of a state consiss of people that are not allowed a say, then there's no reason why the state itself should get more of a say. At any rate, I believe the allocation of electors in the electoral college is based on official census data, which does not include illegal immigrants.


      I have no argument with your final point, about the electoral college providing a "definite outcome", except to say that disagreement with the way a particular state's elector's vote is still an important problem that makes a "definite outcome" somewhat pointless.
      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
    108. Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug by 1lus10n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The way I understand it is that the people who control what is allowed on the air in canada are just as strict as the FTC and require "canadian" oriented content. FOX didnt want to comply, and hence got bounced. IIRC the same thing happend to the vatican channel quite a while back, they were eventually allowed to broadcast.

      You do understand why russia hated/had a problem with afgahnistan right ? Because we supported them during the cold war. We put the taliban in power and gave them weapons.

      "You want to know why Iraq was an imediat threat? That isn't the issue. "

      Somebody better tell bush that since he has repetedly claimed they were (First the WMD's, then the materials ... etc etc). Somebody also better buy some commercial time and a time machince to let the 54 million people who voted for him that they have been hoodwinked.

      Say it slow: Iraq is not terrorism. Iraq is an oil war. The 9/11 commision stated that there were no significant links to terror in recent times. (and dont even try the whole "... 10 years ago" spiel, because 15 years ago we were supporting terrorism to)

      Let me make sure I have this straight, we are going to enforce global law, without consulting the globe. Thats bright. Perhaps you should look back at the first bush's war in the middle east, he apparently was smart enough to listen to his advisors when they told him not to invade the whole country because pulling out would be logistical hell. This dumb son of a bitch in office. Nah, he dont need no stinken advisors. He's right jesus said so.

      "If the Israel acted as you would hope the U.S. would then they would have been killed in the early 70's. Because they acted with force they are still around today. You may not like the fact that Saddam is no longer in power, but your kids and grandkids will appriciate it."

      My kids and grandkids wont be born in the US so I am sure they really wont give a fuck since at the rate this administration is going this country will be economically kaput by the end of the decade. Also of note is that saddam had no effect on my day to day life prior to our invading him for things he did 10 years ago, or at least thats the excuse of the week from the republicans. Isreal is an illegal abomonation. Perhaps you should read exactly how that country was created and how it has handled itself since, including its relentless killing of innocent people and expanding like an empire.

      "As mentioned above, he had 10 years, how long does it take to comply?"

      What sanctions was he violating ? He didnt have WMD's, he said he didnt. He didnt even have the materials, just like he said he didnt (as did the UN). Hell there was a several thousand page report that he gave about his weapons programs and the materials that the US didnt even bother to finish verifying before they ran off to war.

      You keep saying germany and france were on his payroll, like he could afford to payoff the government's in those countries. I have not seen anybody anywhere who doesnt have there head up their ass even remotely think this. Just because France and Germany disagree with us doesnt make them terrorist, or wrong. Just so we are clear france said they would not support action against Iraq without proof and approval from the UN first.

      "You say "we", so I will assume you are an American. I can assure you that "we" were NEVER loved. Other countries HATE a strong America and always have. Well until they need our military support or our money. Then when we give it to them they either complain that it wasn't enough or that we should forget about our loans."

      I am going to go out on a limb and assume your one of those flag waiving stupid fucks who only listens to what you want to hear. Have you ever been to any countries outside the US ? Other countries helped make america stong by forming alliances with us and investing in our economy (and giving us loans), other countries hate tyranical asshol

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
  2. Oh Canada! by raehl · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess I better learn the rest of that.

    1. Re:Oh Canada! by Blindman · · Score: 5, Funny

      I understand the sentiment, but wouldn't moving to Ohio be slightly more effective?

      --
      I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
    2. Re:Oh Canada! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah,
      Well, you're better off than me. I still gotta learn to speak Canadian!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:Oh Canada! by btlzu2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please, PLEASE GO! Don't hold back. Liberals LOVE threatening to leave when their horse finishes last, so DO IT and leave us to fail miserably in our "fascism" and "right-wing extremism".

      It's not true, but if you believe it you must leave. Good bye and good riddance. I'm SO SICK of hearing people threatening to leave whether jokingly or not. It's damn immature and pig-headed.

      --
      Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
    4. Re:Oh Canada! by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Funny

      For god's sake, would you take Alec Baldwin with you?

      Four years later and he's still here.

      -Peter

    5. Re:Oh Canada! by seestheday · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you sure you want to be a victim of America's foreign policy?

    6. Re:Oh Canada! by Zonk · · Score: 4, Informative


      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.

    7. Re:Oh Canada! by Alzheimers · · Score: 4, Funny

      Want to know what's worse? That the words are "I stand on God for thee!"

      If I was God, I'd be, like "Get the hell off me ya freaking Canuck! I've got better things to do than be your rug!"

    8. Re:Oh Canada! by DogDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's damn immature and pig-headed.

      No, not at all. Personally, I don't want to live in a religious police state. I'm getting my financials ready and will be ready to go probably in the summer of 2005.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    9. Re:Oh Canada! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's damn immature and pig-headed.


      You mean like denying someone the right to marry simply because of their sex?


      Or is it more like invading a country with the sole justification being they sort of look like those terrorist guys we keep hearing about?

    10. Re:Oh Canada! by D-Cypell · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or buying Diebold shares!

    11. Re:Oh Canada! by twbecker · · Score: 5, Funny

      No problem. Just figure out where to insert the Eh's and you're all set.

      --
      "The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
    12. Re:Oh Canada! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only if you want to stick around for four more years of this shit only to vote again with no effect.

      -an Ohioan who voted Kerry and who is now looking to move north

    13. Re:Oh Canada! by gamgee5273 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Because Canada is part of the British Commonwealth. While they are an independant nation, they still recognize Queen Elizabeth as their monarch and she is the formal (though not in any way practical) head of the Church of England.

      Therefore there is not a completely true seperation of church and state when you are dealing with the UK or the Commonwealth.

    14. Re:Oh Canada! by balster+neb · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm non american, so can I leave the planet now? The moon is looking mighty good right now.

      Maybe these guys will hire me.

    15. Re:Oh Canada! by btlzu2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, it's a bit different to whine and say you're leaving a country because you didn't get your way compared with pointing out how stupid that is.

      --
      Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
    16. Re:Oh Canada! by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you sure you want to be a victim of America's foreign policy?

      Tell that to the marines.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re:Oh Canada! by RealAlaskan · · Score: 5, Informative
      So: if you're a Slashdot reader who moved abroad because of the political situation, please post here, and tell us why, and how it's working out.

      We hear a lot of threats to move from silly starlets and disgruntled geeks, but I've never heard of anyone who actually did it.

      By the way, if anyone actually did move overseas, we miss you, and you can come back whenever you're ready. We won't wait up, but we'll leave the light on for you.

    18. Re:Oh Canada! by Izago909 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please, PLEASE GO! Don't hold back. Liberals LOVE threatening to leave when their horse finishes last

      I still don't get why liberal means pussy, yet conservative doesn't mean poorly educated white trash. Who writes these damn definitions? Besides, any good liberal should stick around to give GW a deadlocked congress. That means no more former oil and logging executives in charge of environmental protection, no more reducing pollution regulations and calling it a reduction in pollution, and generally all the other ass backwards slides America has taken. Vote for congress, povided y'all live that long.

    19. Re:Oh Canada! by PMuse · · Score: 2, Funny

      I understand the sentiment, but wouldn't moving to Ohio be slightly more effective?

      Move to Canada for 3.75 years, then swim south in fall 2008.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    20. Re:Oh Canada! by blueskies · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm lacking the conviction to send my friends over there to die for a lie. Do you also know the number of civilians that died in Iraq because we thought it in their best interest to free them (think orders of magnitude above our own casualties)? It's good we freed them...from this world.

    21. Re:Oh Canada! by Moozer · · Score: 2, Funny
      Just in case you are actually thinking about moving to Canada, you can take the Skilled Worker Self-Assessment Test to see if you meet the minimum standard to immigrate as a Skilled Worker.

      Of course if you don't qualify as a Skilled Worker, you can always try the political assylum route :)

    22. Re:Oh Canada! by btlzu2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      THIS is good. I agree with you Liberals should stay and fight. We need balance and, although I lean Libertarian, I believe in everyone fighting for what they believe in. Leaving is NO solution--it's emotionally-charged nonsense.

      On the other hand, I don't recall hearing conservatives threatening to leave during Clintons' terms. Yes, they whined and complained profusely, but they dug in and fought.

      --
      Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
    23. Re:Oh Canada! by sys$manager · · Score: 2, Informative

      Canada is a bilingual country:

      Ô Canada! Terre de nos aïeux,
      Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!
      Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
      Il sait porter la croix;
      Ton histoire est une épopée
      Des plus brillants exploits.
      Et ta valeur de foi trempée
      Protégera nos foyers et nos droits;
      Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.

    24. Re:Oh Canada! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you trying to be funny? Or is this just another case of "stupid uninformed american, opens mouth, half truths and bullshit spews forth".

      The line is

      "I stand on GUARD for thee"

      Close.

      If I was God, I'd be like "Hey, stupid Americans, quit quoting me, and holding me up as your guiding light, if you stood before me in judgement, I would send you all to burn. You are being ruled by a man, who claims to have spoken with me. Trust me, if I was going to speak to someone, it would at least be someone who would be able to hold an intelligent, and meaninful conversation. Do you really think I would break eons of silence, to speak with Bush! Please. Who would believe him anyways, don't you think I would pick someone with enough credibility to at least have a half a chance of having someone believe him? I mean, every time Bush opens his mouth, he is lying about something."

    25. Re:Oh Canada! by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Informative

      We got Bush in a democratic election once actually (this time).

      Ans once in a representitive election (sort of, if you ignore the "Florida bull", but Gore beat Bush if you were to measure the vote democratically.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    26. Re:Oh Canada! by Dr.+Hok · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Are you sure you want to be a victim of America's foreign policy? (Score:5, Funny)

      No way this is funny...

      --
      Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
    27. Re:Oh Canada! by Valar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to pick on you, particularly, because I know you are joking, but that is exactly the wrong attitude. Stick with America. If the people who have cared about our democracy in the past become so frustrated that they remove themselves from the process (geographically or mentally), there will be _no_ way for the entirety of american values and ideals to be represented. My number one fear right now is that the democrats, greens, libertarians, etc just surrender now, because I don't think America and the democratic process can survive without the attention of all well meaning Americans right now. Democracy isn't just about majority rule-- it is about reaching a compromise that maxmizes societal welfare.

    28. Re:Oh Canada! by Blindman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      I'm not volunteering to move to a conservative area, but if liberals don't occupy these areas then the country can expect more of this type of outcome.

      --
      I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
    29. Re:Oh Canada! by krog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can accept that Bush won the election. 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.

      Perhaps New England and Quebec could each secede, and merge. All I know is that I want nothing -- nothing -- to do with any of the red states.

    30. Re:Oh Canada! by been42 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Go ahead and move to the moon. We'll be up there to "liberate" the moon soon enough. Dubya wants to reduce our dependency on foreign cheese.

    31. Re:Oh Canada! by harley_frog · · Score: 2, Funny

      Personally, I'm considering moving to Mexico and taking a job as a professional margarita drinker.

      --
      It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
    32. Re:Oh Canada! by squidfood · · Score: 4, Insightful
      81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion according to national studies.

      That's what fucking scares and alienates me in my own country. Tolerance in U.S.? Fuck no. From Canadian news One-fourth of Ohio voters identified themselves as born-again Christians and they backed Bush by a 3-to-1 margin....Bush was favoured among ...evangelical Christians who view him as a messenger from God in a titanic fight to quell terrorism and spread liberty around the world...

      Why is it that America and the fucked Middle East are the fundamentalists and problem-causers, while the rest of the world has gotten over it? The middle ages are over, fellow Americans. Figure it out. (ps. my viewpoint: I'm 2nd-generation Turkish American, committed atheist: after seeing what fundamentalists (muslim and christian) are doing to both of my otherwise lovely countries.

    33. Re:Oh Canada! by binner1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't it make you sad that in one state (can't remember which) only 17% of the votes actually counted? That's downright pathetic!

      As a Canadian, I have to admit that I'm not entirely pleased with the outcome of this election either. I don't think Kerry would have made a spectacular leader by any means. I do think he could have reversed some (not all, by any means) of the damage done in the last 4 years...That and any monkey couldn't be worse than Bush...

      Having one of the dumbest men to ever lead a country be _re-elected_ should scare the rest of the world. Sleep tight, don't let the WMD bite!

      -Ben

    34. Re:Oh Canada! by DogDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is the USA becoming a "religious police state"?

      Well, the country IS run by a "Born Again Christian", and he has vowed to attack abortion rights, gay marriage, and continue to slaughter other random countries without the consent of the rest of the world, and the feds can monitor the books that we buy and checkout from libraries.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    35. Re:Oh Canada! by rleibman · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm non american, so can I leave the planet now? The moon is looking mighty good right now.

      The moon is a harsh mistress

    36. Re:Oh Canada! by Zorilla · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's the economy currently like in Petoria these days?

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    37. Re:Oh Canada! by Merk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's interesting is that the French version of the anthem is by no means a direct translation of the English version. Let me see if I can translate it:

      Oh Canada! Home of our ancestors
      Your face/forehead is encircled with glorious florets
      Your arm knows how to hold the sword
      It knows how to hold the cross
      Your history is a epic
      Of the most brilliant feats
      And your gallantry
      Of tempered faith
      Will protect our homes/hearths and our rights
      Will protect our homes/hearths and our rights

    38. Re:Oh Canada! by grammar+fascist · · Score: 2, Informative
      Tell that to the marines.

      ...who overwhelmingly support Bush.

      (I can't remember where I saw it (and if anyone can find it, that would be great) - but one of these military voting surveys had 75% of the military who had been to Iraq approving of Bush's handling of it.)

      But don't let the facts stand in the way of a good argument. By all means, trot out the dead marines if it makes you feel good about your position.

      They believe in what they're doing over there. Why don't you?

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    39. Re:Oh Canada! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can accept that Bush won the election. 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.

      Yeah! Thank God, they didn't win this time.

    40. Re:Oh Canada! by demachina · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm American and lived in Canada about half my adult life and am one of the disgruntled geeks getting ready to leave again. I loved Canada. I'm sorry I didn't stay there and get on a citizenship track. I'll probably go someplace even cheaper and warmer this time and try to retire early.

      The people in Canada are consistently a lot easier to live with than Americans. They aren't nearly as arrogant, stuck on themselves, and aren't socialized to think its their prerogative to shit on the rest of the world. Canadians can spot Americans a mile away since they are routinely assholes when they visit Canada. Canadians, at least all the ones I know, are consistently nice level headed people, hard workers, great partiers, its no accident they churn out great comedians, and THEY HAVE GREAT BEER. American beer sucks by comaprison. They have pretty strong socialist leanings but there are right wingers there just like here, they just aren't rabid like the American right wing.

      If you are going to be an expat you need to be ready to deal with the immigration system which is the biggest hassle. It depends on where you are going but you usually need a job waiting, with a visa, though many countries like Costa Rica have pensionero visas where you just have to have a clean record and a proven investment income. Its designed to draw wealthy gringos who are looking for a cheap place to retire and spend their money. I think its a couple thousand dollars a year in interest, social security or investment income so its pretty easy to do. It is only a visa though.

      The big challenge to being an expat is if you are really going to do it you have to ditch your U.S. passport and citizenship and get citizenship where you are going. It takes a lot of time and work to get citizenship most places and you need to make sure you pick a country where you are going to be happy, fit in for the duration, and a place that isn't like to explode in a revolution for example. Americans are too fat dumb and happy to revolt but there are places where radical changes do happen, often with the help of the CIA.

      If you dont renounce your citizenship you get to file income tax returns with Uncle Sam in perpetuity and that means you are still supporting the mad dogs that now rule Washington. If you make more than than the exemption limit on foreign income you get double taxed, where you live and by Uncle Sam. I think the annual exemption was around $70K but I dont know what it is now. I'd heard the Republicans were moving it and maybe even lowering it to tax expats more though I don't recall what actually happened.

      All in all carrying a U.S. passport and flaunting your American'ness has always been a bit of a negative around the world, people tend to envy you some and resent you some more. After the last 4 years I imagine flaunting American, and especially bragging about, in most of the world is going to invite nothing but negativity and grief. Canadains treat most Americans reasonably well because they are generally nice people but they aren't likely to really accept you and frequently will do their best screw you given the chance, just because you live in a country that tries to screw the rest of the world at every opportunity in every way.

      --
      @de_machina
    41. Re:Oh Canada! by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They believe in what they're doing over there. Why don't you?

      Because, as a citizen, it is my job to reason why.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    42. Re:Oh Canada! by mike_the_kid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      They believe in what they're doing over there. Why don't you?


      If I believed in what they are doing over there, I'd be over there, why aren't you?
      --
      Troll Like a Champion Today
    43. Re:Oh Canada! by neves · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In my country Liberal means a business friend politic, nearer the right. I've always get som cognitive dissonance when I read definitions like Orkut's "very left/liberal". It's an oxymoron. USA political environment is so conservative that any democrat candidate would belong to the right in other countries.

    44. Re:Oh Canada! by __aanebg9627 · · Score: 5, Insightful


      The real problem is not that Americans on the losing side are frustrated, it's that the U.S. is so bitterly divided now. The radicals on each side have been vilifying the other, so much that it's gotten difficult to have a civilized discussion. Most of the people on either side love their country, but we have trouble remembering that in the midst of all the vitriol. Loving your country includes loving the half of the citizens who disagree with you, after all. Or at least recognizing that they're just as much part of the country as you are.



      As a nation, we need to start accepting the other side, and try to figure out a way to live together with people whose views and lifestyles we don't especially like (and even abhor). Not a meeting-in-the-middle kind of compromise (which neither side will accept), but some kind of cohabitation agreement where we come to some arrangement that keeps us out of each others' faces. I honestly don't see either side changing their minds about what they don't like in the other, so we need to move beyond the battle for hearts and minds (and laws), and try to accommodate each side.



      As for leaving the country, it's not at that point yet. The checks and balances in the system were designed expressly to avoid the evils of majority rule, and it's up to those on the 'blue' side to make sure their senators and reps use those checks to the fullest. The checks and balances have already reined in the worst excesses of the Bush administration, like the attempted end-run around the court system.

    45. Re:Oh Canada! by HardYakka · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So: if you're a Slashdot reader who moved abroad because of the political situation, please post here, and tell us why, and how it's working out.
      I left the US for Australia and lived there for 10 years. I also lived in Canada. Both were great but I'm back in the USA now.
      One thing I've found is that there are good things and things that drive you crazy wherever you live - because people are people.
      The problem with most complainers is they want somewhere to live that's just like the USA with a few things changed to suit their viewpoint.
      Well I've got news for you - that place doesn't exist so you might as well get off your ass and try improving your own neighbourhood.
    46. Re:Oh Canada! by Samhain13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I moved from California to Germany this summer to do a post-doc position. This was for various (mostly political) reasons, including finding out as a gay man, what it was like to be treated as a first-class citizen. I had originally planned to come back to the US in 2006, but now I think I will extend my stay here a few more years. Perhaps indefinitely.

      The worst part about being abroad (as an American) at a time like this is the resulting discussions around the water cooler that ensue regarding the current political situation. I have to say that I feel pretty small when the topic of Bush's popularity comes up. People here are just appalled (rightly so) that over half the friggin' country voted for that idiot. Also, the anti-American jokes and comments are really beginning to get to me.

      I don't know that I want to be an American abroad, but I certainly don't want to be an American in the US!

      -j

    47. Re:Oh Canada! by krog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So...they are 'ignorant', 'prejudiced' and 'gullible' because they don't think like you do?

      No. They are 'ignorant', for example, because they support the teaching of creationism in schools. They are 'prejudiced', for example, because they oppose the right of gay couples to be married in the eyes of the state. They are 'gullible' because they reelected the President after he ran on a platform of national security -- the same President who allowed 9/11 to occur despite rancorous warnings beforehand, who allowed Osama bin Laden to escape because he cheaped out on troops, and who turned Iraq from a backwards but orderly dictatorship (just like dozens of others in the world) into a chaotic breeding ground for Muslim extremists.

      Addressing a comment below about me being a liberal elitist: you bet your ass I consider my views superior to those of the conservative right. If I didn't think so, I would change those views. If that makes me a liberal elitist, well, fuck it -- at least I live in Boston.

