thirdly. the 4 gospels were in fact written down by their authors as the original manuscripts have been dated to the first century AD.
No, we have no original manuscripts of the gospels. The oldest copies we have are from a couple of centuries or so after the originals were supposedly written. I think textual analysis suggests that some of them, at least, were put down on paper a generation or so after Jesus' death - that is to say, might have been written by someone who actually knew him - but some may have been later than that. It's a while since I've read about this stuff, and my books are at home, so somebody more current can correct me if I'm wrong about the dates...
Re:Er, doesn't this claim require external evidenc
on
Atlantis Found. Again.
·
· Score: 1
You have made the most blind and rabid fundamentalists I know look like men of logic and reason, and the most ignorant rednecks I know look like Yale graduates.
Unfortunately... oh, I'm too depressed to even finish this joke!
Oh, come on. I'm not a Christian and I fully accept that parts of the Bible may have been borrowed from other sources, but quoting complete cranks like Velikovksy and Sitchin does not help your cause. And that thing about the "map" - well, pravda.ru publishes a lot of pseudoscientific rubbish. A bit of critical thinking might lead one to ask how the age of the rock proves when the carvings were made (I can go outside and pick up any old piece of rock, millions of year, and scratch my initials on it)? Or, if the map is 120 million years old, how do they know it resembles the Urals at that time, since on that timescale mountains will have risen and fallen, rivers shifted course, continents collided? That's assuming it really is a map, it just looks like a rock with cracks in it, to my non-geologist's eye.
Not true. Members of the military of the US fall under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ which is provided for in the US constitution.
So what? You can make all the laws you like in your country - they do not apply in my country. That the constitution provides for the UCMJ does not override this - that's about defining the rights and obligations of soldiers with respect to the US military and government, not any other country's. Go read up on status-of-forces agreements, as I already suggested.
If I am attacking your country, killing members of your armed forces, I am breaking about a million of your country's laws (murder etc...). Wartime law is not the same as civilian law.
Of course it isn't - but when was the last time your country was formally at war? 1945, that's when. So this is not now relevant. Anyway, the ICC covers crimes outside of war as well as those during war - crimes committed during peacekeeping, for example.
You are confusing the two. Extradition treatys do not necessarily apply to war crimes.
Um, didn't say they did, did I? All I was doing by mentioning extradition was pointing out that your waffle about the President breaking his oath of office by allowing a US citizen to be tried by a non-US court was just that - waffle. (You still haven't explained why the US has signed extradition treaties at all, if your waffle - er, viewpoint - is correct.)
One of the few correct decisions that President Bush made was to refuse our participation in the ICC. By doing so, he protects US citizens from prosecution by a US-hating political body. Bravo.
A US-hating political body? The ICC? It's a court of law, not a political body, and it hasn't even started hearing cases yet, how do you know it's US-hating?
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."
Lord, how I do love teaching Americans about their own constitution! Carefully read the section in bold. If the crime is not committed in the US ("not... within any State"), then the place of trial may be determined by a law made by Congress. Such as an extradition treaty ratified by the Senate. Or, heavens forfend, the ICC treaty, if it were ever ratified. So, sorry, it IS constitutional for US citizens to be tried in a non-US court.
Actually it does. It is magical enough that it created the single most powerful nation in the history of the world in less than 200 years. Its magical enough that it protects me from most of the evils of government. Its magical enough that it has changed the face of the world by providing a model for every other country in the world to follow.
I can't believe you would piss all over the hard work and ingenuity of your predecessors by ascribing America's success to a moth-eaten piece of paper. Did the constitution settle the west? Win the Second World War? Create the world's biggest economy? You could have the greatest consitution in the world, and it would mean nothing if your citizens and government didn't have the will or the power to enforce it; there are plenty of examples from history to prove that. The United States doesn't owe its success to its constitution, but to its people.
I wonder where your dislike for the constitution comes from? Could it be sour grapes?