    48. Re:Oh Canada! by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I, too, am getting really pissed with the red states, meaning (for me) the deep south. Why is it, that every time we try to make any progress at all, whether it be the end of slavery, civil rights for blacks, women's suffrage, religious rights, gay rights, ANYTHING, we always have to drag them, kicking and screaming about the dire, dire consequences? Now 11 of them have voted to Ban gay marriage.

      You do realize that history won't look back at this as the heroic defense of christianity any more than your fight against civil rights was a heroic defense of society? Why do you insist on forcing your beliefs on others?

      You've turned the republican party into a tool of the christian right, something that is no longer fiscally conservative in any way, shape or form. Congrats on moving America backwards. Maybe you'd be happier in a theocracy. Just look at the existing theocracies of world, Iran for instance. THAT is the direction you're moving us.

      --
      Everything seemed to be going so nice
      'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
    49. Re:Oh Canada! by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Liberals LOVE threatening to leave when their horse finishes last, so DO IT and leave us to fail miserably in our "fascism" and "right-wing extremism".

      This election really wasn't about liberal values vs. conservative values, at least not in a way that would be recognizable to the nation even ten years ago. This election was, in many ways, a referendum on a fundemental change in the political landscape of America, with the new dividing line between liberal values and moral values.

      Frankly, for a lot of us here in the blue states (liberal and conservative alike), the issues that matter to the moral values crowd just seem alien. Most of us honestly believed that this election was going to firmly and decisively prove that only a very small, very vocal group of people really give a damn about about moral value issues. We believed that the moral values crowd would be swept off the national stage, and the country go back to the debate between old fashioned liberal versus conservative values.

      We were wrong.

      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 issues that suddenly matter suprise us. In the blue states, we might disagree on abortion, or same-sex unions, or the words "under God" in the pledge of allegience, but for the most part we really just don't give a shit about them. They may all get talked about on the "news" networks, but we view them as filler in between the ceasless prattle about the Peterson trial. They're certainly not an issue that anyone would base a vote on.

      It turns out that same-sex marriage is a very important issue in America. In the blue states, we had no idea that anyone gave a damn.

      It turns out that the words "under God" in the Plege of Allegience is a very important issue in America. In the blue states, we just can't see how it really matters.

      It turns out that public displays of The Ten Commandments is a very important issue in America. In the blue states, we might individually be for or against it, but collectively we really just don't care.

      It turns out that abortion is a very important issue in America. In the blue states, we may have strong feelings one way or the other, but for the most part we thought the issue was decided twenty years ago.

      In other words, this election heralds the arrival of a whole new set of important issues on the national political stage. And, frankly, in the blue states the fact that any of these issues are even being discussed scares the living shit out of us.

      When I woke up this morning, it was to the news that the United States of America is not the country that I thought it was when I went to bed last night.

    50. Re:Oh Canada! by tenaciousj · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hmm, let's take a look:

      Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon

      Yep, all deep south. Man you were right.

    51. Re:Oh Canada! by mdfst13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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."

      Yet, the electoral college system was the one that came *closest* to allowing Kerry (the liberal, at least by US standards) to win. If 200,000 liberals had moved from Texas to Ohio, then Kerry wins the election. Liberals would have been better off *more* concentrated not less. It was the conservatives who were concentrated, frequently giving Bush double digit leads in many of the states he won: that's why he won the popular vote.

      "Those unoccopied states still get a minimum of 3 electors, which gives a small state voter more power than a large state dweller."

      That would explain why Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida got such attention. Oh...wait. Those are the 6th, 5th, and 4th biggest states? What happened, I thought that they weren't important? Actually, the thing is that without the bias towards smaller states, there would be an even larger bias towards larger states. Where would you rather campaign: Wyoming, with miles between households; or New York City, with multiple families per building? I strongly suspect that all the 3 electoral vote states *together* have a smaller population than that single urban area (particularly if you count suburban commuters). Heck, you might be able to throw in the 4 electoral vote states against the greater NYC area.

      Despite the cries of small state bias, it was still the large states that everyone watched. Bush won two (Florida, Ohio) out of the three battleground states (Kerry won Pennsylvania) and won the election.

    52. Re:Oh Canada! by CreationLtd · · Score: 3, Interesting
      We hear a lot of threats to move from silly starlets and disgruntled geeks, but I've never heard of anyone who actually did it.

      :: raises hand ::

      When Bush began his saber rattling against Iraq and Americans where flocking to him faster than flies to rotten meat, I knew I could no longer stay in the States.

      My wife and I sold 99% of our possessions and moved to Spain in 2003. We chose Spain because both of us had reasonable Spanish skills, I had an EU citizenship, and because England was too wet and cold and Canada too close to the US.

      Now 15 months later we can unequivocally state that we love it here. There's a sanity, a bravery (especially evident after March 11th), and a joy of living that is all but is lost to most of America.

      Here at least when the leaders blatantly lie to their constituents they get kicked out of office unlike the US where they are amply rewarded.

      All that's left is to sell off our house back in the States and divest ourselves from American companies and move our liquid assets to the Euro. Can't wait!

    53. Re:Oh Canada! by Tarwn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Replying to both your comments and the comments of several others who like to generalize based on little to no real information:

      I don't consider myself ignorant, and while most ignorant people don't consider themselves ignorant, I have had a fairly solid education with extra history and politics classes thrown in. I wasn't born rich and had to work up to and through college so I'm either the dumbest clod on the planet or I actually learned something about working hard to put food on the table. So that covers political, historical, and financial ignorance.

      The only possible definition I can think of for "political obstinance" would be someone that goes out of teir way to choose every option save the one they don't like the most (ie, the best option), as opposed to someone who chooses the best option. Personally I think it depends on your viewpoint and also implies another generalization (closed-mindedness).

      Religously prejudiced: yep, that me, make jew jokes all the time. Course, they are just jokes and, oh yeah, I'm Jewish. Funny how that works.

      Embarassingly gullible: Rather then attack the poor ground that you fling that supposed insult from, I'll re-itirate that you are making a generalization. I don't think I'm gullible (same problem as ignorant, however). I've never been scammed, when watching little children they don't get very far, ...insert numerous othe counter-exampls here...

      The one fact that everyone seems to be missing is that no state is "blue" or "red". While majorities caused the state to be a color in general, there are still mixes of multiple religions, political views, etc in each state.

      ---
      I find it interesting that the group that is supposed to be the most open-minded and supportive of democracy is also the same group that screams the loudest and longest when the system doesn't go their own way. You may want to look back over your previous comments and count how many of those apply to yourself.

      Or, on the other hand, you may want to take your generalizations and ask how "your" party could possibly have lost if your party's representative was against such poor competition.

      On a sidenote: I'd like to thank everyone from moveon.org that went out of their way to skew the exit polls. Ity's a shame there aren't some hard numbers on how many Kerry supporters became complacent enough to not bother voting and how many Bush-supporters decided that the 3-hour line was worth the wait. My personal thanks goes out to the site and members involved in that particular bit of bright strategy.

      --
      Whee signature.
    54. Re:Oh Canada! by pla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please, please, please encourage all of your liberal buddies to push this agenda hard.

      You might want to keep in mind the overall trend of tax money sources and destinations...

      To an astonishing degree (shocked the hell out of me when I found this out), tax money flows out of the blue states, and into the red ones.


      So yeah, you can bet that I'll push that agenda amongst all my "liberal buddies", and try my best to cut all you damned red leeches off blue-funded welfare.

      But look at the bright side... Companies in blue states might grace your sad red economic state ("in the red"... tee-hee) with a few bucks from outsourcing. Now go make me some Nikes, boy!


      Oh, and remember -- all of the nuclear weapons are in "red" states.

      But, for balance, all the engineers capable of maintaining them live (or at least got their education) in the blue states. So enjoy them, until they rot and pollute your groundwater, finally eliminating the vast tracts of redness via radiation-induced infertility.

      Have a nice day. ;-)

    55. Re:Oh Canada! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am a US citizen who left the United States in 2001 as a direct result of the election of Bush. My father was a presidentially-appointed government employee under Clinton, but Bush replaced him with a Republican (as is standard operating procedure when a president from a different party is elected). Dad therefore got a job at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda prosecuting war criminals from the Rwanda genocide and my entire family moved to Tanzania.

      Overall I am glad to be in Tanzania, and out of a country where people are so phenomenally stupid, misled, or uninformed that they would consider voting for a president responsible for the destruction of America's economy, budget surplus, international image, and at least 14000 innocent lives. Most of my friends here are from Europe or Asia (I attend an international school) and it is refreshing to encounter other people with real leftist, liberal views (as opposed to the current US democrats who are more conservative than most countries' conservative parties).

      I was very much hoping for a victory for Kerry because I think a renewal of US ties with the rest of the world and a gradual pullout from Iraq would make the world (and the US in particular) a safer place, because it seemed like Kerry's economic policies had the greatest chance of decreasing the US deficit, and because I think the US needs to catch up to the rest of the developed world in government support for education and health care. I was initially planning to attend university in the US, but now that Bush has been elected I don't think I want to, both due general anger over the removal of civil liberties and other problems that have resulted and will continue to result from Bush's control of the government, and because of the specific fear, however unlikely, of a military draft. Given this election result, I will likely attend university in the UK, as Blair is at least fairly sensible from a domestic policy point of view (despite his tendency to be subservient to Bush in international policy). The rest of my family will likely remain in Tanzania until 2008, by which time the American public will hopefully have emerged from their brainwashed stupor.

    56. Re:Oh Canada! by Kymermosst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I still don't get why liberal means pussy, yet conservative doesn't mean poorly educated white trash.

      Probably because some of us who consider ourselves 'conservative' (i.e. me) have multiple college degrees with near 4.0 grade point averages. Not poorly educated, not white trash. Come to think of it, none of the other conservatives I know are 'poorly educated' or 'white trash.'

      I know some homeless dope-smoking liberal college dropouts who won't get jobs, however. I won't use those to describe everyone who calls themselves liberal, though, because I also know plenty liberals who understand that it's better to earn what you have rather than have it handed to you, and therefore have nice homes, college educations that got them good jobs, and other amenities that they can enjoy.

      Anyway, I like target shooting, the ability to keep my hard-earned money, and being able to choose for myself whether or not I need health insurance and where I want to invest my retirement dollars. What I don't understand is why so many people have a problem with this.

      To me, 'liberal' is quite often near-synonymous with with this definition: Someone who wants to tell me where to spend my money, how to spend my money, where to work, how to work, how much to work, what I can and cannot own, and what I can and cannot do with my property.

      Oh, you mentioned 'logging' in your post. I don't know where you are from, but here in Oregon I've personally witnessed a few big burly loggers in tears begging one of our Senators (you guess which one) to oppose unbalanced and extreme anti-logging legislation that put them out of work and threatened to put their children out of work and destroy the economic basis of their entire communities.

      We've got hundreds of ex-loggers here attending retraining programs at local colleges, and if you ask them, most would rather be out cutting old trees and planting new ones than learning how to code HTML and/or fix cars or airplanes.

      On a personal note, my wife's grandfather was a millworker. It's shut down two of three lines and laid hundreds of people off. Her father was also a millworker, that mill is now closed.

      Can you guess how I vote?

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    57. Re:Oh Canada! by drewzhrodague · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I haven't worked since a few months after Dubya took office -- I'm a unix sysadmin. If I could afford to pay for a plane ticket, and some time to go and move to any other country, I would. As it stands now, I can't cover my costs to live.

      Looking very much forward to more of the same -- four more years of no employment.

      --
      Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
    58. Re:Oh Canada! by glwtta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, but they can show tits on TV.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    59. Re:Oh Canada! by drew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      After the last 4 years I imagine flaunting American, and especially bragging about, in most of the world is going to invite nothing but negativity and grief.

      This is indeed the case. My wife went to school in France for a while, and was over there when 9/11 happened. Although there was a very brief time just after the attacks when people there were nice to Americans, for the most part they found out that they were treated much better if they hung around Canadian students or tour groups. (This was easy to do as many Canadians wore jackets or backpacks with large Canadian flags on them to avoid being mistaken for Americans.)

      However, it does seem to depend quite a bit on where you go. Big cities and places that attract a lot of American tourists are worse. My wife and I went to Corsica for our honeymoon last year, and everyone there was extremely nice to us. But Corsica's economy is mostly based on tourism (French tourism at that) and we only saw one other American while we were there. (on the ferry back to the mainland) To them we were more of a novelty than anything else. (a lot of people wanted to talk about the Bears when they found out we were from Chicago. Apparently learning about American sports teams is something of a hobby over there)

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    60. Re:Oh Canada! by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. They are 'ignorant', for example, because they support the teaching of creationism in schools.

      They're not saying to exclude evolution, so you, by EXCLUDING a theory about unrecorded history are promoting ignorance. As soon as you can explain all the holes in evolution (and if you don't think they are both present and significant, you're more ignorant than we thought) I'll explain the holes in creationism.

      They are 'gullible' because they reelected the President after he ran on a platform of national security

      THIS is the major one to me. And I think it's a mixture of gullibility and apathy. It's well documented the way this President has misled and deceived the public, but people don't care because either (a) they expect politicians to lie, and to them one lie is as good as another or (b) listen to the unfiltered propaganda coming from Crossfire rather than thinking critically about it and realizing how self-contradictory this President has been.

      --
      ± 29 dB
    61. Re:Oh Canada! by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since the next President is going to appoint at least two Supreme Court justices, and the Republicans have strengthened their grip on the legislature, it's not a very long step to "tyrant with supreme authority". It's certainly to the level of "able to destroy a large number of the freedoms we used to enjoy".

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    62. Re:Oh Canada! by jkauzlar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Your friends with multiple college degrees are in the small, small minority as Tuesday's election has shown. Bush's supporters are primarily from poor, rural states (white trash, if you will) or states dominated by evangelical religious communities. But where Bush really came through was from the rural or suburban areas where people are apparently shaking in their shoes from fear of getting killed by terrorists. These are the same people that drive monster trucks and watch the most sports, and ironically they are the most afraid. Personally I think bin Laden got lucky once. Empirical evidence (i.e. undisputable proof, see the 9/11 commission report) shows that Bush could have done more about terrorism when he first took office (and in fact was asked to do more). But somehow Bush turned it into a win. Its the frightened bunnies in the rural and suburban areas that let him go on this oversight.

      And its no accident that the most liberal areas are cities, where these people see first hand the poverty and crime, where people are most likely to come in contact with a homosexual or an Arab-American citizen or a non-protestant, vote in favor of the democrats.. This is where everything falls apart. In the racially and religiously exclusive towns and suburbs, people don't see the problems that exist and so they think everything's alright.

      In you and your multi-degree-bearing friends' cases, perhaps you're planning to be rich some day, and keeping some of that money (which doesn't amount to much if you're poor) is of larger concern. These are your interests and its ok with me, but when your interests support things like poverty, universality of a single religion, and policies which impose on the freedom of others to choose between their own definitions of good and evil and in turn are tied to the support of big businesses and 'keeping honest workers down' then it starts to get a little irritating.

      As far as the ex-loggers, I think we need to think about the future and predict how many trees we can afford to cut down yada yada yada. This would be based on science, which I know Republicans tend to reject. And I think the gov't would do well to find other professions or forests for these ex-loggers (would you count on Bush to do this?).

    63. Re:Oh Canada! by krog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're not saying to exclude evolution, so you, by EXCLUDING a theory about unrecorded history are promoting ignorance. As soon as you can explain all the holes in evolution (and if you don't think they are both present and significant, you're more ignorant than we thought) I'll explain the holes in creationism.

      Carbon dating (you believe in that, don't you?) blows the Biblical creation story out of the water. As such, I don't think it should be taught as science in America's schools. The theory of evolution is the leading scientific explanation of the origin of life -- following the scientific method, and not the it-was-written-by-a-prophet method.

    64. Re:Oh Canada! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm sure nobody will read this, but I moved from the US to Australia back in 1998. I had the opportunity and went for it. America just didn't "fit" - politically, philosophically, etc. I remember back in high school I'd never stand for the pledge (which seems like a crazy thing to make kids do, now that I think about it) and a lot of people would say "if you don't like it leave the country." And so I did. Australia is a nice place. People aren't as... arrogant here. The gun situation is much better - I feel safe walking around late at night. Food and rent are cheap. Work is easy. Other than a conservative government that licks America's boots, I can't complain. And now that I'm becoming a citizen, I can do something about it (for the record, I'm not having to give up my US citizenship - but that's something I've been considering for a while). Would I ever consider moving back? No way, not after I've looked at the US through the eyes of the rest of the world. There's so much people in the US don't know (and probably wouldn't believe anyway). I miss my old friends, but the Internet has kept us together and I'm sure I'll visit from time to time. Would I recommend moving away to others? Sure, if that's what you want to do. Just be ready for some culture-shock when you do it - even if you're moving to another "western" country. And know that while the grass may always seem greener, no country is perfect...

    65. Re:Oh Canada! by TonyGreene · · Score: 2, Informative

      Having one of the dumbest men to ever lead a country be _re-elected_ should scare the rest of the world. Sleep tight, don't let the WMD bite!

      Are you aware that Bush had a higher [grade point average | SAT score] than Kerry?

      --Tony

    66. Re:Oh Canada! by Gribflex · · Score: 2, Informative

      Victoria. It's warmer than Toronto, and rains less than Vancouver.

      I wear sandals 300 days a year, and haven't worn a coat since I moved here. It's smaller than both Vancouver and Toronto, but it's big enough for most.

  3. Sad sad day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a sad sad day for 50% of America.

    1. Re:Sad sad day by JavaLord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More like 48%. Lets count the numbers correctly.

      If you consider non-voters as not caring either way, then it's probably a sad day for 28% of the country.

    2. Re:Sad sad day by camliner · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it is a sad sad day for 48% of America.

    3. Re:Sad sad day by nanoakron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, It's a sad, sad day for 100% of Americans.

      48% already know this.
      The other 52% will learn so over the next 4 years.

      -Nano.

    4. Re:Sad sad day by koi88 · · Score: 4, Insightful


      So true. This is a sad day for billions of people in the whole world who will be affected by this election without any possibility to take part.
      Well, four more years of the rich getting richer, the middle class losing jobs, civilians all over the world and American soldiers getting killed for nothing, more hatred against Americans and less freedom in the US.
      But certainly it will be four very good years for Halliburton.

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    5. Re:Sad sad day by bhhenry · · Score: 2, Informative

      50% of what? More than half of Americans did not even vote! Are they just lazy, apolitical, or do they simply realize there is little in the way of "choice" in the best Democracy in the world.

      --
      signature not found
    6. Re:Sad sad day by koi88 · · Score: 2, Insightful


      this puts you in the "people who don't agree with me are idiots" camp

      Hitler was elected in a regular election. So it must have been the right choice, no?
      BTW, after his election, he made some kind of "state of emergency-laws" to protect the state against Communists (today, he would call them terrorists). These laws basically took away civil rights and gave the state more power. Does this approach sound familiar?

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    7. Re:Sad sad day by Coriander · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't go taking your own advice now!

    8. Re:Sad sad day by b-baggins · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And all the people who work for Haliburton, and the people who own Haliburton stock, and the contractors who supply Haliburton and the welfare recipients whose checks are paid by Haliburton taxes, etc., etc., etc.

      ---
      Proud member of the Banned With Excellent Karma Club

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    9. Re:Sad sad day by sjwaste · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a lot of economists that tend to believe Kerry would be awful for the economy. Six of them are nobel laureates. Have a look at this:

      Economists against Kerrynomics

      Besides, we were already in a recession when Clinton left office. The surplus was dissipating as the tech bubble burst and the market took a dive. The subsequent accounting scandals didn't help. 9/11 didn't help. I'm not saying Bush didn't overspend, he did. What I'm saying is, he's planning to spend less than Kerry. To be quite honest, that's the main issue I voted on.

    10. Re:Sad sad day by dfj225 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "four more years of the rich getting richer"

      Wouldn't the root of this be capitalism and not Bush?

      "the middle class losing jobs"

      I wonder, is there truely any way in a free economy to keep buisnesses from sending jobs overseas? It is not like this has only happened with Bush...it has been a trend for some time now.

      "civilians all over the world and American soldiers getting killed for nothing"

      I don't think it is right to make light of the deaths of US soldiers or innocent civilians. You may not agree with the US invading Iraq -- and that is fine -- but should at least respect the work they have done and that one more nation is free of an opressive dictator. Sure Iraq is not a land of joy right now...but I believe we have given them the potential to be a safe, democratic nation once the insurgents are dealt with. The most important thing that we can do now is train the armies of Iraq to fend for themselves. So far I think Bush has done a good job with this.

      "more hatred against Americans"

      I don't think America should ever let the opinions of outside nations affect our own morals and sense of what is "right" or "wrong". It has been shown that France and Germany, among others, had lucrative financial deals with Iraq, so why should we let countries, where we cannot know all of the alterier motives, stand as the authority of what is right and wrong for the world.

      "less freedom in the US"

      Kerry supports the Patriot Act, Kerry (along with every senator but two) voted for the Patriot Act. Kerry also has a very poor history when it comes to civil liberties. I do think that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, but I do not think that any of the Presidential canidates with a chance of winning will help to fix this.

      --
      SIGFAULT
    11. Re:Sad sad day by deltagreen · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Most Bush-voters think the Iraq war was justified, but many purely on the grounds that they still believe Iraq had WMD and/or Saddam was behind 9/11. Some of these voters might be disappointed by what they learn during the next four years.

      From http://www.pipa.org/:
      A new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll finds a consensus among the American public that if Iraq did not have WMD and was not providing substantial support to al Qaeda, the US should not have gone to war with Iraq. Seventy-four percent overall have this view, including 58% of Bush supporters, 92% of Kerry supporters and 77% of the uncommitted-those who have not made a definite commitment to vote for one or the other candidate.

      A majority also rejects the argument that the US should have gone to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein had the intention to acquire WMD. Presented two arguments, only 35% endorsed the one that said, Even if Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, the US still should have gone to war with Iraq, because Saddam Hussein had the intention to acquire such weapons at some point in the future. Rather, 60% said that if Saddam only had a desire for such weapons, instead of invading Iraq, the US should have made sure he did not get the capability to make them.

      Overall, support for the decision to go to war has eroded slightly, so that a bare majority of 51% now says that it was the wrong decision, and 46% say it was the right decision (as compared to August when 49% said it was the wrong decision and 46% the right decision).

      Steven Kull comments, It may seem contradictory that three quarters of Americans say that the US should not have gone to war if Iraq did not have WMD or was not providing support to al Qaeda, while nearly half still say the war was the right decision. However, support for the decision is sustained by persisting beliefs among half of Americans that Iraq provided substantial support to al Qaeda, and had WMD, or at least a major WMD program.

      Despite the widely-publicized conclusions of the Duelfer report, 49% of Americans continue to believe Iraq had actual WMD (27%) or a major WMD program (22%), and 52% believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

  4. "...without a lot of extra fuss and recount"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sheesh, what am I going to do for entertainment between now and Thanksgiving?

    1. Re:"...without a lot of extra fuss and recount"? by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 5, Funny

      Watch Bush's speeches?

    2. Re:"...without a lot of extra fuss and recount"? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Watch lots of our troops get blown up. Watch more of our civil right disappear. Watch the taxes for the rich go down while the deficit goes up and up. Watch our world popularity drop several more notches.

      There's lots of stuff to watch. None of it good, but lots of stuff to watch.

  5. let me be the first to say.... by Ishkibble · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:let me be the first to say.... by dfj225 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How can you be so sure that Kerry would have led America in a better direction? I think Kerry's campaign platform had some positive ideas...but most of them seem unfounded or such departures from his past that I have a hard time believing that he has really changed. Bush would have you believe that Kerry is a "flip-flopper", I would say that if true Kerry would be a better man for it. Take a look at this article: http://www.reason.com/0410/fe.jb.john.shtml I would hope that Kerry has changed from stances that he has taken in the past...but actions do speak lounder than words and I would be that if he were president he would continue to push for legislature along the same lines. On another front, Kerry spoke about bring jobs back to America from foreign soil...if he really believed so much in this, why not convince his wife to have some of her company's assets moved to America? It seems too much to me that Kerry was saying whatever he needed to get elected. I'm glad that some people saw through that. That said...I do think things in this country need improvement. I just don't think they would have come in from John Kerry.

      --
      SIGFAULT
    2. Re:let me be the first to say.... by fitten · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was a swing vote.

      Why I didn't vote for Kerry:

      Issues: I honestly had no clue where he stood on issues. One of the commercials I heard summed it up exactly. Basically, it said that no matter who you were or what you believed, Kerry agreed with you. I had seen plenty of places where Kerry did indeed change his mind on where he stood... many times.

      This dropped me down to evaluating past behavior. Kerry has a well documented past of doing one thing, then coming back and saying that what he previously did/believed was wrong (seemingly in response to what he thought voters might like to hear). With this record, how does this reassure me that when he passes or vetos some bit of legislation that two weeks later he won't recant on it? It will be too late then and more legislation would have to be introduced to change what was law.

      So, what assurances do I have for what was coming ahead? Well... Kerry and Edwards let us know that they had "plans". Well... they had "plans" for everything, but the problem was that they didn't elaborate much more than that on any of them. What was Kerry's plan for Iraq? I don't know. He said that his plan would get us out quicker but also would also require more troops to be there for a slow withdrawal.... (huh?)

      What it came down to, for me, was that I didn't know anything about what Kerry would do or stand for. His track record shows that he is quite comfortable with doing one thing then recanting it the next week. He has plans but the plans are either nebulous or contradictory in places. He definitely told me that he would go about the "Tax and Waste" policy, which I definitely do not like. At the same time he talks about outsourcing out-of-country, his wife's company is a major out-of-country outsourcer. To me, he was full of contradictions and vagueness, seeming to be more than willing to go whichever way he thought the public opinion goes (or in all ways). You can please some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. And this is what it seemed to me that he was trying to do... please all of the people all of the time.

      Kerry's campaign seemed to have the core stance of "I'm not Bush" and he seemed to think that this was enough to get him into office. There just didn't seem to be much solid substance (other than male bovine fecal matter possibly ;) to him at all.

      The *only* things in which Kerry had a solid stance to me were detrimental to my person... more taxation for me and little/no benefit for me and, from what I could tell, no benefit for the USA either. Simply saying that "I won't do things the way Bush did" isn't enough to inspire confidence in me that he will do a better job at anything than Bush did.

      This is why I didn't vote for Kerry.

      I didn't vote for Bush either, so don't go down that path with me.

  6. Well, by brilinux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Well, by kfergos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I absolutely agree. I'm glad that Kerry had the strength and honor to concede - whether or not that seems fair or not - rather than drag this out like Gore did in 2000. Now our best hope is to pray that GWB leaves some environment for us to clean up and doesn't alienate the entire world in the next 4 years.

      --
      Snazzier than a Three-Piece Suit: http://kf.rainydaycommunications.net/
    2. Re:Well, by radiumsoup · · Score: 2, Insightful

      while most of us do not like it

      um... actually, most of us DID like it - the plurality of the vote went for Bush, after all.

      And, it's a testament to the will of the people, not just Kerry's character.

      I know, I know - 43% to 18% of /. readers apparently like Kerry vs. Bush - so I am totally prepared to be moderated flamebait. Whatever.

    3. Re:Well, by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Honor Schmonor.

      The vote is still out in Ohio. He's essentially telling a large number of Ohioans that their vote doesn't count. He is doing this after many Ohioans spent a miserable day in line at overcrowded polling places.

      He's telling those 200 THOUSAND voters that they should just not have bothered.

      THAT is very wrong.

      Kerry could certainly be gracious about the situation without being spineless.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Well, by cje · · Score: 4, Insightful

      um... actually, most of us DID like it - the plurality of the vote went for Bush, after all. .. I know, I know - 43% to 18% of /. readers apparently like Kerry vs. Bush ..

      I suspect that's what he meant by "us" .. Slashdot readers, not Americans in general.

      --
      We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
    5. Re:Well, by 3terrabyte · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Like Gore did?

      Considering that 3 different third-party recounters came back with Gore winning by 534 votes, I can only imagine why!

      What I can't understand is why it was ok for the Republicans to step in and steal Florida in the first place after it was already called, but then when it was time to find out who 'really won', they get to label the Democrats as stalling.

      Truth is, both sides wanted to win, and did whatever sleazy menuevers they could to win.

      Ohio was no where near as close, and I can see why Kerry conceded. I do hope that the full counts come in, I'm curious to see how close everything truly was, even if it's 30 days from now.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    6. Re:Well, by 3terrabyte · · Score: 2, Informative
      Wrong, he's telling those 140,000 voters that their vote doesn't statistically count when the current vote tally is at a difference of 108,000 in favor of Bush.

      I'm surprised you didn't say 250,000 voters, since that's what one Democrat spouted. Spin, spin, spin, spin, spin. It's amazing that the democrats are saying 250,000, and the Republicans say 100,000. Who can you believe? No one.

      I'm a Democrat, and am VERY concerned about what this lazy president is going to do to this country over the next 4 years, especially since he doesn't need to worry about looking good for the next election.

      However, even I know the margin in Ohio is no where near Florida's margin. 2.5% difference. At least Iowa should be waiting at 1.0% difference. But with only 7 electorals....

      We're talking about waiting 30 days to get all the absentee ballots in. The provisional ballots are going to be about 80% allowed, and even counties that were heavily favored Kerry in Ohio are still only 70% Kerry. No way you'll get enough of those 140,000 (or even 200,000) to swing that high to Kerry. Sad, but true.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    7. Re:Well, by CajunElder · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I don't fault Gore for wanting a recount in FL. I do fault him for the way he went about it. He should have asked for a recount in the entire state, instead of just the heavily Dem. counties. That being said, as soon as Gore asked for a partial recount, Bush should have asked for a total recount. I also blame Gore for the way the votes were recounted, and recounted again in the Dem. counties. It really left a bad taste in my mouth when the first recount was stopped after it was obvious that Gore couldn't get enough votes and a different method for counting "pregnant chads" was used. If you don't punch any type of hole in the ballot, there is NO WAY your vote should be counted. At the time there was even talk about using an intent to vote rule, which meant that if you voted for all Dem's on the rest of the ballot, then you obviously wanted to vote for Gore too. While I don't live in FL, I know some Dems who REALLY didn't like Gore. They voted for all Dems on the rest of their ballot, and then just didn't vote for Pres. Trying to guess what a voter wanted to do after the ballot has been cast is a subversion of the system, and that is turned a lot of people off to Gore after the 2000 election. If Kerry had a chance of winning OH, I would support his waiting for the provisional ballots to be counted, and even asking for a recount. My support for him would stop as soon as he started pulling the stuff that Gore did in 2000. I give Kerry credit for realizing that he couldn't win, and not going down the same road Gore did. If the situations had been reversed in 2000, I would be preaching about how whoever was running against Gore this time shouldn't do what Bush did. I'm not saying that I think the Reps are better or more honorable than the Dems. I'm saying I don't like what Gore did, and I'm glad Kerry didn't follow that path.

      --
      A treat to eat, in a puppet that's neat!
    8. Re:Well, by phathead296 · · Score: 2

      You do mean majority of the vote, right? 51% of the popular vote is a majority.

  7. two words by akwash79 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    what happened??

    1. Re:two words by Dante333 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Conservatives voted.

    2. Re:two words by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, conservatives did not vote. It was the far right-wing, hyper-religious, I-hate-anything-not-christian, anti-equal-rights, creationism-is-a-theory, neo-cons who voted.

      Please stop trying to claim that the above people are conservatives. They are not. They are the American version of the Taliban.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  8. I need directions . . . by jgaynor · · Score: 4, Funny



    Can someone tell me where I can sign-up for the upcoming Civil War?

    1. Re:I need directions . . . by Predathar · · Score: 4, Funny

      you won't need to, you'll be drafted....

    2. Re:I need directions . . . by archen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In capitalist America, civil war signs up you.

    3. Re:I need directions . . . by Jerf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can someone tell me where I can sign-up for the upcoming Civil War?

      That was it, last night. Every election is a bloodless civil war.

      In all seriousness, continued attempts to start a bloddy one one are going to be met with overwhelming hostility. The solution to losing an election is not to start a war, and anybody who truly acts like it is shouldn't be moving to Canada, they should be moving to central Africa or something where that sort of barbaric behavior really is the expected result.

      I'm not a "love it or leave it" person; I'm a "love it, leave it, work within the system to change it, or shut the hell up" person. But if you really think this is worth killing people because an election didn't go your way, then I offer you two other choices: Shut the hell up about "civil war" and grow up, or yes, get the hell out.

      Good lord. You can demonize conservatives as much as you want, but when Clinton won, nobody talked about civil war.

      Grow up, kiddies. You lose sometimes. Now is a chance to rebuild and refocus. Start a war and I'll be first in line to stop you with all necessary force.

    4. Re:I need directions . . . by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 2, Informative

      Can someone tell me where I can sign-up for the upcoming Civil War?

      Certainly, here you go... Free the Bear

      Or.... Southern Independence Party Of Texas Platform

      Or, from A whole BIG list of Separatist movements

      Alaskan Independence Party -- Seeks referendum with choice of statehood, independence, commonwealth, or self-governing territory.

      Alaskans for Independence

      Free the Bear - California Secession and Independence

      California Secessionist Party

      The Republic of Cascadia -- Advocates independence for the Pacific Northwest from both America and Canada, with a libertarian and pro-business perspective.

      Cascadian National Party -- Advocate secession of the present states of Washington and Oregon from the United States.

      Cascadia Confederacy -- Advocates independence of the Pacific Northwest region from the U.S. and Canada, with an anti-nationalist and anti-capitalist perspective.

      State of Jefferson -- The rich history surrounding the events leading to the State of Jefferson secession movement of 1941. The State of Jefferson lives on in the hearts and minds of many residents of northern California and southern Oregon today.

      Hawai`i -- Independent & Sovereign -- Separatist movement of Hawaiian aboriginal people.

      La Voz de Aztlan -- Separatist movement that seeks a reconquista (reconquest) by chicanos (ethnic hispanics of Aztec descent) of the Southwestern United States and creation of a new nation of Aztlan (legendary ancient homeland).

      New England Confederation Movement -- Seek independence for New England states. Also see New Hampshire Chapter.

      South Carolina League of the South -- Seek independence through secession, perhaps for all of the Southern states of the 1861-65 Confederate States of America.

      Republic of Texas -- This is one of several pages for the somewhat fractured Texas Independence Movement which has recently received a great deal of attention. We do not support the movement. Constitutional compliance throughout the United States is attainable. Independence is not necessary, and distracts from the cause of constitutional compliance. But they do raise a number of interesting issues.

      Provisional Government of the Republic of Texas -- Another Republic of Texas site.

      United People's Party (Partido Nacional La Raza Unida) -- Many of them seek to separate the part of the U.S. taken from Mexico from the U.S. and make it an independent Hispanic nation called Aztlan.

    5. Re:I need directions . . . by freaks_and_geeks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Start a war and I'll be first in line to stop you with all necessary force.

      Why? At some point, shouldn't reasonable people realize that they share different value systems and agree to split up -- amicably? If it weren't for the fact that the blue states essentially subsidize the red ones -- best link I could find was here -- I'm sure they'd be happy to see us go.

      But as I've said before: I'm sure that with strong morals, a lot of prayer and -- this is the most important part -- no gay marriage, the red states could make up for the lost income in no time.

    6. Re:I need directions . . . by demachina · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Good lord. You can demonize conservatives as much as you want, but when Clinton won, nobody talked about civil war."

      Actually they did. The right wing and the House spent eight solid years trying to overthrow him and damn near succeeded. Only difference they were using Ken Starr and like a hundred of millions of our tax dollars as the weapon instead of guns. If they'd just been a little luckier, or had the power they have in congress now, they would have impeached him and thrown him in jail. It was for all intents and purposes a semi constitutional coup attempt, versus the actual coup the right wing used to dispose of JFK.

      Its easier to engage in a non violent civil war when you have power. Unfortunately at this point the left is real close to being completely powerless and following your guide probably will be in perpetuity.

      --
      @de_machina
    7. Re:I need directions . . . by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 2, Informative


      That was it, last night. Every election is a bloodless civil war.

      You're quite correct. It's truly the strength of a democracy.

      In all seriousness, continued attempts to start a bloddy one one are going to be met with overwhelming hostility. The solution to losing an election is not to start a war...And I agree with this too. We have differences, everyone had a chance to voice them, and more folks agreed with you than with me.

      However, the issue will come when the conduct of a free and fair election is tampered with. For instance: there was some talk a few months ago that Bush might "suspend" elections in the face of a terrorist attack. Then it's guns time--I celebrate our right to have elections, and since we could air our grievances and have them answered, what's fair is fair. But if that system is ever short-circuited, then there'll be hell to pay.

      Why this works is obvious: any frustrated Dem only has to look at the poll results to see clearly that the sides are evenly matched. 1/2 of the country is against the Dem war maker, which is a losing proposition. However, when elections are stopped ("suspended", whatever) then you run the risk of frustrating significantly more than 1/2 of the electorate--you might be frustrating 90% of the electorate. Then you could start a war and win. But as long as we can continue to verify that at least 1/2 of the country is against the position of the civil war-makers, I think we'll be ok :)

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
  9. one nation under god by h0mer · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:one nation under god by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 5, Insightful

      wal-mart nation? surly you mean Born-again nation.

      if you heard the Bush supporters calling up, they voted for him because of religion, no other reason.

      so, now that Bush thinks God wants him to be president and he things God is telling him how to govern, we are in deep shit during his Legacy term.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:one nation under god by jayhawk88 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, because Big Business was really on the run during the Clinton years.

      I've said it once and I'll say it again: The quicker we all figure out that both Democrats(Liberals) and Republicans(Conservatives) are both in it to fuck over the common man, the better off we'll all be.

    3. Re:one nation under god by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah but the Democrats will at least stay out of your business. Perverse enough as that sounds, it's true.

      The Republican party has become the Theocratic party.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:one nation under god by Blue-Footed+Boobie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and that, my friend, is why I voted Badnarik.

      --
      DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
    5. Re:one nation under god by CrayzyJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "if you heard the Bush supporters calling up, they voted for him because of religion, no other reason."

      wrong wrong wrong wrong. I am a huge Bush supporter, and I am also agnostic.

      There are plenty of other reasons. My main reason: I believe Bush will do more to protect this country than Kerry (who looks like a Basset hound, btw).

      As a side note, I am not happy about some of his religious policies, but hey it was a two horse race.

      --
      Holy s-, it's Jesus!
    6. Re:one nation under god by Larthallor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree.

      This was a vote about identity. The Republican party has been steadily convincing Christians that they are the party of Christ. It started with conservative brimstone and fire evangelicals and was dismissed by liberals as finge politics. Unfortunately, this sentiment has spread steadily until it encompasses not just the religious right, so much as the plain religious. Republicans have framed the argument as choosing between Democrats and God. Dems cannot win that fight.

      Democrats have failed utterly, as candidates, to stand up and show believers how true Christians have more in common with Democratic values than Republican supply-siders. The only person I've heard harp on this is Al Franken, who is not exactly a voice evangelicals are going to trust.

      Democrats need to show those with faith that the values of Jesus are the values of the Democrats. This will mean downplaying things like gay rights and abortion.

    7. Re:one nation under god by vinniedkator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find it interesting that in the areas of the country at the highest risk of terrorism most people voted against Bush. New York City voted almost 5:1 against Bush and D.C. 9:1. However, in rural America people feel he's the best one to take on the terrorists. Funny how things become clearer when it's your ass on the line.

      --
      WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL.
    8. Re:one nation under god by justins · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I've said it once and I'll say it again: The quicker we all figure out that both Democrats(Liberals) and Republicans(Conservatives) are both in it to fuck over the common man, the better off we'll all be.

      We'd also be a lot better off if we stopped pretending that the current parties have any sort of ideological foundations, even the very simple liberal/conservative dichotomy you've described. Anyone who thinks Dubya is a conservative doesn't know the meaning of the word.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
  10. would have had better Dem turn out by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
    1. Re:would have had better Dem turn out by Zak3056 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      in Ohio if those districts were given enough voting machines to get people through the polling places. people waited 9 hours!!!!

      What do you mean "given?" Voting equipment is left up to the individual counties. Anybody using old and broken down equipment, or not enough equipment, or Diebold equipment, need place the blame for that right at the foot of their county election commissioner.

      In Ohio's Cuyahoga county, that would be Jimmy Dimora, a democrat. Just like the woman that designed the infamous butterfly ballot of 2000 was a democrat. And how the place with all the hanging chads in 2000 was run by democrat controlled election committees with democrat commissioners of election.