Dislike? Who said I dislike it? I criticise your exaggerated belief in its powers and therefore I dislike it? Lucky I'm not American, or else you'd be calling me unpatriotic. As for sour grapes, not sure what that link was supposed to prove. Yes, there was an attempt to amend the constitution that Australia has had since Federation in 1901. So? The US constitution gets amended from time to time also. The most recent successful amendment was in 1971, the most recent failed amendment was in 1978. Can't see what your point is.
Guess what? You have no constitutional rights outside US borders, buddy. You have no right to bear arms in my country. You have no right to free speech in my country. You have no right against arbitrary arrest in my country. EXCEPT insofar as the laws of my country give them to you! So if US soldiers commit a war crime in a distant land, they have no constitutional protection at all, until they return to the US. That's why the US negotiates status-of-forces agreements with countries where their troops are stationed or deployed - this gives their soldiers additional legal safeguards that foreigners in that country would otherwise lack. Once back in the US, sure, the constitution applies. But then, under the ICC treaty, the US always has the option of prosecuting the alleged war criminals itself.
The president would have been in gross violation of his oath of office to have allowed US citizens to be prosecuted by a non-US court.
OK, please quote which section of the consitution, or the President's oath of office if you like, prohibits US citizens from being prosecuted by a non-US court. Again, sorry to disappoint you, but it happens all the time - it's a basic tenet of international law. Why else would the US have extradition treaties with other countries (for example, the US-UK Extradition Treaty, which "Obligates each State to extradite to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses")?
If you don't like the ICC, fine. But at least get your facts straight before you criticise it. And, while you're at it, stop treating the US constitution like some sort of magic piece of paper that has universal powers. It doesn't.
It would complicate things to have to vote for governor or referendums as well, but I'm sure it could be worked out. Either they could decouple the federal and state elections like we do, with seperate authorities for each, and hold them on different dates, or there could be a branch of the federal authority in each state, which would manage any purely local votes, using the same rules and procedures as the federal votes - it would just add extra ballot papers (or whatever system was used) to the process.
About a politically indepedent federal electoral authority... Yes, WTF? is right! Yes, the situation is that bad!:) Basically (the situation may vary from place to place, as control of voting is devolved to the states), state legislatures draw up the electoral boundaries, which means that whichever party is in power in each state gets to do that however they like. I think the most controversy has been in Texas, eg the 25th District. Similarly, the job of electoral comissioner (or whatever they call it) is either a political appointee or an elected official - either way, it has the potential to be a politicised position. Katherine Harris, Florida's Secretary of State during the 2000 elections, is the best known example of this, but it goes right down to the county level - the government of each county appoints its own election officials. Now, I'm sure the vast majority of such officials are conscientious and carry out their jobs without bias. But when you couple the possibility of bias with the gerrymandered districts and the dodgy voting systems (again, the choice of each state or even county), well, it boggles the mind why Americans put up with this. But you guys are welcome to explain why you do, or alternatively, point out where I'm wrong!
PS. There is something called the Federal Election Commission, but all it seems to do is monitor and enforce election campaign finance laws.
Hmmm, the Shuttle SRBs are one candidate (and an obvious point of comparison, too) - they are only 86 tonnes empty. Big step up to 300 tonnes. Perhaps you could make them lifting bodies or something? Not so much to have them fly/glide home, but at least slow the descent somewhat. Maybe retrorockets to soften the blow.
Good post! You are right, there are plenty of countries that have good, clean, accurate voting systems. Mine (Australia) is one - nationwide rules, a federal, politically independent electoral authority, paper ballots. You rock up to the polling station, give your name and address, they cross you off the list (maintained by the electoral commission; they also draw up electoral boundaries, so there's no gerrymandering), you vote. The lists are checked afterwards to make sure you have voted once and only once (voting is compulsory). I've been voting since 1990, and I can never remember any case were even a single result was ever seriously challenged (of course, I may just be ill-informed on that) due a flaw in the voting process. There is no issue with anonymity. The process is transparent and honest. It could be improved - there is potential for abuse, I think (eg I don't think you need to prove citizenship to enroll to vote; perhaps they check that themselves though?) but nobody seems to bother. It constantly amazes me that the USA manages to botch this up so badly, it's really not that hard! At least it's a live issue since 2000 - hopefully you guys can work something out.