      If you want to piss and moan, piss and moan at your own party before you start implying conspiracies.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  11. Good move by jimmyCarter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Good move by sakusha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The one thing this nation needs is another drawn out court battle to decide the presidency. The GOP dirty tricks can't be exposed any other way. But it's too late now. Bush is intent on establishing a one-party system, Rove has explicitly said his goal is the complete destruction of the Democratic Party.

      Bin Laden says he intends to bankrupt the USA, just like he bankrupted the USSR with their protracted misadventure in Afghanistan. He's succeeding again. We can't afford 4 more years of Bush, but that's what we've got. And Bush is just stupid enough to fall into every trap Bin Laden sets. America is dead.

  12. Congratulations by Brown+Eggs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Congratulations by Reducer2001 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You haven't been paying attention at all, have you?

      --
      When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
    2. Re:Congratulations by Aggrajag · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't be so one-sided in your criticism. Sometimes hate is a choice.

      I just hope that Bush mellows down a bit, like Reagan did on his second term.

    3. Re:Congratulations by Otter · · Score: 2, Informative
      Supposedly Ashcroft isn't going to be returning for a second term, because of health issues and because the Bush staff wants someone less divisive. If that's so, it's got to be a good step one to calming everyone down.

      Hopefully the spirit Kerry just showed will set an example...

    4. Re:Congratulations by phobos13013 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Steven Colbare (sp?) said it best last night. All this talk of healing the nation and harmonizing our conflicting points of view is bullshit. So i for one say, not on your life, fatty. No way fatty fat fat mcgee. I will not congratulate a complete moron for duping a nation of bigger morons into voting for destroying the very freedom this nation was founded on.

      --
      ...and it should be known by now
    5. Re:Congratulations by gorbachev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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."

      Bush promised in 2000 that he would act as a president that would unite the country.

      Four years later, and the country is even MORE divided than before, largely due to the acts of Mr. Bush and his administration during his presidency.

      I believe as strongly as the Bush supporters believe Bush is the one man terrorist busting machine that he has no intention of ever acting as a unifier. You just need to listen to his rhetoric on any issue and you can not come to any other conclusion. It's always us against them, no matter the issue, small or large.

      You can argue about everything else about his presidency, whether or not the war on Iraq was justified or not, or whether or not the economy is better off now than 4 years ago, but on the point of dividing the country, there is no argument. He has failed, miserably, in uniting the country.

      Further I believe that he has done so because that is his true nature. He calls it being steadfast, I call it a stubborn inability to make compromises whether due to his ideology (right-wing Christian), partisan hackery (Republicans are right, Democrats are wrong, no matter what) or just plain lack of diplomatic skills.

      To me this is more of an issue than anything else, it goes to the heart of what Mr. Bush is like and how he governs.

      In a country like the United States that was founded on the principals of freedom, free exchange of ideas and diversity among other things, it is truly unbeliavable someone like Mr. Bush could ever become a president.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  13. TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful


    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.

    1. Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS by GodsMadClown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amen. Brilliant venting. Wish I had points to join in the inevitable mod-fray.

    2. Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS by gamgee5273 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      While you could have been a little more subtle about it, I think you are quite right. At this point there is no one to blame but those who voted for Dubya. He is no longer an unknown commodity... people knew what they were voting for going into this...

      Thus, I agree: I no longer blame Bush for the situation we're in. I blame the American public.

    3. Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >The middle east has been propetually in conflict.

      and you americans have played a BIG part in it by supporting dictators like saddam hussein, saudi and the rest when it suits you and then shitting it when they turn bad like everyone knew they would.

      >I don't use the rest of the world as a judge for my actions. Sometimes the world is right, sometimes they are wrong.

      you people really are very frightening indeed.

      four more years of idiocy, ignorance and brutality. you brought it on your own stupid thick fat heads but i don't see why the rest of the world should suffer because 50% of shit kicking hicks couldn't be bothered to look past fox news and their lies.

    4. Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS by Gogl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, not quite.

      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.

      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.

      And you think we've established .5 of a democracy with Iraq? All we've established is a full quagmire.

      Conservative judges actually look at the constitution? Damn, they must be missing that amendment that talks about "equal protection under the law"...

      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.

      Lastly, the whole "full of steaming hate" thing, well, yes, they're often frustrated and even hateful. But that's just ad hominem, you should decide based on the actual issues. And frankly, the frustration and hate is quite understandable, if you bothered to actually look at the issues.

    5. Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS by starling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Man, that was beautiful. Thanks.

    6. Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS by Wicked187 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Wow, I am really glad that the moderators came to their senses and voted this flamebait instead of interesting, as it started. This is a large mess. You really should use your frustration in a productive manner. You could have rented a 13 seater van and brought sandwiches and $5 bills to young voters in Ohio and you could have driven them to the polls (I was going to be extremely depressed if Bush lost, and I would have blamed myself for not doing this)... Heck, they could have even registered on the spot.

      The biggest thing this nation needs is to become unified... there is a real threat out there, and the only way we can overcome it is to unify. I would have initially been heart broken if Kerry would have won, but I would have sucked it up and tried to do my part in making it clear that the US is still the greatest place to live.

      I truly believe you should drop it, but I doubt it. You seem to be greatly effected the Democratic propaganda. People waking and realizing that the Kerry campaign was running on lies is what lost the election for Kerry.

      1) Last I checked, a group of terrorists is responsible for the mass murder of over 3,000 Americans.

      2) No military draft, that is just silly. It was actually 2 Democrats that proposed that idea. Good thing the Republicans shot that down.

      3) As has been stated, the Middle East has been in constant conflict with itself and anyone else that it drags into its affairs. The Ottoman's vs. the Safavid's is what created the Sunni vs. Shiite tension today. The Muslim empire that ruled over India (cannot recall the name off the top of my head) is responsible for the India vs. Pakistan tension. Europe/America was pulled into this by the Safavid's and the Ottoman's were actually bring the conflicts to Southeastern Europe. Without Democracy... they have no chance.

      4) The economy is fine. The stock market is back, we have job growth, it is great. The problems that we did have were created by Clinton in the first place. Further, each time that we change parties for the President, we take a nice hit on our economy. By retaining Bush, the economy will stabilize more.

      5) The environment is hardly an issue that you can blaim on the US. Out of all the industrialized nations, the US contributes the least, per capita, to poor ecological effects. China uses more than half of the worlds coal. Europe is predominately powered by diesel fuel for cars, which is very dirty. Placing more environmental regulations on the US will hur the economy and have a minimal effect on the environment.

      6) The world is not going to abandon us. There were some tensions leading up to this election, but the world will fall in suite now. If you check out the BBC, most of Europe, Russia, and even opposing Middle Eastern leaders believe we will have better relations now. The world knows where Bush stands, and they do not want terrorism, just as much as us.

      7) Kerry would have been the one to screw the future, sorry. The last things we need is a radical liberal in office who is going to elect up to 4 supreme court justices who will remain until the die or leave. It is quite crazy, but the media is trying to make it seem like having morals is a bad thing... how silly.

      8) I am sorry, if this world is less prosperous for your child... then you must be grooming your child to be a terrorist (or a trial lawyer). My children are going to have a better place to live because of GWB.

      And yes, I am quite please. GWB is back. The Republicans control the legislative branch, and the Judicial branch will become more conservative. And my state finally ended a 16 year reign of Democrats as Govenor... now hopefully there is enough left for the Republican Governor to salvage. Hopefully the state (Indiana) doesn't have to file the second bankruptcy in its history.

      --
      Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
    7. Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "A tidal wave of blood coming down on us all from the next terrorist disaster? YOUR FAULT."
      Strangely, I thought those were the fault of the terrorists. Silly me.

      No, just naive.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    8. Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS by Dirtside · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.
      Remember back when democracy arose because the people of a nation were sick of being oppressed, and not because some other country decided to invade them for no good reason? How exactly do you force people to want self-government, exactly?
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    9. Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS by blueberrry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You feel good for choosing GWB as a president? Feeling good in what way? In the way that closing your eyes makes you feel better than looking at the cold, naked truth? In some ways, ignorances feels really good when you a look at the world now.

      > Strangely, I thought those were the fault of the terrorists. Silly me.
      What terrorists? The terrorists you sold weapons to before giving them ALL reasons to hate you? The terrorists whose anger was motivated by decades of humanless oil money-centric foreign policies? When you screw people so much that they have nothing more to lose, that's when they do things that may seem to lack any rational. Open your eyes.

      > 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.
      Seriously, what is the source of all the conflicts in the Middle East? Isrealo-Palestinian conflict. Americans are sending billions of dollars per year so Isreal can buy weapons and such, and for no other reason than faith in the Bible. Here again, lack of rational. Plus, your attitude is what I hate the most in American people: you think you're going to show the "uncivilized" world how "freedom" works. So you bomb Afghanistan for no good reason than for setting up "democracy", then you place on top of the country a man who's been a former Unocal advisor. Great for defending american oil business. Bad for Afghan people. Democracy is good when it represents people, not the interests of the foreign nation that just bombed the people. And, I prefer not talking about Iraq, because you also invaded this country for NOTHING and brought nothing but death and cruelty.

      >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).
      As I am not American I can't really judge that one, however when a president says he's willing to amend to constitution to make gay marriages illegal, that sounds scary. Plus, looking at:
      * the laws you recently passed (1984^d^d^d^d Patriot Act, anyone?) , the ways you act:
      * with your own people (America is still part of a little group of barbarians countries that have death sentences)
      * with other people (bombing foreign countries for no good reasons except than for Halliburton stock holders, Guantanamo Bay and Abu-Ghraib prison),
      i just wonder that the President is doing with the constitution and human rights when he goes to toilet.

      > I don't use the rest of the world as a judge for my actions. Sometimes the world is right, sometimes they are wrong.
      Scary. If the rest of the world (except Russia) would have voted 80%+ for Kerry, then the rest of the world is wrong. Let me turn it the other way: what IF the American people is wrong this time? Countries who have stand-up against the USA where countries are friends (France, who helped you gain independance, Canada, Germany, etc). They did stand up for a good reason, not for anti-american bashing. The least you could do is at least consider them. If you don't use the world to judge your actions, why do you want to impose your judgments to the world (Iraq, you went against UN). That's the problem with America: total lack of respect for the world (whoever is not american). Like it or not, the actions you do have an impact on the world. And the world is not yours (that's what you think though).


      Honestly, your counter-arguments makes me feel rather good about what I stand for. I had a few doubts before, but it seems likes GWB's fanboys really are largely full of dogmas and are faith-driven. At least on slashdot.

    10. Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS by neoseity · · Score: 2, Informative

      Truly informed about the world around you?

      First, last time I checked, there is currently a "backdoor draft" with regards to the military's "stop-loss" program to involuntarily extend enlistments. I believe there is cause for concern for American's being enlisted in the military involuntarily.

      Second, it's the "liberal media" showing sex and violence on satellite TV that is the motivating factor of terrorist acts?!? Where'd ya get that info? Did you ever think that it may have to do with the U.S. foreign policy and how the U.S. government and U.S. corporations conduct themselves throughout the world?
      Oh wait, I forgot, they hate us because we love freedom.
      Those silly Muslim masochists...

      Third, that liberal media is trying to say that the economy is bad, huh? Of course a $7.4 trillion debt and $500 billion deficit aren't anything to worry about down the road. We'll be able to pay that off from the new founded tourism from people in other nations with outsourced American jobs!

      Fourth, it's one thing to be liked or not liked. I don't always like other people I work with, but I still work with them. Unlike the Bush administration who, as with the Kyoto Protocol, just walks away instead of at least trying to work with the other nations toward something positive. Nope, their way or the highway, period. It's not a matter of world appeasement, but of cooperation. The Bush administration was going to war in Iraq no matter what the world had to say about it. It would seem their main issue was appeasement to the American public, not the UN. Their method of appeasement was deception and blatant lies. We impeached Clinton over lies under oath. Of course, that is much worse than lies to the American public and the world.

      Fifth, Bush's tax cut's didn't contribute to the deficit? What about the war in Iraq that we are footing the majority of the bill for?

      Finally, I guess some of us do listen to what "they" tell us, which is better than listening to what one single administration says and propagates.

  14. All I need now by defile · · Score: 3, Funny

    is the link to the Draft-Dodging HOWTO.

    1. Re:All I need now by UdoKeir · · Score: 2, Funny

      Have a rich father with influence.

    2. Re:All I need now by pete-classic · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't know where you can find it online, but I'm certain there is a copy in the Clinton Presidential Library.

      Hope this helps.

      -Peter

    3. Re:All I need now by AhtirTano · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Since we're getting serious, where did all this draft talk come from? I've heard the President flatly deny plans for a draft on more than one occasion.

      "Read my lips, no new draft."

  15. Thank you Mr. Kerry by kuwan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The country deserves further division. We just put a stamp on the last four years, and I personally want to distance myself from it. The more division the more it appears that America is rational despite this outcome.

    2. Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry by ukmountie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So I'm curious,

      I think it's obvious that even the provisional ballots are not going to swing Ohio, but, if, and I mean really big if, what happens if they do?

      Or will they simply be ignored?

    3. Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry by pavon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree that conceding is a very gentlemanly thing to do, but comming from one of the states who hasn't even finished processing our ballots I am a little annoyed. At this point, the electoral votes in are 254 to 252, with 32 votes out. Even if the exit polls showed that it was likely that Kerry would not win, it is the votes that determine the election not the polls. It wouldn't have divided the country any more to have given those states time to complete their tallies and then concede. But oh well, splitting hairs I guess. I am glad it is over, and here's to hoping the next 4 years will be better than the last.

    4. Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry by say · · Score: 2, Informative

      But after counting more than 90% of the votes, there is no reason why the last 10% should be substantially different than the first 90%. They provisional votes are a different statistical group, but they aren't going to be 90% Kerry, which is about what he needs. Therefore, this is a matter of simple statistics. Kerry is not going to win.

      A long period of uncertainty is not good for any nation, and most certainly not the US. I'm all pro-Kerry, but there is no need to wait two weeks just to get confirmed what anyone with a statistics degree can tell you in a second.

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
    5. Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is what annoys me. CONCEDING DOES NOT MAKE BUSH THE WINNER. He can concede and the election can still go the other way. It doesn't remove him from the race. Nothing's changed except they're announcing their predictions.

    6. Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry by tarogue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But when half of the states are divided by only 1 or 2 percent, dont' you think that final 10% could hold the deciding tally?

      I never understood the concession thing. Why run a marathon, then quit just 100 feet from the finish line? If you're going to lose, then lose, don't quit!

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
    7. Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry by woodhouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Strange. In the UK at least, we count all the votes before working out who has won, and then if the results are close, we count them again. What a warped system you have in the US.

    8. Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry by nero4wolfe · · Score: 2, Informative
      To be technical, a atatement by one presidential candidate to another candidate that the other candidate has probably won, and offering congratulations, has no legal meaning.

      If the extremely improbably happened (Kerry getting a margin of >90% in all valid provisional & overseas absentee ballots), Kerry would still win Ohio and the election.

    9. Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry by boodaman · · Score: 2, Informative

      "so called stolen elections"?

      You don't pay attention, do you?

      Salon.com, the BBC, The Nation, and more proved 4 years ago, with real evidence, that the chaos in Florida was deliberately caused by the Governor's office (President Bush's brother is the Governor) in cahoots with Katherine Harris.

      They did this by eliminating tens of thousands of names of legitimate voters, people who were legally allowed to vote, from the voter registration lists. These people were refused their legal right to vote by state and county election workers on direct instruction from Katherine Harris' office.

      The margin of Bush's "victory" in Florida was a few hundred votes...the number of people prevented from voting was TENS of thousands...it is a virtual certainty that percentage of those people would have voted for Gore, especially since the vast majority of the people on those lists were African-American (traditionally Democrats) and Hispanic.

      Incidentally, the company that handled the voter registration "scrub" lists for Florida is a subsidiary of a company backed by powerful Republicans, including billionaire Ken Langone.

      http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=74&ro w= 2

      So yeah, the election actually was stolen. No "so called" about it.

      Do yourself a favor and do some research.

    10. Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry by Chester+K · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is what annoys me. CONCEDING DOES NOT MAKE BUSH THE WINNER. He can concede and the election can still go the other way. It doesn't remove him from the race.

      But it does remove the possibility of contentions over results, lawsuits, recounts and hanging chads. So, yes, Kerry conceding is important; even if by some miracle Ohio comes out as a Kerry win and Kerry ends up in the White House.

      --

      NO CARRIER
    11. Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry by Entrope · · Score: 3, Informative

      The US has a slightly outdated system, but there are analogous situations in any fair system. If you have counted 90% of the ballots and 66% of those (60% of the total) are for one person, it is almost impossible for the other person to win a simple majority. If you factor in statistical analysis of voting patterns in the unreported votes, you can get a pretty good estimate of results before counting every vote.

      That is all that has happened here: There are lots of votes left to count, and where they can make a difference, they will be counted. The results are not yet final, and the results will not be final until January 6 when Congress counts the electoral college ballots.

    12. Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean the guys on television don't tell you who's won based on predictions? What a warped system you have in the U.K.

    13. Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful
      CONCEDING DOES NOT MAKE BUSH THE WINNER. He can concede and the election can still go the other way.

      Maybe conceding isn't legally definitive, but it is a formal public statement by Kerry that he recognizes Bush as the winner. Politically, it would be impossible to come back, after conceding, and claim the presidency.

      Especially-- consider what that speech would sound like: "I was in favor of conceding before I was against conceding. What's worse, my making a mistake in conceding, or Bushes mistake in taking that concession seriously? But I have a plan to take care of this concession. We're going to work with the UN-- I mean lawyers, and we're going to carry out my plan to fix this election."

  16. 4 More Wars! by j4ck50n · · Score: 2, Funny

    Long live the Boy King!

  17. Congratulations by Aggrajag · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  18. Re:The horror... by r1ckt3r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the South and Midwest, I'm surrounded by them.

  19. And the rest of the world... by Flaming+Halo · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...lets out a resounding "Aw, crap."

  20. Not over just yet by s2k2vidguy · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  21. Well... by olrik666 · · Score: 3, Funny


    Two words :

    Welcome, friend!

  22. Repent, for the Apocalypse Draws Nigh! by applemasker · · Score: 5, Funny
    First the Red Sox win the Series, now this.

    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.
  23. Still not sure how I feel about this by raider_red · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  24. TO: the world FROM: the USA RE: election by spookymonster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:TO: the world FROM: the USA RE: election by ControlFreal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From Europe:

      Apologies accepted. Remember, this is not a contest; it's not US against the rest of the world. Indeed, many nations of the world (including the EU, that is) like to work together with the US, even if that may be a little bit more difficult under Bush.

      Wealth through cooperation is not a zero-sum game; when two nations or unions cooperate, both can get wealthier.

      I sincerely hope, for both of our continents, that the Dollar won't sink any further. Even though that would be good for our imports, it won't do much good for our exports, and the resulting economic friction is good for neither of us.

      I might come on holiday to the US though; it's rather cheap at the moment. Politics be damned ;)

      --
      Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
    2. Re:TO: the world FROM: the USA RE: election by donutello · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The prevision for USA is an economy decline, loss of status regarding its position among all the countries

      You don't understand Americans do you? Americans don't care what the rest of the world thinks about them - not because Americans think they are better than the rest of the world, but because they evaluate themselves based on what they themselves think, not based on what others think. Americans don't care to be better than every other country - they only care to be the best they can be.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
  25. Huh? by Alan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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*

    1. Re:Huh? by swiftstream · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well...

      When one guy leads by 136k votes and there are ~175k left to count...

      I'd call that pretty well decided.

      --
      Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
  26. moo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    http://www.autofrog.com/~chrisp/tv/cnn.jpg

  27. Glad to see no protracted fight by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There will be bitching and moaning enough, without the prospect of another election decided in the Courts. It's good for the country that the election didn't get into the hands of either the Democrat or Republican lawyers.

    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"
    1. Re:Glad to see no protracted fight by Baki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He would not have, as could be seen 4 years ago.

  28. Will the democratic party ever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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 :)

  29. Re:gore by Issue9mm · · Score: 5, Funny

    In related news, Bush made certain to call "No take backs" during Kerry's congratulatory phone call.

    -9mm-

  30. Legal Crap by Deathtoallmytormento · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  31. took the high road by Ubergrendle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?"
    1. Re:took the high road by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Its a slim chance, but Kerry could still possibly win it if he pressed ahead with a long, drawn out legal battle.

      Only if all of those prrovisionals are for Kerry.
      Not happening.