Grrr, I wrote one longish reply, then scrapped it and wrote another, and then slashdot ate it:( Here's the abbreviated version.
On the two sides thing, OK, fair enough, but I still think this is -1, Redundant. The discussion was about why a liberal president (well, vice-president in this case) might sign a bill knowing that it would not be ratified. That conservatives would have different views is taken for granted.
On the national interest, basically, you put your finger on it when you said "If you had a solid foundation backing up the current global warming claims, I'd agree with you." I don't think we are a million miles apart then. I agree there are big uncertainties, it's just that I think that we are close enough for a consensus to act. But I can understand why others don't think so, and hopefully it won't make too much difference either way in the end.
I retract my implication that you have a narrow view of the national interest. Basically, I read into your OP that you were the sort of person who would look at the jobs lost and industries damaged and think that was the end of the matter, that under no circumstances could these risks be taken. I see now that this is not fair, sorry.
Rubbish. Do you think the president signs every single little treaty the US is party to? Of course not, he just signs the big stuff and delegates the rest. A quick googling found many examples - here's just one:
On behalf of the United States, HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson signed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) on Monday at the United Nations... The next step for the treaty in the United States is submission to the Senate, following completion of further interagency review of the treaty.
You really haven't examined this from more than one angle, have you?
Why the flame? The GP was not arguing one way or the other (although their inclination is probably clear), but rather was answering the question "why sign a treaty if it isn't going to be ratified?" Answer: one reason might be to turn the heat up on senators who oppose the treaty. Whether or not you oppose the treaty, it's still a perfectly valid answer to the question being asked.
Oh, and you need to retake your civics class: senators are not "governing official[s]", they're legislators. Btw, I hope that one day, your senators will take a broader view of the national interest than you do. Global warming does not respect national borders.
Er, what exactly am I wrong about? I didn't see anything in hesiod's reply to me that refuted anything I said (except to implictly remind me that not all Americans are unaware of the negative consequences of their country's arrogant foreign policy). Perhaps you also didn't have much time to read either my post or hesiod's very carefully.
I'm not talking about the UN, I'm talking about the US - they're the ones who just had an election, remember?
I have no objection to the US carrying a big stick and using it when required. But if you can't understand the damage your country's arrogant attitudes (AKA not speaking softly) has done and is doing to itself, then - well, you're obviously part of the 51% then, aren't you?
I don't understand why it would be so tough. In this case, all it would mean is that virtually everyone, including Kerry, incorrectly predicted the outcome of the Ohio ballot, based on the current counts. So what? Would such a premature concession somehow make Kerry unfit for the presidency? What exactly would need to be "explain[ed]"?
You are right that anti-American sentiment existed before Bush. But, while I can't speak to the situation in France, I think it's definitely worse here in Australia than it was before 2000. I didn't think at the time that Chirac's statement (I think it was his) was false; it was an emotional outburst, very heartfelt, and true in that sense, even if he knew it was not going to survive the cold light of day. It's hard to remember the solidarity we felt here with the US after September 11; it was an evil act, and we didn't for a moment doubt that Afghanistan should be invaded, the Taliban destroyed, and al Qaeda and bin Landen hunted down for the parts they all played. Since then, though, the US under Bush has pissed away its chance to... what? I don't know what they should have done after Afghanistan, exactly, but it sure as hell wasn't what they actually did do. America is despised more than ever, and damn it, can't you all see that's what caused September 11 to begin with?
Sorry... I know a few Americans and I have nothing against them personally. And overall, I think America has overwhelmingly been a force for good in world affairs. That's why this is so tragic. The world needs an America - just not this one.
That's ludicrous. What do you expect would happen if Kerry actually won Ohio based on the provisionals? Everyone would have a good chuckle over what a funny old world it is, ignore the will of the Ohio people, and let Bush stay in the White House despite it violating the constitution? Unless there is some legal significance to Kerry's concession, then of course he can concede and still accept later on. I can't see that he would be too embarrassed to retract his concession, given his past history of flip-flopping!
Erm, might have something to do with the fact that 1960 was 44 freakin' years ago, and the men who were running that year are as dead as the issues they campaigned on. Whereas 2000 was only 4 years ago, and the man who rather dubiously acquired power then is still the President, and now will be until 2009. With a little bit of imagination, you should be able to discern some small difference between the two situations, and work out why Democrats might feel a little more strongly about 2000 than Republicans do about 1960.
Got news for ya, chappie: the democratic politburo didn't WANT to win this election. They wanted nothing but four more years of misery because they knew any challenger had little chance of winning.
Oh, yes, that makes perfect sense. They didn't want to win because they didn't think they could win. Imagine the downcast faces in the Democratic campaign headquarters if Kerry had won somehow! Not that this was possible, of course. It's not as though Kerry would have won had a mere 80,000 voters in Ohio voted for him instead of Bush. Oh, wait...
I'm curious: do you think you are above or below average intelligence for an American voter?
I think the point is not so much that the Republican Party chose Bush again - you're right, there was never any chance of that not happening - but that Republican voters chose him again. They could have voted for the other guy, or an indepedent, or just stayed home, but no, they clearly believe Bush is the best choice.
War is bad, but the U.S. will walk tall AND carry a big stick. So when the U.N. makes a resolution with the threat of force, the U.S. WILL back it up with force if needed. Granted the U.S will give that country 10 YEARS to comply with those sanctions.
The actual phrasing (from Teddy Roosevelt) is that America should speak softly and carry a big stick. If Bush had been capable of doing this (as he promised - do the words "humble foreign policy" ring a bell?), there wouldn't be such a problem.
Well by that if you mean gay marrage should be between a man and a woman, then we can have a discussion.
I'm not sure what a gay marriage between a man and a woman would involve, but I don't think
it's going to help!:)
Slashdot Mirror
No, we have no original manuscripts of the gospels. The oldest copies we have are from a couple of centuries or so after the originals were supposedly written. I think textual analysis suggests that some of them, at least, were put down on paper a generation or so after Jesus' death - that is to say, might have been written by someone who actually knew him - but some may have been later than that. It's a while since I've read about this stuff, and my books are at home, so somebody more current can correct me if I'm wrong about the dates ...
Unfortunately ... oh, I'm too depressed to even finish this joke!
Oh, come on. I'm not a Christian and I fully accept that parts of the Bible may have been borrowed from other sources, but quoting complete cranks like Velikovksy and Sitchin does not help your cause. And that thing about the "map" - well, pravda.ru publishes a lot of pseudoscientific rubbish. A bit of critical thinking might lead one to ask how the age of the rock proves when the carvings were made (I can go outside and pick up any old piece of rock, millions of year, and scratch my initials on it)? Or, if the map is 120 million years old, how do they know it resembles the Urals at that time, since on that timescale mountains will have risen and fallen, rivers shifted course, continents collided? That's assuming it really is a map, it just looks like a rock with cracks in it, to my non-geologist's eye.
What, no modification of this statement, in light of my other reply? This being slashdot, I guess I should not have expected any better.
Handy tip: don't like my posts? Then don't read them! I know, I was amazed when I came across that idea too.
So what? You can make all the laws you like in your country - they do not apply in my country. That the constitution provides for the UCMJ does not override this - that's about defining the rights and obligations of soldiers with respect to the US military and government, not any other country's. Go read up on status-of-forces agreements, as I already suggested.
If I am attacking your country, killing members of your armed forces, I am breaking about a million of your country's laws (murder etc...). Wartime law is not the same as civilian law.
Of course it isn't - but when was the last time your country was formally at war? 1945, that's when. So this is not now relevant. Anyway, the ICC covers crimes outside of war as well as those during war - crimes committed during peacekeeping, for example.
You are confusing the two. Extradition treatys do not necessarily apply to war crimes.