    2. Re:took the high road by PMuse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Kerry did the math, that's all.

      He was down 136,221 votes. Kerry's single best county in Ohio was Cuyahoga (City of Cleveland), where he scored 67%. The most favorable assumption one could realistically offer would be that the as-yet uncounted provisionals would be as good as Kerry's best county. There are 135,149 known provisional ballots + perhaps 10% more that may yet be reported. So, 135149*(110%) provisionals *67% margin = 99605 votes possibly gained.

      That's 136,221 - 99,605 = 36,616 votes too few.

      I feel like going door to door and yelling at my neighbors. I feel worse that I didn't do it last week.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  32. Recounts by ViolentGreen · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  33. Now maybe by BJZQ8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  34. I for one... by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...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

    1. Re:I for one... by Samrobb · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

      As did I. I'm a registered Republican, but I think that voting for someone just because of their political affiliations is ridiculous. This election, as in any other, I did my best to vote for the candidates that I felt shared my same core values and beliefs. While I'm happy that Bush won the presidential race, I'm also disappointed that other candidates I supported for senate and state races lost.

      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.

      Agreed. For all that I don't agree with his politics, Kerry's done a good thing, for both the country and his party... another round of election lawyering would have been a hard blow for the Democratic party, I think. Nobody particularly likes lawyers, and I'm pretty sure that Kerry recognized that if he didn't have a clear-cut reason to take a case to court, then people would start associating the Democratic party with election litigation.

      IMHO, though, the majority of the credit for this election going so smoothly should go to the poll workers and monitors. They managed to keep a good eye on things this election, and to keep any obvious problems (and hence, challenges) from surfacing.

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
  35. a victory for America by Dr+Kool,+PhD · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  36. Only Good thing for the Dem's by evilned · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  37. Here we go...... by acoustix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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
  38. Independant voting not spoilers by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  39. Re:Here Lies... by mc6809e · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Liberty and Freedom
    1776-2004


    Nah. 1776-1932

  40. Key items to note: by FLOOBYDUST · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    1. Re: Key items to note: by feed_those_kitties · · Score: 2, Interesting
      And for now, at least, we still have the right to voice our opinions.

      At least I think "freedom of speech" still applies in this country - let me see if I can find the actual text of The Patriot Act and I'll get back to you...

    2. Re:Key items to note: by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      according to John Titor that happens next year.

    3. Re:Key items to note: by EngineeringMarvel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nice to see someone looking at the bright side of things for once. This is only the 2nd time I have been eligible to vote (age) for the president and both times I felt important and very powerful after I walked out of the voting booth. Not so much about the presidental election, but the more local ammendments, congressman, and senator elections. Only a small portion of this planet's population really gets the satisfaction of that feeling and it is a shame that so many Americans take it for granted.

      Yes, there is a lot of BS and bureacuracy in American politics and government, but to me it is still so much better than what a communist or strict republic government has to offer.

      --
      I couldn't think of anything witty to say, so...you're stuck with this.
    4. Re:Key items to note: by Halcy0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "In an election where more people voted than ever before we should stop and think what we have accomplished."

      My question is, how many of these people that went out to vote, actually knew the issues? All of these voter campaigns were going on telling people to go "Vote or Die" (or that they didn't vote in 2000 and should now), while they should have been saying, "Learn about the issues, and how they affect you, then vote".
      How many of the people that voted actually voted on the issues, and not whether or not the candidate had their exact religious beliefs?

      --
      Mark Loeser
    5. Re:Key items to note: by CommieOverlord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) There were no riots in the street.

      And you're proud? A nation is heavily divided against an administration that is destroying the economy, civil rights, foreign relations, and the environment.

      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.

      Sometimes the proper thing to do _is_ to riot in the streets, launch a coup, or succede.

      Perhaps the British parliment should have granted the Americans some form of elected representation in their houses. Then there wouldn't have been a Boston Tea Party or armed revolt. Instead the founding fathers would have just ran for parliment and 200 years later the US would still be colony. Maybe.

    6. Re:Key items to note: by straybullets · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is the process that the founding fathers [...] It is great to be an American

      I can't believe you're being serious !! Of course it's not "great to be an American" ! As it's not great to be Russian, Greek, whatever ! Who cares ?? I'll never understand someone that's proud to be of a special nation, this has so few logical reasons, this is such a poor feeling ... And moreover when the country in question is f*cking up on every subject, such as word treaties (kyoto, geneva), institutions (un, wto) etc ..

      And how can you be proud of your electoral system ? Just because we all traveled to work as if it was a normal day ? That sure seems like an easy way of dismissing the fiasco it is, abstention included ! Call it a "democracy", go give lessons to third word countries, but it really is an organised system of greed, and the first deception is making you feel important with this little, almost useless vote.

      This morning, i heard mister Fat Rich Richard Pearl on the radio. He was clearly stating that, the cold war being over, it was time for a true competition between the U.S and Europe, and any other country, including strong conflicts of interests, et al.

      Congratulations, war mongers.

      --
      With that aggravating beauty, Lulu Walls.
    7. Re:Key items to note: by williamhb · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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

      You're talking as if the US is alone in terms of being a stable democracy. In fact, if you look anywhere from Australia to Ireland to New Zealand to India to the UK to South Africa... there seem to be an awful lot of democracies about, and most of them don't owe their system of government to an American heritage.

      I'm sorry to sound a bit of a moaner, and gripe about your very noble patriotic sentiment, but Aussies like me actually get a bit irked when we hear Americans talking as if they owned democracy. (And we then normally mutter and grumble amongst ourselves about how Rumsfeld, Powell, etc did not have to stand for election, whereas Australian and many other countries' government ministers do at least have to be elected to parliament or the senate first)

    8. Re:Key items to note: by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only president to win the majority of the votes since 1988.

      This is true, but misleading. It implies that Bush got some sort of a strong mandate, when, in fact, he only got 6% more votes than Kerry. Clinton got 20% more than Dole in 1996, 15% more than Bush Sr. in 1992 and Bush Sr. got 17% more than Dukakis. The reason that this apparently significant statement is true is because Perot was a spoiler for the 1992 and 1996 elections, meaning that neither of the major party candidates was able to achieve a majority. In 2000 we had a race that was both insanely close (Gore got 1% more votes than Bush) and included a minor spoiler (Nader got almost 3 million votes)

      Since there were no significant spoilers this year (Nader only got around 400K), it's no surprise that the winner got a majority. A very, very thin majority, though. 51%.

      Bush won, and I'd probably rather have him than Kerry (I voted for a third party candidate, in protest), but no one should be claiming any kind of a decisive mandate.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  41. So what's wrong with Fuss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  42. Re:It's official, America is a nation of idiots. by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  43. saddest day in my life ... by thunderpeel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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 .. ..
    1. Re:saddest day in my life ... by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We bail you European & British Empire folks out of wars constantly. Than when we are fucking attacked you guys do this

      Stop playing with your GI-joes little boy, that war has been over for 60 years and believe you me you are NOT your grandfather.

      The people that liberate europe (not just US soldiers you arrogant little shit) are still venerated but united states credit has been running out steadily for years and Bush will spend the rest.

      The conservative segment of America is the one leading for the war, defense of American ideals, and so on. The irony, most of the conservatives tend to personally agree with the Muslim stances on homosexuality, banking, sexual licentiousness, etc. (The degenerate culture we export around the world that is the number one reason Osama attacked.) And the irony, is we are defending the rights of people like you to have the freedom to be things we do not believe in.

      Maybe we should let the extremists come to power...


      Ow but you have let the extremists come to power. I can recognize them from far away no matter what flag they are wearing, Bush is no defender of any kind of freedom anywhere.

      We're defending your asses...and you're to pompous and full of yourselves to realize it.

      No, you're screwing with our asses and we'd love for you to stop doing it.

      --

      What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
    2. Re:saddest day in my life ... by thunderpeel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We bail you European & British Empire folks out of wars constantly. Than when we are fucking attacked you guys do this.
      ** nice of you to sit back and wait until it was in your best interests to help tho.
      Do you really think you guys are free of this? We're the target cause we're prominent. If we don't stand strong. Guess what...for all your support of liberal ideas and thoughts, homosexual marriage, etc. It will be moot.
      ** You're the target because of your ultra agressive foreign policy. Not to mention you back a state that is DIRECTLY in conflict with Muslim interests. THEN DONT EXPECT THAT CONFLICT TO COME TO YOUR DOORSTEP?!
      You want us to not defend ourselves or the right to be. Guess what...if we don't. It will be extremist fanatics killing every gay in Canada in the name of Allah. Destroying every bank, savings and loans. Forcing your women to wear excessive garments.
      ** You honestly think that if the Natzi like regime falls out of power that a MUSLIM govt will be put in place? Holy fuck, you are a sheep.
      Man you don't get it...but you euro-minded people never have. Would you like to give Austria and Poland to NAZI Germany now or later?
      *** Well, Nazi Germany exists today! IN AMERICA!!! YEE HAW .. Lie to the people, extort and control the people, wage private war FOR the people.
      You in your dismal lack of understanding think this is a pride USA #1 issue. The irony is this....
      The conservative segment of America is the one leading for the war, defense of American ideals, and so on. The irony, most of the conservatives tend to personally agree with the Muslim stances on homosexuality, banking, sexual licentiousness, etc. (The degenerate culture we export around the world that is the number one reason Osama attacked.) And the irony, is we are defending the rights of people like you to have the freedom to be things we do not believe in.
      ** the actual funny part is you BELIEVE what you are told .. perfect sheep... continue believing blind, like religion, because it will all end up the way you want. poor poor sheep.
      Maybe we should let the extremists come to power...
      Let me ask you this...what do you think would happen? who do you think would be the ones allowed to live? moral conservatives....or the supporters of homosexuality and non-traditional morals?
      **Personally I dont think that North America would ever be "taken over" by muslim warriors. This is how the FEAR has taken you .. you actually believe this.
      We're defending your asses...and you're to pompous and full of yourselves to realize it.
      **YOU ARE DEFENDING YOUR FUCKING MONITARY INTERESTS SO DONT FUCKING PLAY THE BRAVE SOLDIER TO ME YOU FUCKING SHEEP! THE ONLY REASON YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DEFEND YOURSELVES IS BECAUSE OF YOUR BACKWARDS PROTECT OUR OWN GREEDY INSTERESTS VIEW OF MORAL SOCIETY. IF YOU EVER REALLY KNEW WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO BE A BROTHER TO ANOTHER WORDLY BODY YOU WOULDNT BE SUCH A FUCKING CLOSED MINDED SHEEP AND ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN WORLD ISSUES, INSTEAD OF STEPPING IN AND TAKING OVER.
      SIEGE HAIL BUSH

      --
      I really do know KungFu .. ..
  44. "Immature" by kmmatthews · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Haha, I love it when you tell someone else they're immature AND pig-headed in the same sentence...

    --
    feh. stuff.
  45. Just like he ran his campaign by JasonUCF · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Just like he ran his campaign by snopes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I grew up in a Republican dominant environment and had to seek
      sanity on my own. The problem is, I haven't found that with the Democratic
      party. Don't get me wrong. I voted D all the way yesterday, but not because
      I love the party. And that's part of the problem. It's become the
      anti-party.

      That's not to claim that I am exactly typical and representative of the how's
      and why's of voter behavior. It's the overall issue, however, of where we
      are now politically. We have a fascist regime holding power through fear of
      other while carefully ensuring the masses never see the knife as it reaches
      around for their throats. We have an opposition party which fails to
      communicate this reality. Edward's had a good idea with the sunshine and
      smiles, but lacked a strong message and projected an almost childlike image.
      Kerry, as so many recognized from day 1, was just too dour and lacked the
      passion needed to push a message clear of the chaff.

      Somehow between now and 2008 the Democratic party has to become a whole lot
      more than just an opposition party. It's got to become a party passionate
      about truth, feedom, and life. There are ways to break through this morality
      battle currently running across the country, but they require boldness,
      confidence, passion, and strength. States issues must be kept off the
      national stage. America's self-image of independence and strength relative
      to the rest of the world must be nurtured while restrained. Most
      importantly, they must clearly, honestly, and unarrogantly communicate to the
      working people of the South and Midwest why their lives are harder because of
      the policies of the RNC and it's elected politicians.

      The only way we're going to get out of this death spiral is if the liberal
      elite of the coasts comes to terms with the reality of the social perspective
      of the south and midwest. We can't secede. We can't repopulate all those
      states as we have in New Hampshire. We have got to recognize the fact that
      the only way to end this is to accept the perspectives of our fellow
      citizens, identify the common ground between us (it *is* there), and build a
      party based on that. A party based on traditional American values of
      freedom, caring, hard work, and so many other moralistic qualities of
      American life which the Republican message simply doesn't and can't address.
      There is tremendous opportunity for the Democratic party to reach out to
      Southern voters if they would just come off the high horse and understand
      what they want and then passionately deliver the message.

      The Democratic party once again gave this election away by delivering a
      message percieved as weak. I agree. It was weak. The most impressive part
      of their campaign was the ability to deliver such a flat, dispassionate,
      unarousing message in the midst of so much turmoil. Maybe it was Kerry's
      delivery. Surely that was part of it. I see it as an issue across the
      entire party. I see it only resolved by growing to understand what's really
      behind the loss of Southern Dems. It's about emotions and egos. It's about
      projecting an image of strength and confidence. It's about not thinking
      those are dirty words.

  46. It isn't over by Bronz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  47. Let me tell you why by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There will be much ranting and raving and cries of how stupid the American people are, but there are some very simple things at work here.

    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.
    1. Re:Let me tell you why by trongey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He WAS a terrible candidate, but he was the INCUMBENT terrible candidate which will always beat a terrible challenger.

      A halfway decent incumbent would have won by a landslide.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    2. Re:Let me tell you why by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Bush didn't win, Kerry lost."

      No, "anybody but Bush" lost. As far as I could see, that is how Kerry was sold. Perhaps I've spent too much time on Slashdot lately, but I've seen far more statements that equated to "Bush is bad" than I did see "Kerry is good."

      For example, the Daily Show last night. I suppose by this point I shouldn't be surprised that Sharpton didn't have an off switch (I think William Weld did better with the crowd), but in all the "Bush is bad" and the "Republicans are bad" statements he made, there was not one comment to the effect of "Kerry is good" or "Democrats are good."

      "ask yourself why the Democrats couldn't come up with a better candidate than Kerry."

      Because they weren't catering to their own likes. Kerry won the primaries because the Democrats felt he was the most Republican of all the candidates, therefore the most likely to beat Bush.

    3. Re:Let me tell you why by Sigh+Phi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree strongly with this analysis. First, I'm a middle-of-the road independent (don't declare affiliation with any party). Most of my friends are Democrats. I have many friends and relatives who are Republican. Most of them voted for Kerry. I live in California.

      Kerry did everything right in my opinion, which is why I am so disconcerted by the outcome. He ran against his opponent's record, not against his opponent's intellect or morality. He stuck to the concrete and the tangible, and hammered it home. He showed calm under pressure and demonstrated a command of nuanced and complex issues. His platform was pragmatic and populist. He had a record of bipartisanship and a history of public service. Kerry was a great candidate. Who would have appealed more to moderate Republicans? Not Dean. Who would have appealed to Environmentalists? Not Lieberman. Who would have appealed to people who initially supported war but were now having second thoughts? Not Gephart.

      Exit polling showed that the #1 "issue" for a large number of Bush voters was "morality." They were voting on abortion and religion. Kerry voters were voting on war, the environment and the economy. Kerry didn't lose because he was a terrible candidate. He lost because evangelicals and secularists have dramatically different priorities, and there are more people who identify with the former group than the latter. This was a very important election with two strong and extremely different candidates. The outcome is a reflection of America, not of John Kerry.

      In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote but acted as if he had a 60% mandate. I shudder to think what the next four years portend, with Bush's very real 51% victory, a subservient House and Senate, and an increasingly conservative federal bench.

  48. I don't get it. by Bull999999 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
    1. Re:I don't get it. by pclminion · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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?

      Because that was before the election, and now it's after?

      Besides, this isn't a matter of party. The fact is that Bush is a warmonger regardless of what party he happens to belong to, and he doesn't have enough troops.

      It's simple math. We aren't going to have enough troops to take on Iraq AND Iran AND North Korea. We know Bush plans to do this. We also know that people aren't exactly joining the Army in droves. I think the result is obvious.

      I'm just glad that my brother and I are out of the age group which will be drafted first. Hopefully the first kids to die will be all the ones who didn't vote in the election. And I'm going to have a hard time being sympathetic.

    2. Re:I don't get it. by peachpuff · · Score: 2
      "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 Bush winning make it more likely?"

      He pursues policies that require large numbers of troops. Politicians won't bring back the draft unless it's necessary, so forget about who likes it and look at who is making it necessary. It really is that simple.

      It's also a lot like the rest of his presidency. For example: he hates taxes, he cuts them every chance he gets, and he talks constantly about cutting them. But he also never vetoes anything, hides the cost of his plans until they pass Congress, and won't include his wars in the official budget.

      --
      -- . . ramblin' . . .
  49. The devious Gay Marriage measures by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  50. Wow. by Gannoc · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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!"

    1. Re:Wow. by Professor+Oompa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is too accurate. According to CNN, 22% of voters stated that "Moral Values" were their primary concern in the election. Of those, 79% voted for Bush.

      Since when was George W. Bush the poster child for Moral Values?
      Did I miss it when John Kerry said that he wanted cut expenses by using babies as speed bumps?

      I guess no abortion and no gay marriage is the ticket to being a morally sound individual.

      11 of 11 states that had "define mariage" proposals on the ballot passed them, most by a landslide. Maybe I'm naive, but I learned something new about this country last night.

  51. Apologies, Anyone? by kfergos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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/
  52. At least bush knows he won now by samjam · · Score: 2, Funny

    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

  53. The rest of the world must think we're idiots by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The rest of the world must think we're idiots by delete · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realise that people exist outside of America, right?

  54. How to Entertain Yourself until Thanksgiving by raehl · · Score: 5, Funny

    - 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.

    1. Re:How to Entertain Yourself until Thanksgiving by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      - Calculate your share of the National Deficit

      Yes. Thank you, Congress. Thank you, pork-barrel spending.

      - Take up assault weapon collecting as a hobby

      As you could have done under Clinton as well. (What, did you think that "assault weapon ban" actually banned all assault rifles?)

      - Figure out how to best invest your $300 annual Bush tax savings to cover the social security benefits you'll never get

      Vs. paying even more to the government and still not getting any social security benefits. (I'd like to be able to put some of mine away in private funds, thank you, call me crazy.)

      - Become rich, then get all your income from mostly untaxed dividends and capital gains income

      Yes, please, "become rich." We know that is an easy thing that just magically happens to people. They don't work hard, educate themselves, nor rely on their skills to make this happen. They are just "lucky," and deserve to be taxed even heavier than they are already!

      - Join the guard and train for a one year tour of duty in Iraq

      It sucks royally, but that is a risk of joining the guard. Do you think Kerry would have pulled us out of Iraq? At least Bush had the sense to start redistributing troops from cold-war nations. (Personally, I'd pull all troops out of nations not currently in war.)

      - Move so that the selective service can't find you

      Our voluntary military is growing faster than ever, and we are redeploying troops wasted in cold war nations, why would we need to draft?

      - Take some gay people and a girlfriend (work with me here) to Vegas. Taunt them by getting married and divorced inside of 12 hours.

      Agreed.

      - Make a sign saying "The Government should stay out of our lives!" and go protest in front of an abortion clinic.

      Make an alternate sign that says, "The government should stay out of our lives!" and go protest in front of a welfare office, social security distribution center, IRS office, etc.

      - Pick up bow and arrow making to capitalize on the new corporate tax incentives

      I'd prefer to rally for the abolishment of the IRS, all income taxes, and the institution of FairTax.

      - 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.

      Agreed.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    2. Re:How to Entertain Yourself until Thanksgiving by Luyseyal · · Score: 2, Insightful
      - Calculate your share of the National Deficit
      Yes. Thank you, Congress. Thank you, pork-barrel spending.

      Thank you GOP-run Congress, yes.

      - Figure out how to best invest your $300 annual Bush tax savings to cover the social security benefits you'll never get
      Vs. paying even more to the government and still not getting any social security benefits. (I'd like to be able to put some of mine away in private funds, thank you, call me crazy.)

      You're crazy if you think the GOP cares about this more than tongue-in-cheek. Look, the populace is getting OLD. Guess who runs the GOP? You guessed it: the elderly. Social Security is staying come hell or high water or the GOP will be out of office. Period.

      Having said that, the first step in fixing it, either way, is eliminating Congressional pensions and making Congress eat their own dogfood. Bush is too chicken shit to demand that.

      - Become rich, then get all your income from mostly untaxed dividends and capital gains income
      Yes, please, "become rich." We know that is an easy thing that just magically happens to people. They don't work hard, educate themselves, nor rely on their skills to make this happen. They are just "lucky," and deserve to be taxed even heavier than they are already!

      It is true that luck plays into it. Parental backgrounds, parental money, community and direct government support factor far more into "making it" than you suppose. Don't believe me? Remind me again how many west Africans are "making it"? (I'm borrowing from Bill Gates, Sr.'s book on why it's ethical to tax the rich more)

      Personally, I think the estate tax should be 100% to make the system more meritocratic and less aristocratic. Furthermore, I agree with your flat/fair and/or sales tax proposal. It's the only way for people to see how damn expensive these ridiculous oil wars are.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    3. Re:How to Entertain Yourself until Thanksgiving by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thank you GOP-run Congress, yes.

      The spending bills were not partisan.

      You're crazy if you think the GOP cares about this more than tongue-in-cheek. Look, the populace is getting OLD. Guess who runs the GOP? You guessed it: the elderly. Social Security is staying come hell or high water or the GOP will be out of office. Period.

      I didn't say it would be abolished. However, Bush *WILL* push through some things to let young people start to put their money into private accounts instead of SS.

      It is true that luck plays into it. Parental backgrounds, parental money, community and direct government support factor far more into "making it" than you suppose.

      Sorry. Luck goes both ways, good and bad. SOME people are lucky and get rich. SOME people have really bad luck and become poor. The rest of us can blame ourselves, or give ourselves credit, for our success and failures, for the most part.

      Democrats like to pretend it's all luck either way, so that we won't feel guilty about taking some of it away. Most rich people have earned their money, or had parents that earned their wealth (and thus earned the right to pass it on to their families).

      Remind me again how many west Africans are "making it"?

      I know very little about West Africans, same as you no doubt. However, I will assume it is very hard to make it in many African countries wracked with violence. I don't believe increasing taxes on the rich, and wasting their money in government bureacracy, really helps the worthy poorer among us.

      Personally, I think the estate tax should be 100% to make the system more meritocratic and less aristocratic.

      Socialistic, you mean. I work hard and study long to make money for myself and my future generations. Taking an inheritance away from my family that I have earned (and already been taxed on many times, no doubt) is a slap in the face of individual freedom, on which this country was founded.

      It's the only way for people to see how damn expensive these ridiculous oil wars are.

      I really don't follow this logic. Presumably you think the sales tax would be raised to pay for the war. In reality, my guess is we will continue deficit spending just as we do now. Sadly, those in Congress can't see the key is to cut spending across the board.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    4. Re:How to Entertain Yourself until Thanksgiving by Luyseyal · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The spending bills were not partisan.

      Yes, they were, as always. However, the nitty gritty gets done in committee, as usual, making the final vote seemingly nonpartisan because in the end everyone gets a non-objectionable-enough piece of the pork.

      I didn't say it would be abolished. However, Bush *WILL* push through some things to let young people start to put their money into private accounts instead of SS.

      As long as we all understand that this will not reduce the tax burden by one penny, but merely makes more profitable investments possible at higher risk.

      I know very little about West Africans, same as you no doubt. However, I will assume it is very hard to make it in many African countries wracked with violence. I don't believe increasing taxes on the rich, and wasting their money in government bureacracy, really helps the worthy poorer among us.

      Much, probably most of that bureaucracy is dedicated to helping the rich get richer, but on a level playing field and ensuring they supply certain minimums to the workers who helped them get rich. As history has shown time and time again, the aristocracy must be forced at gunpoint to invest in even the most basic needs of their employees.

      Socialistic, you mean. I work hard and study long to make money for myself and my future generations. Taking an inheritance away from my family that I have earned (and already been taxed on many times, no doubt) is a slap in the face of individual freedom, on which this country was founded.

      Your plan is age-old familial aristocracy which foments inefficiency, ignorance, abuse, and concentration of power among elites. Aristocracy is the opposite of equality and the enemy of everyone else's freedom. As you know, you have to spend money to make money, as the old adage goes. Well, to spend it, you've got to have it and not everyone has access to it, especially when concentrated in the hands of the few.

      So to grease the market for everyone, the rich pay taxes to educate and keep healthy their future workers which not only levels the playing field, it provides for a smarter, more efficient workforce and inspires future business opportunities. Simpleton Libertarianism assumes that government is a giant vacuum that makes money disappear, though in reality, government is simply another wing of the market, albeit with its own specialized requirements and guns to enforce the rules.

      In summary, social goals pursued through government are not by definition anti-business, inefficient, or shacklesome to liberty, but must be approached and experimented with on an individual basis to witness their effects. Eliminating inheritance is simply a means to the end of promoting business and common liberty at the expense of the "misfreedom" of funding aristocracy.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  55. Re:The horror... by djocyko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  56. Red Skins game prediction wrong by kaltkalt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  57. Issues that mattered by servognome · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  58. Wanted: real alternative to Republicans by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The Democratic party is over. Gonzo. Bye Bye.

    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.

    1. Re:Wanted: real alternative to Republicans by RocketScientist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree completely.

      My cousin is a democratic party fundraiser for a local congressional wannabe (he lost against a strong incumbent). I asked her why the Democrats couldn't put together a candidate that people wanted to vote for, and she said that since the party is so diverse, it couldn't come to a consensus of what a good candidate is, and the only thing they could agree on "Anybody but Bush".

      The democratic party needs to kick Michael Moore to the curb. That loud, obnoxious, lying, smelly, steaming pile of crap needs to go. Start your own political party, and get less than 1 percent of the vote so we can all safely ignore your sorry ass. Or, constructively, Michael Moore needs to write a solid, positive book/movie about what he'd do differently and how he'd like to see things made better. Something well-researched and well presented, he's a pretty creative and clever guy with good wit (when he wants to use it).

      The Democrats need to build a party that's pro-Labor, around a platform of antiglobalization (getting rid of NAFTA, GATT) and pro-socialized-medicine and pro-eduction. Quit attempting to appease the environmental and peace activists. The Democrats don't need to appease the environmental and peace activists because they are sure as fuck not going to vote for a Republican.

      Democrats should concentrate on the things that made the party work: Big Labor and progressive socialism. Run FOR a set of goals, instead of against a set of goals. Have a plan for progress instead of a litany of complaints, because all the Democrats had this election was a list of what's broke, and either none or poorly publicized ways on how those things would be better if a Democrat was in the White House.

      I'm not saying that this is a party I'd vote for, because it really is a party I'd vote against. But it's a party that a lot of people would vote for. And that's a lot better than simply having a party that's there to vote against the other guy, which is what has been run the last two elections. When the only positive thing the party has to say in an election is that "I'm not the other guy", it's just not enough to win.

  59. Re:disappointment by Bull999999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am disappointed that the younger crowd (18-25 age group), who bitched the loudest, ended up with the piss poor voting record as usual. I'm also disappointed that Kerry was foolish enough to court that group of voters while Bush was busy courting older voters which proven record of voting and won.

    So if any of you out there (of legal voting age) who bitched but didn't vote, please stop bitching, as some other foolish candidate in the future may end up running supporting your cause thinking that you may actually vote.

    --
    1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  60. OK with me by whitelabrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    I realize that ./'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.

    God Bless America!

  61. Maybe after 4 more years of Bush... by LilMikey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...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
  62. Re:And with Record Turnout! by the+endless · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Bush won more votes than any other President in our Nation's history.

    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.

  63. Dear Canada by gphinch · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dear Canada,
    How do I move to you?
    Sincerely,
    Greg

    --
    in bed.
  64. If you are a USian threating to move... by JavaLord · · Score: 2, Funny

    Please do, that would be like winning twice today.

  65. Re:Does concession really mean it is over? by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Interesting


    "Just wondering, if by some highly improbable miracle the provisional ballots give Ohio to Kerry does the concession really mean anything?"

    It doesn't mean anything officially. And there's the possibility of faithless electors, or of one or more electors (or candidates) not surviving to give their votes to the House. But barring some improbable thing like this, it's over.

    Don't get your hopes up for a Bush defeat.

    I predicted this, time and time again. Can't say I looked forward to it, but at least, for once in his life, G.W. Bush will be compelled to sit in the consequences of his actions. He can't get out of it. If someone else had taken over the White House now, he, not Bush, would have presided over an inevitable declining economy, escalating wars, and probable civil unrest.

    In the long run it's better that Bush stays in office.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  66. My generation by falcon5768 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    FUCKING SUCKS....

    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."

  67. Agreed, a real alternative badly needed by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Both parties to quote Gore Vidal have simply become two branches of the Property Party. Both parties are primarily interested in feeding the special interest groups that they rely on for funding (yes, this goes for Democrats too).

    The situation for Americans wanting a real choice is becoming more bleak with each election. We need new parties.

    1. Re:Agreed, a real alternative badly needed by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I say we make a third, moderate party, and draft McCain and Biden to head it. Eliminate the extremes on both sides. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative, the way _most_ people are.

      I just saw a CNN poll yesterday of nationwide voters, and a majority (~75% or so) are in favour of legal abortions of _some_ type (with the most restrictive being 'some legal' probably meaning in cases of rape or incest), and a majority of around 57 or 58% being in favour of either civil unions or marriage for gays.

  68. two words by Frequanaut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    electronic voting

  69. Predictions for '05-'08? by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    My thoughts, seriously, on the next 4 years:

    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.
  70. I, for one, welcome our new american overlords! by xenostar · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new american overlords!

  71. Here's a question... by pogle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Here's a question... by evilviper · · Score: 2, Informative

      Concession means nothing. Al Gore conceeded, then took it back minutes later.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  72. Liberal Flip-flopping? by CtAhBeAbNoAy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Liberal Flip-flopping? by Darby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      America is great because of its individuals and its morals.

      But my morals tell me that it is wrong to make up lies as a justification to invade a country and murder 10s of thousands of its citizens who have never done anything to me.

      My morals tell me that it is wrong to push my religion down other people's throats.

      My morals tell me that it is wrong, in a free society, to call people who disagree with me traitors.

      My morals tell me it is wrong to allow the energy industry to wirte our energy policy in closed meetings beyong the scrutiny of the public who said policy rightly belongs to.

      You are right that America is great because of its morals, but it is these morals that make it so.
      Forcing unwilling people at gunpoint to have babies is not a moral action, and certainly nothing to base a country on.

      So you see, in this election actual morals lost to forcing certain religious beliefs down peoples throats.
      That is why this country is so divided. It's the same attitude that caused freedom of religion to be put in the constitution in the first place.
      Oh well, it lasted 200 years which is much longer than they thought it would.

    2. Re:Liberal Flip-flopping? by utexaspunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      Clearly, it's Bush. I don't see how these two views (yesterday and today) contradict each other. No flip-flopping there.

      Bush divides the country by making campaign issues out of things that scare a lot of people but that he really has no control over and no intention of really doing enything about. For example, the gay marriage thing- a)The President plays no part in the process of constitutional amendments (see Article V), b)it has no chance of ever getting ratified by 3/4 of the States. He's merely using it to make political hay.

      Likewise, he appeals to the fool's sense of greed by making a big to-do of his tax cuts- throwing a measly few hundred to the poor while giving shitloads to the rich and running the government bankrupt with a costly war and corporate givaways. Little does the fool know that those few hundred he's getting (and the millions the rich are getting with it) are going to cost him the social programs that benefitted him and his fellow Americans and made this a great place to live. He has sold his birthright for a bowl of beans.

      Clearly America IS going to hell, because either the majority of its citizens are too stupid to see through this kind of crap and realize that he's playing the fiddle while Rome burns or else they've got the system so well rigged that we can hardly prove it.

  73. Re:The horror... by WA_Dutch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  74. This is the story when bad meets evil by rattler14 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:This is the story when bad meets evil by VTBassMatt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree that the plurality vote is bad, but IRV is flawed, too. Approval voting is the way to go. Read a good summary of the issues at ElectionMethods.org.

  75. Re:Congratulations! by Eohl · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Yeah, I'm pretty much saying that fearmongering, warmongering, and war profiteering are not exactly moral. I'm also saying that enforcing your RELIGIOUS morals onto people who may or may not share those tenets of faith is kind of uncool. I'm saying that this world is filled with shades of gray and compassionate, moral people recognize and embrace those with differences, allowing those people to live their lives in whatever way makes them happy as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

    If we legislate anything it should be based on science, not superstition, dogma, and a hatred for what's different.

    To me, that's moral.

  76. I hope Bush *does* alienate the entire world by gotan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:I hope Bush *does* alienate the entire world by jc42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One thing the rest of the world has to come to terms with is that roughly half the voters in the US have just expressed their approval of what George Bush has done. They approve of invading another country on false pretenses. They approve of killing civilians by the tens of thousands. They approve of putting religion into government (and probably don't approve of whatever religion you may follow). They approve of putting companies like Haliburton in charge of projects in your country through no-bid contracts and no voice for your citizens. They don't care whether your countrymen may have done anything at all against the US; they'll still approve attacking you just because of what you might be capable of doing sometime in the iindefinite future.

      I'll bet that there is a lot of discussion of such things going on in the rest of the world. It'll be interesting to see what the rest of the world can do to defend themselves.

      The one good sign is that I've already heard and read a number of comments from the rest of the world pointing out that roughly half the US voters were opposed to all of the above. It's fairly clear that most of the Kerry votes weren't really for Kerry; they were votes to get Bush and his policies out of power. Many people in the rest of the world understand this and that the US isn't a monolith supporting whatever Bush does.

      But still, the rest of the world has gotta be considering how to deal with a George Bush who now thinks he has a "mandate" for his policies. It's time to start looking for information about what people around the world are going to do about it.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    2. Re:I hope Bush *does* alienate the entire world by KjetilK · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Your comment brings up something that has bugged me a lot. Here in Norway, I have felt that our current government has pretty much acted as Bush's lapdog. Protests were so severe that Norway did not officially support the invasion, but once it was done, troops were sent in. It has also recently surfaced that Norwegian weapons were on loan to American troops during the invasion itself, clearly against the will of 80 % of the Norwegian population.

      The response is that Norway security is strongly dependent on America, and one doesn't just tell a friend no when they ask for help, why should they help you when you need it? Well, fair enough.

      But Bush is not my friend. My friends are all those Americans I meet daily on IRC and mailing lists. My friends are all those Americans who I can have a reasoned with, regardless of their political stance. Nowadays, the world is small, America is not some place far away, it is a place where I know real people. Also, I know that not only did at least 48% vote against Bush, there were also a lot of "none of the above" folks who didn't vote because their vote would not count anyway. My friendship therefore extends to the vast majority of the American population.

      Somehow, the Norwegian administration thinks it is wrong to tell a friend "buddy, in this case you're wrong". Everyone is wrong now and then, and everyone needs critical corrective, I consider that an important part of friendship.

      Besides, as it happens, I think that Bush has robbed my friends of their freedom. There is no larger failure of character than to let down a friend who is being robbed of freedom, and so, I feel that the robber, Bush, is not worthy of my support, not worthy of our support, as a nation. Therefore, I feel that the "we need to support America to get the security in return" argument is invalid, as long as Bush is robbing my friends of freedoms, he does not provide neither me nor my friends with security, on the contrary. My security, in fact, our security as humans, depends on that everyone supports each others freedom. Only when my friends are free, they can provide me with security.

      Sorry for the long and possibly incoherent rambling. The result of the election hit me like a hammer, and there hasn't been a lot of focus on the things I have to accomplish today. But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

      And oh...: Group Hug!

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
  77. The votes reported by the precints say Kerry loses by raehl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  78. Now what? by Zarn · · Score: 2, Informative
    Paul Waldman of Gadflyer has a good (I hesitate to call it uplifting) article called Where Do We Go From Here?. A telling quote of his:

    "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.

  79. Bitter to the last drop by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  80. Here's an idea by iceperson · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  81. Agreed, printing presses set to churn out Marks by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  82. Re:The horror... by delete · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  83. Re:The horror... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Insightful
    nearly half of the voters did not want

    Funny how that works, isn't it?

  84. despair by CGP314 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  85. LeftWing Propaganda Machine needed to match Right by Cryofan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  86. Insert standard disclaimer here by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's not as simple as that, hoser.

  87. Oh, shit by bcmm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh SHIT!

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  88. Election reform? by zakezuke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  89. congratulations by non · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  90. Oh Lunada! by Rob+Carr · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'm non american, so can I leave the planet now? The moon is looking mighty good right now.

    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....
  91. Immigration, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Immigration, eh? by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      And for those who aren't quite prepared to actually emigrate to Canada, another option has just been registered and is being set up as I type.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    2. Re:Immigration, eh? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 3, Funny
      "ALL HAIL CANADA""

      Correction:

      ALL HAIL CANADA

      The preceding was a joke, eh.

  92. At least popular matched the results this time by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  93. Dear America by kid-noodle · · Score: 4, Funny

    You fucking idiots. Love and kisses, The rest of the world

    --
    fortune -o
  94. Re:The horror... by sjwaste · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  95. reality check by yipper · · Score: 2, Funny

    Check out the California Governor's office sometime.

  96. Re:A day of worldwide mourning by GypC · · Score: 4, Funny

    The American voters have brought shame on their once-great country. You can kiss our collective ass.

  97. The President Who Defied Conventional Wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  98. Expect the entire world to now disengage.. by tobe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .. from the US.

    Honestly..

  99. Democratic, yes. by imurchie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > 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.

    1. Re:Democratic, yes. by Lordrashmi · · Score: 2

      My number one problem with political groups is when they think they are better then everyone else.

      Honestly, what makes you believe that you know so much more then everyone else?

  100. So was Walden O'Dell (diebold CEO) correct? by svallarian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So was Walden O'Dell, the diebold CEO, successful in his boast of carrying Ohio for bush?

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.ht m /conspiracy mode off

    Steven V>

    --
    I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
  101. Open Letter to Democratic Headquarters by Retrospecter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Open Letter to Democratic Headquarters by ksheff · · Score: 2, Informative

      Rich? It's hard to get richer than Bush.

      Not really. Cheney, Edwards, and Kerry are all richer than Bush. Much richer.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  102. Re:Give me a break! by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Isn't it pathetic?

    Here we have a supposedly above average crowd (intelligence-wise) of folks, and it suffers the same blind ideologies of those they claim to criticize. I'm astonished that people so out of touch with objective reality can even turn on and use a computer.

    The bigotry is rampant. Anyone who voted for Bush is a trailer park goon. Sorry. There's just not that many trailer parks. And for the record, I voted for Kerry. It's not an uncommon pattern, though. I often see very intelligent people fall prey to extreme ideologies or bigotry. Intelligence does not seem to be an innoculation against such things. In fact, it can be an amplifier because you have the "I'm smart so I cannot possibly be wrong on any topic in the universe" aspect going on.

    Some of the posters here really need to seek counseling. Their detachment from reality is way beyond the point where any professional would decalre it a mental illness.

    Some people here seem to think they are literally living in the equivalent of Nazi death camps. They're sick, and I can't even get mad at them anymore. They are pathetic little losers so desperate for attention or someone to give a shit about their meaningless lives they've slipped into a dementia where they become some sort of noble revolutionary fighting the Empire with a rag tag fleet of whatsis. Or something like that. There's a name for the syndrome, but it escapes me.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  103. Ultimate Power by mrnick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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...
  104. Oh Canada! by hellfire · · Score: 4, Funny

    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"

  105. A nation of idiots and morons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

  106. God vs Country? by Painaxl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  107. Emigrating to a secular nation...which one? by calstraycat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Emigrating to a secular nation...which one? by rreyelts · · Score: 2, Interesting
      a Christian theocracy

      I keep hearing this sentiment expressed on Slashdot, yet the last thing a Christian wants to do is force his religion on someone else. Our forefathers fled Britain because of religious persecution, and our constitution grants freedom of religion.

      In this day and age, students in public schools are forced to read from the Quran and pray Muslim prayers, but are not allowed to read from the Bible. It strikes me strange that people can use the term "Christian theocracy" with any sort of straight face.

    2. Re:Emigrating to a secular nation...which one? by Brad1138 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "yet the last thing a Christian wants to do is force his religion on someone else"

      I find that the more religious someone is the harder time they have seeing the way religion is overtaking our country.

      You don't see banning abortion/gay marriage etc. as a problem because it fits right into your beliefs.

      Never has the separation between Church and State been more blurred.