Um, didn't say they did, did I? All I was doing by mentioning extradition was pointing out that your waffle about the President breaking his oath of office by allowing a US citizen to be tried by a non-US court was just that - waffle. (You still haven't explained why the US has signed extradition treaties at all, if your waffle - er, viewpoint - is correct.)
One of the few correct decisions that President Bush made was to refuse our participation in the ICC. By doing so, he protects US citizens from prosecution by a US-hating political body. Bravo.
A US-hating political body? The ICC? It's a court of law, not a political body, and it hasn't even started hearing cases yet, how do you know it's US-hating?
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."
Lord, how I do love teaching Americans about their own constitution! Carefully read the section in bold. If the crime is not committed in the US ("not ... within any State"), then the place of trial may be determined by a law made by Congress. Such as an extradition treaty ratified by the Senate. Or, heavens forfend, the ICC treaty, if it were ever ratified. So, sorry, it IS constitutional for US citizens to be tried in a non-US court.
Actually it does. It is magical enough that it created the single most powerful nation in the history of the world in less than 200 years. Its magical enough that it protects me from most of the evils of government. Its magical enough that it has changed the face of the world by providing a model for every other country in the world to follow.
I can't believe you would piss all over the hard work and ingenuity of your predecessors by ascribing America's success to a moth-eaten piece of paper. Did the constitution settle the west? Win the Second World War? Create the world's biggest economy? You could have the greatest consitution in the world, and it would mean nothing if your citizens and government didn't have the will or the power to enforce it; there are plenty of examples from history to prove that. The United States doesn't owe its success to its constitution, but to its people.
I wonder where your dislike for the constitution comes from? Could it be sour grapes?
Dislike? Who said I dislike it? I criticise your exaggerated belief in its powers and therefore I dislike it? Lucky I'm not American, or else you'd be calling me unpatriotic. As for sour grapes, not sure what that link was supposed to prove. Yes, there was an attempt to amend the constitution that Australia has had since Federation in 1901. So? The US constitution gets amended from time to time also. The most recent successful amendment was in 1971, the most recent failed amendment was in 1978. Can't see what your point is.
The president would have been in gross violation of his oath of office to have allowed US citizens to be prosecuted by a non-US court.
OK, please quote which section of the consitution, or the President's oath of office if you like, prohibits US citizens from being prosecuted by a non-US court. Again, sorry to disappoint you, but it happens all the time - it's a basic tenet of international law. Why else would the US have extradition treaties with other countries (for example, the US-UK Extradition Treaty, which "Obligates each State to extradite to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses")?
If you don't like the ICC, fine. But at least get your facts straight before you criticise it. And, while you're at it, stop treating the US constitution like some sort of magic piece of paper that has universal powers. It doesn't.
About a politically indepedent federal electoral authority ... Yes, WTF? is right! Yes, the situation is that bad! :) Basically (the situation may vary from place to place, as control of voting is devolved to the states), state legislatures draw up the electoral boundaries, which means that whichever party is in power in each state gets to do that however they like. I think the most controversy has been in Texas, eg the 25th District. Similarly, the job of electoral comissioner (or whatever they call it) is either a political appointee or an elected official - either way, it has the potential to be a politicised position. Katherine Harris, Florida's Secretary of State during the 2000 elections, is the best known example of this, but it goes right down to the county level - the government of each county appoints its own election officials. Now, I'm sure the vast majority of such officials are conscientious and carry out their jobs without bias. But when you couple the possibility of bias with the gerrymandered districts and the dodgy voting systems (again, the choice of each state or even county), well, it boggles the mind why Americans put up with this. But you guys are welcome to explain why you do, or alternatively, point out where I'm wrong!
PS. There is something called the Federal Election Commission, but all it seems to do is monitor and enforce election campaign finance laws.
Hmmm, the Shuttle SRBs are one candidate (and an obvious point of comparison, too) - they are only 86 tonnes empty. Big step up to 300 tonnes. Perhaps you could make them lifting bodies or something? Not so much to have them fly/glide home, but at least slow the descent somewhat. Maybe retrorockets to soften the blow.