      Every major decision our current administration makes seems to be founded in religion. From Bush saying he believes he is doing the Lords work in Iraq(VERY, VERY SCARY) to banning gay marriage.

      If the last thing a Christian wants to do is force his religion on someone else, then who or what is in the White House?

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  108. TO: the USA FROM: the world Re: RE: election by RPoet · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.
  109. Wait... by TypeMRT · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wasn't done hacking the Diebold voting machine

  110. Re:Why did Kerry lose to Bush? by jafomatic · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm horrified to agree, but I really believe you're correct in this last statement. I think this is precisely the ONLY type of campaign that can ever hope to "win" (not end, win) any war on terrorism. Not just in fallujah, or any part of one specific country, but throughout the region.

    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
  111. The Future For Slashdotters by Laoping · · Score: 3, Funny

    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. "

  112. Best of the best? by z3r0w8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -----
  113. Not entirely by beh · · Score: 3, Insightful


    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"...

    1. Re:Not entirely by beh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh the ignorance...

      I'm sorry, but - everybody learns by looking at others, but you explicitly make a point of politics not doing so?

      It is an utter fool, who doesn't even bother about potential advice by an outsider - I know that I can't vote in the US, which is just as well, much the same way that you can't vote in Europe (now imagining the latter would really make me shudder - Europe getting overrun by religious zealots).

      Have you ever paused a second, how you can call yourself a land of the free, if you let your government draw you into thinking USA Patriot act is a great idea? "America - Land of the Free and Spied Upon" seems a more matching description to me...

      The idea, that airline passenger screening programs might prohibit some 2-3% of the population from flying just so that a potential 0.001% of people who might do something bad on a flight (like highjack it), also seems a bit over the top to me - and where's the freedom of those 2-3%?

      Besides - do you really think that Al-Qaeda would be stupid enough to select people to carry out missions that would immediately fall within those target groups? Or - that they wouldn't go for something else this time, simply because (a) that's where the "security forces" are bundling their resources and (b) what kind of really symbolical targets are left that planes can even get close to?

      Or what's the nonsense that passengers are now barred from taking nail files or nail clippers on board? Where's the danger in those, as compared to someone who would knock you down with a 10 pound Toblerone bar, or break a bottle of duty-free whisky and attack you with that... The latter two are regular carry-on luggage you can buy just before boarding a plane.

      Also, what do you think of Al Qaeda's status right now? The war in Iraq didn't hurt THEM - but my guess is that Bush publicly called the war against Iraq a CRUSADE (a term for a RELIGIOUS war), is more likely to have driven loads of willing people straight into Al Qaeda's hands...

  114. Crap by cyranoVR · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was looking forward to the recount-induced riots and looting...

    I had my eye on this awesome 17" flatscreen display down at Staples :(

  115. Misunderstanding by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  116. Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, F*** by dmccarty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)
  117. Battered wife syndrome by CatGrep · · Score: 2, Funny

    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!"

    1. Re:Battered wife syndrome by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In my journal, I write about There are four kinds of people who support Bush.

      I call the Battered Wife "#3 The Codependent - People who enjoy being lied too and live in a fantasy world put forth by the President, where America is still noble, secure and respected around the world. At night, he beats you black and blue, but you keep quiet.

  118. Re:The votes reported by the precints say Kerry lo by Symbiosis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  119. Talking Heads, not presidential candidates. by GuyFawkes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  120. Draft coming soon... by Tufriast · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Draft coming soon... by randomErr · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Ummmm no. Check some facts on this, like who put forth the latest reinstatement of the draft bills:
      S.89
      Title: A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
      Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC] (introduced 1/7/2003)
      Cosponsors (None)
      Related Bills: H.R.163
      Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to Senate committee.
      Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

      H.R.163
      Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
      Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003)
      Cosponsors (14)
      Related Bills: S.89
      Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions.
      Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
      Hey wait, the sponsors are Democrats, not Republicans! Who are the cosponsors?
      Rep Abercrombie, Neil [D-HI]
      Rep Brown, Corrine [D-FL]
      Rep Christensen, Donna M. [D-VI]
      Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [D-MO]
      Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI]
      Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD]
      Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [D-FL]
      Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [D-IL]
      Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D-TX]
      Rep Lewis, John [D-GA]
      Rep McDermott, Jim [D-WA]
      Rep Moran, James P. [D-VA]
      Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [D-CA]
      Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [D-NY]
      So, Democrats, not evil Republicans, were completely and totally instituting the draft. Why? Simple: To give MTV and other liberal group fodder to try to throw at the president, to accuse him of trying to get the draft back. The left leaning groups were purposely to DISENFRANCHISE youth voters with a falsehood. This is as low as some of the tactics of MS and SCO against Linux.
      --
      You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
  121. Hate by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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."

    1. Re:Hate by IoN_PuLse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So you blame the party for their supporters? A few days ago I went to GeorgeWBush.com. I saw a couple graphics and links to "get the real deal about John Kerry" and stuff like "Play the Flip Flopper Game". Then I went to JohnKerry.com. On the front page, there were no obvious links of "click here to read our attack on our opponent". Seems to me (and has for a LONG time) that the republication attack machine was in full force.

    2. Re:Hate by Politburo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Assuming your tale is accurate, I would like to inform you that you based your vote based upon the opinions of others. Next time, why don't you analyse the candidates and issues, instead of listening to what everyone else is saying.

  122. Re:LeftWing Propaganda Machine needed to match Rig by leadsling · · Score: 2, Interesting
    But to do all this we need a LEFTwing propaganda machine. But we have to pay for it.

    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.

  123. Democracy = majority rule by querist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  124. Milosz said it best... by degradas · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There is a poem by a Nobel Prize winner Czeslaw Milosz that seems to be very appropriate here:

    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.

  125. Advice by fizban · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Advice by CatsupBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is a horrible idea, and awefully scary as well. The only good thing about a two party system is both party's keep each other in check.

      When the republicans want to exercise too many tax breaks, the democrats step in and fix the budget. Vice versa when the democrats want to censor everything in the world, the republicans step in and modorate things a bit.

      What is really frustrating is that america wont embrase an non-patisan president, when in fact its the presidents job to approve the crap the house and senate come up with. That way when issues come up that are extremly partisan, the president would see it from an independant view.

      This is why its hard for me to vote on the president, especially here in ohio. My independant vote goes nowhere in this staunchly republican state (never mind the close race this year, republicans will always be loved in ohio).

    2. Re:Advice by glwtta · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Let the Republicans do whatever they want.

      Um yeah, they pretty much have been for the last four years, and sure as hell will for the next four. There's really not much more that the Democrats need to do to let them, they've rolled over a long time ago.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    3. Re:Advice by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful
      In fact, whenever they ask you to support them on an issue, go willingly, go gladly and give them everything they want.

      That's exactly what happened after Sept 11th 2001. For about 2 years, nobody said ANYTHING. Remember, you're not a patriot if you aren't parroting the president.

      If John Kerry had voted against the Iraq war, he would have had a leg to stand on... Instead, he went into damage control mode, and said he supported it, but would have done it differently.

      All I can say is, I have no idea why Howard Dean didn't get nominated. He would have actually been a candidate, instead of a spinless clone of the opponent as Kerry positioned himself to be.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  126. Re:Don't let the door hit you in the butt... by Malc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  127. He must have found out the fix was in by multipartmixed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's a well-documented fact the Diebold CEO promised to deliver Ohio to the President:

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08. ht m

    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()?
  128. Education... by c.herwig · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Education" is the word for what you think must be done. And I'll agree, there seems to be an awful lack of it.

  129. You might have a point by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Interesting
    My number one fear right now is that the democrats, greens, libertarians, etc just surrender now...

    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
  130. How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bush by slcdb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  131. Will Kerry be the good patriot? by joshgs · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.
  132. Defeat means it's time to regroup. by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is probably far enough down the thread that it'll never get read, but:

    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.
    1. Re:Defeat means it's time to regroup. by dpotter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Bravo. One of the most meaningful posts I've read on Slashdot in quite some time. Thank you for the refreshing voice of moderation, words of encouragement and hope.

      I'd like to offer another thought that has occurred to me. THE REAL LOSERS IN THIS ELECTION:

      1. McCain-Feingold. By the time the final numbers are in, this election is likely to have brought us 30% more campaign spending than any previous election. Mostly brought through 527 groups (in support of both major parties), with far less accountability or transparancy than ever before.

      2. Al Qaeda. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the great likelihood is that Al Qaeda would have preferred to inflict some type of election-disturbing attack on America, as they did in Spain and Australia. Yet the most they could accomplish was a video. Congratulations to our law enforcement and intelligence organizations for keeping the homeland safe.

  133. France called... by Dirtside · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...they want their statue back.

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  134. No, here's what the Democrats need to win... by JInterest · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  135. Please tell me i'm wrong! by cavac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  136. Re:The president should reflect people's values by gingerTabs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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...

  137. Re:The president should reflect people's values by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When you see the moral standards of your society being destroyed, what good man would not act


    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.

  138. Re:Invade! by jlanthripp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bring it on! The people of the United States have 222 million firearms - or just over 1.5 for every adult in the country. I personally own 8, and about 2000 rounds of ammunition in total. When I see a "peacekeeper" in the US, I don't plan to stop shooting till I'm dead or out of ammo. And there are 50 million or so more, just like me.

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  139. A dim outlook for the next 4 years by cOdEgUru · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  140. Well... by Perky_Goth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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!

  141. Sad as a french by Spaham · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

  142. Re:The president should reflect people's values by slartibart · · Score: 2, Insightful
    When you see the moral standards of your society being destroyed, what good man would not act, if the decline could be stopped, or at least slowed by simply showing up and voting NO? If he does not want homosexuality to become an accepted practice, surely it is the right thing to do.

    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.

  143. A great T-shirt by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 3, Funny
    I saw a great T-shirt last week with a picture of Bush, Cheney, Rumesfield, and Ashcroft on horseback. The caption read, "You don't change horsemen in mid-Apocalypse."

    Damn, I wish I had bought myself one.

    --
    This is not my sandwich.
  144. Flamebait, my ass! by Deagol · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Whoever originally modded this as flamebait is a moron.

    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.

    1. Re:Flamebait, my ass! by Epi-man · · Score: 2, Informative

      but I can fault 'Pubs for not knowing Bush was the wrong one. Why go with Bush again? Oh yeah, he hates fags.

      You obviously didn't have as good a Government teacher in school as I did. He covered this, it was called Garland's Law #3 (I think it was #3):

      The incumbant president shall receive his (her) party's nomination if he (she) asks for it.

      Think about this for 30 seconds. If they ask for it and the party selects someone else, then the party has to go to the American public and say something along the lines of, "yeah, ummm, thanks for electing our guy four years ago, but ummm, you messed up. This time we got it right, yeah, we really did, elect this guy." Think they would then win???

  145. Well of course they do! by Merk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  146. Can some one tell me why "liberal" is a bid word? by bcarl314 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  147. Re:The first Nazi post in the thread! Here here! by vyrus128 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > 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."

  148. Whiners by COMON$ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?
  149. Stop whining -- something about it! by bshroyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Stop whining -- something about it! by doppleganger871 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That was one of the very few well thought out comments to ever appear as a comment on this article. Well done. And, i'm a conservative, and a geek. It's a tough mix.

      I enjoy computers, I enjoy guns, I enjoy shooting computers with guns. Go figure.

    2. Re:Stop whining -- something about it! by justins · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Kerry was a very, very poor candidate.

      Nonsense. He came within spitting distance of defeating a sitting president during a time of war. As fashionable as it is to view our little footnote in history as being fantastically unique, that would have been a great accomplishment under any circumstances. And he almost did it.

      Show the American people that you're not run by left-wing nutjobs

      If nominating a pro-war candidate rather than an anti-war candidate wasn't enough to do that, nothing will. The democrats had some "left-wing nutjobs" take part in the primaries, and they rejected them soundly in favor of the centrists.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    3. Re:Stop whining -- something about it! by greg_barton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Democrats were given the "Perfect Storm" election

      And yet you still supported the candidate who presided over that perfect storm. Kerry can't help it if there are some people who wouldn't vote for a Democrat even if Bush allowed a nuclear strike on Washington. Just wait, we may yet get to test that...

      Besides, the election was just about even, in popular and electoral vote. You say Kerry was unelectable, yet 49% of the voting public disagree with you. YOu clearly show your bias and lack of logic.

  150. Re:So, what happens if... by BCW2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The speech is not binding in any way.

    The election will not be over for several weeks. Each state has to finish counting all absentee ballots and provisionals(if used in that state) and certify a total. That will end it for all the state races. The electors will then meet and elect the President, nothing different, happens the same way every four years.

    Every news source I can find says the total number of provisionals in Ohio is less than the current margin, if they are all valid, even if every one was for Kerry he would still loose.

    Let the people do their jobs and we shall see what happens.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  151. Moved abroad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Moved abroad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Sounds great. I wonder why Linus left.

      Personally, being in position similar to Linus (live in US, born in Finland), there are 2 parts to the answer:

      • In some ways, US is still the land of the opportunity; more high tech jobs, big succesful corporations.
      • Most adventure-minded individuals like the change, to move to and live in another country. It broadens one's horizons; and there need not be anything to so much drive you out of the country than to have something to lure you in another country.

      So, I don't think Linus necessarily fled Finland, it probably just was one more interesting thing to do. Seems to be working ok for him doesn't it?

      I bet, however, that he feels bit alien with "liberal" views... not only are finns in general pretty much left from democrats (moderate conservatives in Finland are similar to moderate democrats), but swedish-speaking part is even more progressive in social issues. It must be hard to understand creationists and anti-abortion folks.

      That is the biggest problem for me: I like people here (even in mid-West); they are open, polite, generally positive... but then there is this medieval theocracy creeping in... what with all gay-marriage zealotry and such. People getting really agitated by things that to me look like normal progress in society (equal rights for minorities; more social security support for poorest, etc. etc.).

  152. Accepted. by cuberat · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This is the kind of intelligent, informed discourse I love about American politics. I would have thought that the disastrous consequences of Michael Moore-esque tactics for the left this election would have put this kind of debate to rest for good, but I see it still has it's adherents.

    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!

    1. Re:Accepted. by petrus4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is truly an illustration of exactly the kind of human being (and I use that phrase exceptionally loosely, here) that Bush and the people who re-elected him were. Someone expresses their misery and desperation over

      1) Very likely having their child drafted to be killed or maimed in a foreign war
      2) The US most likely becoming more and more alienated from the rest of the planet
      3) The loss of life that will result in continuing terrorist acts in response to Bush's activities,

      and not only does this most quintessential of Bush advocates continue trumpeting the usual rhetoric, but has the gall to cuss the parent author out for expressing their pain. I am gasping...I honestly can't believe this. And I know it's only going to get worse.

  153. The most important what? by MasTRE · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  154. Re:Oh, fuck by jmulvey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, your disdain for the American electoral and political environment is part of the reason the election turned out as it did.

    Just because you think all of Bush's decisions were bad doesn't mean the rest of the country has to agree.

    Maybe your opinions are not the mainstream. Maybe -- just maybe -- your opinion that all of Bush's decisions were "bad" are wrong.

    I'm sick of this whole liberal attitude of how "dumb" the common person is. GWB is "dumb". People who want to control a part of their social security plan are too "dumb" to not get screwed. Government control of everything is the way to go. Tax the bejesus out of everyone because they just can't be trusted, certainly not as much as our fine politicians.

    Isn't a cornerstone of liberal idealism being "open-minded"? But if you don't happen to agree with an "open-minded" liberal, you're just dumb, and should be dismissed.

    Why not instead take a good hard look at this election, and accept the quite obvious fact that the Democrats are simply OUT OF TOUCH with the mainstream.

    Or, take the easy route and say everyone who doesn't think like you is just "dumb".

  155. A Concession Limerick by Z4rd0Z · · Score: 2, Funny

    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".
  156. Red State hatred by CaptPungent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Red State hatred by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Similarly, I live north of you, in McDonough county. Being a more rural area, there is more of a Republican leaning to this area. Thankfully, the university crowd brings in a liberal contingent from the cities (StL and Chicago, primarily) to counteract the the religious conservative natives.

      (You'd think with more farmers, there would be more Democrats thanks to farm subsidies and the like, but apparently being "right" with Jesus is more important than being right with the world.)

      And, considering myself a rather devout Christian, I still don't understand the thought process (or lack thereof) at work. I know many of my friends just don't take the time to understand the reasons for voting are more than just a stance on abortion.

      After all, Jesus himself gave a pretty clear model LAST time he was here. WWJD? NOT FUCKIN' START A WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST, that's for sure.

      --
      ± 29 dB
  157. How to get the young to vote next election by cOdEgUru · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  158. So what ? by rainer_d · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  159. Hug this by |/|/||| · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yeah, I was pretty sure that Kerry would win because of the high voter turnout. Guess not.
    Yes this election is still close but I doubt that a large portion of the population despises him
    I think you underestimate how many people hate GWB. He's fucking over our country pretty royally, and showcasing just how ignorant and gullible half of our population really is.

    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
    1. Re:Hug this by randyest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This opinionated, factless claim is not in any way informative.

      Sore loser.

      --
      everything in moderation
    2. Re:Hug this by aussersterne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      now I'm disgusted by our entire country

      Exactly. I watched the election with a circle of people who had faith in the American public going into yesterday and were shocked by the result... truly stunned and flabbergasted.

      And the conversation all night and well into today was quite simple, and its narrative thread over several hours and among people of various ages, genders, and backgrounds can be reduced to this: "How can we live here any more? It's now clear that we hate the majority and that they hate us. We're outnumbered by lunatics, warmongers, and crusaders. We hate America and we want to leave. And once we're away and living somewhere else, we're beginning to think we'll hope it falls or dissolves or is attacked by the rest of the world en masse."

      Maps were actually brought out and discussions of what other English-speaking countries would take them went on for hours. The people I was staying with honestly seemed to feel threatened in their personal and familial safety by what is they now see to be a clear ultra-conservative American majority.

      This is not in some political meeting or radical college club, mind you. It was in an average, suburban house in small-town California. There is a split in America, and it will destroy the nation before it is healed.

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    3. Re:Hug this by TheDauthi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good luck down here. If he appears to be a good Christian, Mississippians will vote for him. Hell, if he had horns and ate small children, he'd have Mississippi votes if he was against gay marriage and pretended to be a Christian.

    4. Re:Hug this by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if you are only now disgusted by our entire country then you have had your head in the sand for a really long time.

      americans in general are total assholes. you see it in the streets in not only how we drive by what we drive. You see it in the stores, in the lack of giving to the needy, the asshold gas station owners that change from the normal pricing model of set the resale price from their cost to adjust the price up if the cost per barrel on the market goes up squeezing every possible dime out of the consumer and knowing that they station across the street will do the same as that ass is as greedy.

      Greed runs rampant in the USA. It's a fuck-thy-neighbor attitude and all it does is make us americans look like the rudest bunch of clueless assholes on this planet.

      I know I'm going to get modded into the ground for this but it is the truth. Collectively we are exactly as I say we are. there are certianly some people that rise above it, but many do not.

      If anyone is suprised as to why america and americans are hated, they really need to experience reality.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Hug this by Adocso · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The one thing in this entire thread that bothers me is the over-arching sentiment by liberals that because I live in the midwest and did not agree with them, I must be an idiot.

      Stop being so self-righteous. We did not put on blinders and walk to the polls. We came to a different conclusion than you, for a variety of reasons. Mine have to do with being a veteran.

      So all the inuendo about religious reasons... Shove it. The Dems lost because they picked a loser. Bush tried to hand it to him - by keeping Ashcroft and again by flubbing the first debate. The fact is he was a lame horse from the start.

    6. Re:Hug this by lucifer_666 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Please come to Australia.

      We welcome you with open arms.

      Sure, we're a western country, and we did send a few of our best troops overseas, but you can live here without the constant propaganda on the news, no-one will have a go at you for expressing your beliefs, you can say what you like about America, your kids will get a great education, even without health insurance our doctors will see you for free, medicine costs about US$2, our roads are great, lots of things to see, great and varying culture, nice people who will help you out in a bind, no guns on the street, no need to fear when walking the streets at night, big cars, mate the chicks in Australia are second to none, we also have Australia Zoo (Steve Irwin) which may be of interest.

      Plus, you can say you're living on the worlds largest island.

      I really feel sorry for any American with similar politcal beliefs as I, only slightly, slightly left wing.

  160. The Democratic Party Lost by FJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The Democratic Party Lost by SoTuA · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The error was to have a candidate whose electoral platform was "I'm not Bush".

      The "anything but" platform seldom works out. That shit almost cost the current Chilean president the election in 2000. It cost the Chavez opposition in Venezuela the referendum on Chaves staying or going. And now it cost the democrats the white house.

  161. What I'm really surprised at by Omniscientist · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Bush won, ok, fair and square, but this election has caused me to think quite alot.

    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.

  162. How did it happen? Grandma provides clues... by karniv0re · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:How did it happen? Grandma provides clues... by pavera · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think this has alot more to do with Kerry not being able to get people excited than anything else. I'm a republican, and voted as such, however I seriously wanted someone else to vote for.

      I was ready a year ago to replace Bush, but the offering from the Democrats was so uninspiring to me that I couldn't do it. I don't want a guy who changes with the wind, votes for 30 years consistently saying one thing, and then the next day tries to pretend he never said that.

      If Kerry had come out and said "Yes I voted against all of those weapons systems because I think there are better ways to spend money (examples follow)", I would have respected that. As it is though he's just an empty cup that fills up with whatever rain water happens to be falling that day... and I can't get excited about that.

      It is something I like about Bush, politicians need to stop being afraid to piss people off, like the saying goes "If you're not on someone's shit list you're not doing anything important.."

      Kerry's constant pandering to whichever group of people he happened to be talking to at the moment was so fake and off-putting to me I couldn't bear the idea of him in office for 4 years.

      My wife who is a Democrat voted against Kerry, because like me she couldn't get excited about anything he said or did. We watched speeches from Bush, Edwards, and Kerry.. we would always be engaged and interested while Bush and Edwards were speaking, but as soon as Kerry would come on, we'd suddenly find that the lint between our toes was more interesting and find something else to do/watch/talk about.

      In short democrats, give us a decent, engaging, exciting and dynamic person who knows what he's talking about and can express it in a way that doesn't make me think I'm in history 101 and the professor is in a wheelchair explaining manifest destiny for the 18th time to the blonde morons in the front row.

    2. Re:How did it happen? Grandma provides clues... by CptChipJew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this has alot more to do with Kerry not being able to get people excited than anything else. I'm a republican, and voted as such, however I seriously wanted someone else to vote for.

      This is a fine example of what is wrong with the American public. You don't vote for a man that you feel doesn't deserve to president! If you really think Kerry is that bad, then vote for one of the third-party candidates.

      You voted for all of things Bush did that you didn't like, and all of the creative shit we all know he is going to come up with over the next four years. Afterall, imagine what he can think up without having another election to win.

      It is something I like about Bush, politicians need to stop being afraid to piss people off, like the saying goes "If you're not on someone's shit list you're not doing anything important.."

      When a politician pisses people off, said people don't vote for him.

      And obviously Bush isn't afraid to piss people off. When the president of the US cannot correctly say "Internet", I get quite pissed off.

      America, YOU FAIL IT.

      --
      Vonal Declosion
    3. Re:How did it happen? Grandma provides clues... by jafac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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".

      The simple, but inconceivable (to us) calculus is;
      No matter what facts you present to "them" - THEY will not be swayed by people who call them stupid redneck bigots.

      Let that be the lesson of November 2, 2004.

      Please.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  163. Dear World, by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  164. A Post-Election Day Poem by cyranoVR · · Score: 4, Funny

    The election is over
    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 /. skews left, I think we'll need to get a head start on memorizing it :(

  165. Re:Oh, shove a sock in it. by toddestan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  166. Mob/urban mentality is dangerous by Linuxathome · · Score: 2

    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.

  167. Axis of Evil by TamMan2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
  168. As a Canadian, here's my take by DG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  169. Re:Oh, shove a sock in it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04 /html/new_10_21_04.html

    "Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points. Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found."

    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.

  170. Fundemental misunderstanding. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  171. Unfortunately.... by drew · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?
  172. Re:Oh, shove a sock in it. by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.)


    It may be unnacceptable, but its true.
    If you want a more acceptable one (by your terms): Good guys finish last.

    When you lose this big, and this consistently, there is something wrong with your side.

    48% to 51%.

    Its because you people spew stuff like "when you loose this big" to a margin of 3% that people infer that you are not smart.

    Also, you're blindly following a guy who can't say "nuclear", who says things like "catastrophic cucess" and who says "mission accomplish" when things are just getting started.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  173. Insightful? Nothing so far. by kollivier · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Strangely, I thought those were the fault of the terrorists. Silly me.

    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

  174. In the words of Samantha B by UncleRage · · Score: 2, Funny

    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
  175. Re:Oh, shove a sock in it. by SanLouBlues · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At one time, the majority of American citizens were pro-slavery. That wasn't right. Bush isn't right. Different reasons, same effect.

    Personally, I just can't shut up because I didn't think a Bush victory was even remotely conceivable. I have fundamental problems with any chain of reasoning, either moral or ethical, that leads to supporting Bush as the correct result. The decisions of so many other people do not affect my decisions in the least. Otherwise we'd be voting because of peer pressure, the country would be full of sheep, and there would be no differences of opinion (or new opinions on new subjects).

  176. Goodwin's law and liberals by nsayer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  177. Re: BAD! Advice by skippywalker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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)
  178. You see, what's funny by fluxrad · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Is that you think that hate and fear-mongering are exclusive to the left. Interesting to say the least, being that tactics perpetrated by the right exhibit the same properties you claim to be so discusted by (read: voter intimidation in 2000, swift vets for truth, the assertion that the bible will be outlawed and gay marriage will run rampant...just to name a few.)

    Let me tell you why I strongly dislike George Bush.

    • Discouraging stem-cell research.
    • Invading Iraq and only paying lip service to the UN
    • Tax cuts primarily for the wealthy while running up the budget defecit by ridiculous amounts.
    • Passing No Child Left Behind and then not funding it (terrible act to begin with).
    • His neoconservative cabinet and sub-cabinet members (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Ashcroft)
    • Violations of the Geneva Convention under his watch (no one has yet resigned or been fired.)
    • He supported amending the constitution to outlaw gay marriage (But ran to the left as soon as he realized it wasn't going to get him votes).
    • The PATRIOT Act.


    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
  179. Re:In Spite of. by why-is-it · · Score: 2, Interesting
    So despite the best efforts of Michael Moore, CBS, the NY Times, China, Osama Bin Laden, and Slashdot to swing the election the Kerry, it didn't work.

    I think Bin Laden's plan did work. It is more likely to be in Bin Laden's best interests for Bush to be elected rather than John Kerry. He will find it much easier to recruit people for the cause with Dubya in charge.

    Of course, some will spin a Bush victory as Osama's worst nightmare come true, but if fighting terrorism was really the mission, Iraq would never have been invaded in the first place.

    If anything, it makes Al Queda's job easier if the US is isolated from and mistrusted by the rest of the world. It is difficult to imagine Bush making amends for the past and working with the same allies he has previously treated with contempt. The foreign policy of the past four years will continue, and depending on who replaces Colin Powell, it might get worse.

    A Bush victory is Michael Moore's worst nightmare, but I would wager that it is welcome news for Osama Bin Laden.

    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
  180. The neocons still need public support by egrinake · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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:

    • American leadership is good both for America and for the world
    • such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle
    • too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership

    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.

  181. who will be our allies by chrysanthalbee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  182. Well... by xeon4life · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  183. Re:sigh.... by dfenstrate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So he provides some evidence, and you respond with "but I didn't want *that* evidence!"

    I suppose I should have pointed out HOW MANY MILLIONS OF TIMES i've seen his 'evidence.'

    Suppose I grant you his 'evidence' is true, and widely accepted. Kerry still would have lost, because of the fundamental problems I'm talking about.

    'Evidence' for various sides has been batted back and forth ad naseum on this and countless other message boards, and i've been at bat many times.

    The only thing we can consistently see is that the democrats lose.

    But you want a reason that the democratic party failed. Here, I'll try one: the democratic party is less able to mislead people into believing that they share an agenda.

    Keep telling yourself that you just need to fool the people more, and fight dirtier. See how far it gets you.

    And if you believe that GWB and crew are actually republicans, and not self-proclaimed neoconservatives hijacking the republican party, then you have some more research to do

    Although I don't agree with everything Bush has done, I think he's the right president at the right time.

    As for the republican party, I'm hoping that the Democratic party will finish dying soon, so another party can rise up that's actually closer to my beliefs. Maybe constitutionalists, some folks along those lines. Until then, I'll pick whoever's closer to what I want.

    My point was that the Democrats continue to lose without bothering to question if there's anything fundamentally wrong with their beliefs and platform.

    I don't want to argue about any shortcomings of Bush or the republicans, as I'm familiar with them, and I can live with them until a credible alternative comes along.

    It should be obvious by now, however, that the shortcomings of the democrats are near fatal in comparison.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  184. Re:Oh, shove a sock in it. by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 2, Insightful


    When you lose this big, and this consistently, there is something wrong with your side.

    I'm a Democrat, and I totally agree with you. You're 100% right, and it was just demonstrated to us, again. So the question becomes: do the Democrats finally learn their lesson, and make changes? If so, what are those changes that they have to make to win? I don't know if the party will learn the lesson from this election: there was interesting talk radio about that today; but the posts that answered you weren't appropriately self-reflective.

    Naturally, I'm not a Democratic party decision maker, but it'll be interesting to see if they implement any of the things that I think that they should do to win: A) Get focused, and don't be afraid of being angry. I think the Dems need more Dean and less Kerry, even if some folks get their feelings hurt. B) Learn how to communicate the Democratic belief in values. We have a belief in family values; we don't define it the same way, is all. We need to be able to communicate what that value is. Democrats love their children too.

    I think that's where the Dems should start, at least. If it's done or not remains to be seen--but I think this loss will tear it, and some heads will roll. If those strategies will work or not I think remains to be seen also--but at least it'll be more competitive.

    --

    --
    $tar -xvf .sig.tar
  185. Like it makes a difference? by Mongo222 · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  186. Re:Why did Kerry lose to Bush? by prell · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    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

  187. Re:Lots of Vitriol by drfreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  188. Stop living in your shell... by Potatomasher · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...
  189. Eight years of Bush will mark the end of dominance by saha · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm writing this whether or not people agree with me on this matter. Eight years of political darkness will be a turning point in US history. An epoch of change where the US will loose influence globally and alienate our existing alliances in the world at large. Historically the US resembles the great powers of the past at the beginning of the end of their zenith. We can't claim to be the beacon of democracy and the advocate of freedom throughout the world. Our actions, especially in the past four years have been hypocritical and self righteous. The election yesterday will reverberate in the decades to come and weaken the US as a military, economic and social superpower.

    America 2004 = Britain 1900?

    American 2054 = Britain 1950?

  190. I for one ... by FnH · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, welcome the apocalypse.

  191. Bush's plan by AveryT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!!!

  192. Diebold CEO by coli2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "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."

  193. The vote is in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here lies wisdom.
    Rest In Peace.

  194. Count me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I for one do not salute our old fear-mongering, xenophobic, crusading overlord.

  195. You are wrong by nycsubway · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:You are wrong by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well that's a bold statement.

      If Bush hasn't personally caused the deaths of innocents in Iraq, then Hitler and the Nazis weren't responsable for the killing of innocents in WW2?

      Yea, alright. Show me where Bush said all the problems of the United States were caused by the Arabs. Show me where the Republican Party ran on a line of discriminating against Arabs. Hell Hitler said Germany lost WW1 because of the Jews, so show me where Bush said we lost Vietnam because of the Arabs or anyone.

      Actually, Hitler didn't even authorize the Final Solution, if you'll look at it, his leadership did in 1942, but you know, I doubnt Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh have meet to discuss the killing of people in Iraq.

  196. Re:Lots of Vitriol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  197. Civil unions also banned by Kaseijin · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  198. Yes and no... You tell me (seriously) by morzel · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm European, and (as most of us over here) simply can't wrap my head round this... why you guys let this happen...

    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]
  199. Re:Oh, shove a sock in it. by eclectechie · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    Americans are (justifiably) proud of their technological achievements. These don't just happen; some of the best, brightest, and most highly educated people in the world worked hard to bring them about.

    I would like to point out that most of this excellence took place in the blue (Democrat) areas on the map.

    I know there are

    • Intelligent, educated Republicans
    • Intelligent, educated rural people
    • Intelligent, educated southerners and midwesterners
    • Intelligent, educated Christians
    but the fact is, less- or under-educated people are more likely to vote Republican.

    And as for why the less educated "don't get it", there was an article on Slashdot a few months ago about how a minimum level of competence in a field is required before learning can take place (sorry, can't find the link). These people "don't know that they don't know."

    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?

    By definition, people of above average intelligence are outnumbered.

    If that was insightful, here's the flamebait: In the interests of re-election, the best Republican policy on education would be much talk about improvement, but no action.

    --
    "The empty vessel makes the greatest sound." -- William Shakespeare; Henry V, 4. 4
  200. The election only goes to show by arodland · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  201. That's pretty sad by paranode · · Score: 3, Insightful
    We deserve to get attacked again. We really do. We're such sheep.

    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.

    1. Re:That's pretty sad by Deagol · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

      Not because Kerry didn't win, but because Bush did. There's a big difference there.

      Hell, I'd take another Rupublican. ANYBODY but Bush.

      And there's nothing sick and petty acknowledging when you've messed up and deserve to reap what you sow. Putting Bush in for another 4 years seems like a pretty bad thing to do for the rest of the world, never mind us at home.

  202. Re:Eight years of Bush will mark the end of domina by Omniscientist · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I actually completely agree with you, and that is what I have been predicting also. Of course anything is up for grabs, but its pretty hard to ignore these facts:

    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.

  203. The feeling by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  204. It worked in the UK by Pentagram · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  205. Interesting. by Bun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  206. Would've? He probably did. by TCQuad · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  207. right is rude by poptones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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."

  208. Re:The president should reflect people's values by InfoVore · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  209. you ever consider the historical perspectives by ProfBooty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  210. You Are the Center of the Universe by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    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? ... 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.

    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.
  211. 11% of democ. voted for Bush by hendrix69 · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's an amazing fact, which I think says it all.

    --
    The power of Christ compiles you!
  212. Both sides are the same. by ZxCv · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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;
  213. don't even need the states for that by poptones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  214. We really need to do away with the commericials by Steeltalon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  215. WE WILL NOT FORGET by redog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:WE WILL NOT FORGET by kindbud · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      You forgot to stick your fingers in your ears and sing LA-LA-LA-LA-LA real loud.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
  216. expatriation by Shooter6947 · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, is it too early to emigrate to Mars for the next 4 years?

  217. Go ahead and blame me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    because I voted for CowboyNeal. ;)

  218. What is wrong with american politics ? by nbahi15 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  219. Divisions by SeanAhern · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  220. very nice rant... by zogger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...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.

  221. I got my sources too. by sideshow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  222. But, by firephreek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  223. ACT tests and the Presidential election by ardmhacha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  224. Re: Christians (grrr.) by Cernst77 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  225. Pretzels by graffix_jones · · Score: 2, Funny

    I (as a Kerry voter) also concede defeat to President Bush.

    I plan on sending George a congratulatory bag of pretzels.

  226. Cant we all just mend the fences? by scoobaspeaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    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. /end sarcasim

    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 ,but at least now since the United States and other countries liberated that country, you can now vote.

    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.

  227. Its the end of the world as we know it ...(NOT) by kommisar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  228. Christian promoted Bush, but still tax exempt! by ylikone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "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.
  229. WE ARE FUCKED by Frobozz0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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:

    1. Supreme court appointments. We get to look forward to some nice Roe v. Wade decisions when Rhenquist and others are replaced by ultra conservatives. No more 4-3 votes in favor of letting people make their own frickin' reproductive decisions!
    2. National Security. I don't think Bush knows what this means, as he has clearly demonstrated a complete lack of competance here. He waltzes our young men into a country who surely needs humanitarian aid and bombs the f**k out of them. Good job, Dubyah. I'm sure Cheney and Halliburton will be counting their money in hell. I'd also like to thank him for escalating a Jihad against America. Great foreign policy dip shit. Muslims are not evil. They're just not Christians. As an Atheist, I could care less... but I respect people's beliefs and think we should leave cultures alone unless we can positively in
    --
    "Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
  230. Re: Leaving America behind by guildfordnz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "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)
  231. Re:Listen up, NON-AMERICANS! BOYCOTT NOW! by SengirV · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope you don't get sick anytime soon, or you might have to wait 12+ months to see a doctor. Either that or come down to the best country in the world. America said they didn't want your disastrous health care system and they didn't want a friggen Trial Lawyer in the whitehouse(he would actually have his own place, but you knwo what I mean). It's the trial lawyers fault for the unbelievable rise in liability insurance.

    Just go cry in a the corner and let us deal with our own country.

    --

    Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

  232. ??? - Where to start by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 3, Insightful
    First off, I think that the re-election of Bush will turn out to be a catastrophe. In 4 years, we've managed to piss off almost the entire world. Furthermore, we've gone from reducing the national debt to running it up faster than I care to say. That does not mean I like Kerry. I think that one is a moron and the other has no position other than "I am not bush." They are both complete and utter fucking wankers of the highest order, and I am ashamed that a nation of more than 350 million people could not find anyone better to compete for the office. I do, however, dislike Bush more than I dislike Kerry. Now you know without a doubt where I stand.

    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:
    • Slowness responding to the Swift Boat Veterans ads. I mean, I see this ad from the Swift Boat Vets slamming Kerry, and then jack shit from Kerry for weeks.
    • I heard almost nothing from the Kerry campaign regarding Bush's complete disregard for the environment. This is one issue where I feel that Kerry could have had Bush by the balls: FFS, Bush didn't even acknowledge global warming for a time!
    • I heard almost nothing from the Kerry campaign about Bush's favoritism towards huge corporations. 5/6 Americans think that corporations have too much power in DC: Why didn't Kerry say *anything* about this?
    • Response to flip-flop accusations. I mean, Bush was going to beat that horse until it died; Kerry should have shot it. Possibly something about Bush flip-flopping on Iraq: We went because of WMD... to free the Iraqi people... Because Saddam is an asshole... To his credit, he stopped only just short of calling Bush an outright liar on Iraq ("Not entirely straight with the American people").

    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

  233. Re:Oh, shove a sock in it. by lavar78 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The very first thing the Democrats need to do is find a way to win at least one Southern state. Seriously, it's always going to be hard to win if you're conceding the entire South. If we can't find a charismatic Southerner in the next couple of years, it's going to be rough again. I've heard rumblings about the governor of my state (Mark Warner), but that's not encouraging when I sincerely doubt he (or any Democrat) could carry Virginia. I agree with you, though -- particularly about family values. I'm mystified how a belief in "morality" became synonymous with Bush.

    --
    "Dave, I stand still--the conclusions jump to me!" - Bill McNeal, NewsRadio
  234. Re:Why Bush is a Great Politician!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  235. Manhattan vote by qtothemax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  236. Re:Eight years of Bush will mark the end of domina by macromegas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  237. Re:Americans are the fattest 'cause we're the rich by LionKimbro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  238. Re:WE ARE WINNING by Col+Bat+Guano · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Irresponsible - Willing to kill for convenience

    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?

  239. For progressives thinking about moving to Canada by shadowspar · · Score: 2, Informative

    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]

  240. Cool down ppl! by Eminence · · Score: 2, Insightful
    When I read comments here on /., especially ones like "We are f**ked", it appears as if the US has been invaded by some aliens. I can hardly believe that. Come on guys, this is democracy and this is just a 4 year tenure (last btw for this guy you all hate so much). Here in Europe no one despairs that much after the election doesn't go the way they wanted. Maybe it's that aggressive campaign style - maybe you really believe all those TV ads and speeches about how bad the other candidate is? But Kerry fought with Edwards for the nomination and I'm sure he wasn't telling then all those kind words he told him last night (well, at least night in my time zone).

    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.

  241. Elitist crap by slashing1 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I despise much of Bush's policies, but seeing supposedly "progressive" elitist crap like this makes me sick. We talk about the horrors of voter disenfranchisement, but then trash voters whose IQ might be below 90? Surveys show that the Democratic party, on average, is significantly better educated than the Republican party-- I fear it might be simply the Democrats driving away the "inferior" people with their intellectual disdain.

    News flash. Constitution says: one person, one vote. Your vote isn't more important just 'cuz you were fortunate enough to attend college.

  242. What would Kerry Do? by Ceyan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  243. Re:Did you notice the geography by N3WBI3 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Hmm lets see sates 'with access to the world'

    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..

    --