Good post! You are right, there are plenty of countries that have good, clean, accurate voting systems. Mine (Australia) is one - nationwide rules, a federal, politically independent electoral authority, paper ballots. You rock up to the polling station, give your name and address, they cross you off the list (maintained by the electoral commission; they also draw up electoral boundaries, so there's no gerrymandering), you vote. The lists are checked afterwards to make sure you have voted once and only once (voting is compulsory). I've been voting since 1990, and I can never remember any case were even a single result was ever seriously challenged (of course, I may just be ill-informed on that) due a flaw in the voting process. There is no issue with anonymity. The process is transparent and honest. It could be improved - there is potential for abuse, I think (eg I don't think you need to prove citizenship to enroll to vote; perhaps they check that themselves though?) but nobody seems to bother. It constantly amazes me that the USA manages to botch this up so badly, it's really not that hard! At least it's a live issue since 2000 - hopefully you guys can work something out.
Halivar would obviously prefer to be called a Murkan. Or perhaps an Amerikan.
On the two sides thing, OK, fair enough, but I still think this is -1, Redundant. The discussion was about why a liberal president (well, vice-president in this case) might sign a bill knowing that it would not be ratified. That conservatives would have different views is taken for granted.
On the national interest, basically, you put your finger on it when you said "If you had a solid foundation backing up the current global warming claims, I'd agree with you." I don't think we are a million miles apart then. I agree there are big uncertainties, it's just that I think that we are close enough for a consensus to act. But I can understand why others don't think so, and hopefully it won't make too much difference either way in the end.
I retract my implication that you have a narrow view of the national interest. Basically, I read into your OP that you were the sort of person who would look at the jobs lost and industries damaged and think that was the end of the matter, that under no circumstances could these risks be taken. I see now that this is not fair, sorry.
Sorry for the harshness of my comment; the tone was completely unneccessary.
On behalf of the United States, HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson signed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) on Monday at the United Nations ... The next step for the treaty in the United States is submission to the Senate, following completion of further interagency review of the treaty.
Have a look at this list of treaties submitted to the Senate - I can't see many that Bush would bother turning up to to sign, do you?
Why the flame? The GP was not arguing one way or the other (although their inclination is probably clear), but rather was answering the question "why sign a treaty if it isn't going to be ratified?" Answer: one reason might be to turn the heat up on senators who oppose the treaty. Whether or not you oppose the treaty, it's still a perfectly valid answer to the question being asked.
Oh, and you need to retake your civics class: senators are not "governing official[s]", they're legislators. Btw, I hope that one day, your senators will take a broader view of the national interest than you do. Global warming does not respect national borders.
Er, what exactly am I wrong about? I didn't see anything in hesiod's reply to me that refuted anything I said (except to implictly remind me that not all Americans are unaware of the negative consequences of their country's arrogant foreign policy). Perhaps you also didn't have much time to read either my post or hesiod's very carefully.
I have no objection to the US carrying a big stick and using it when required. But if you can't understand the damage your country's arrogant attitudes (AKA not speaking softly) has done and is doing to itself, then - well, you're obviously part of the 51% then, aren't you?
I don't understand why it would be so tough. In this case, all it would mean is that virtually everyone, including Kerry, incorrectly predicted the outcome of the Ohio ballot, based on the current counts. So what? Would such a premature concession somehow make Kerry unfit for the presidency? What exactly would need to be "explain[ed]"?
Sorry ... I know a few Americans and I have nothing against them personally. And overall, I think America has overwhelmingly been a force for good in world affairs. That's why this is so tragic. The world needs an America - just not this one.
That's ludicrous. What do you expect would happen if Kerry actually won Ohio based on the provisionals? Everyone would have a good chuckle over what a funny old world it is, ignore the will of the Ohio people, and let Bush stay in the White House despite it violating the constitution? Unless there is some legal significance to Kerry's concession, then of course he can concede and still accept later on. I can't see that he would be too embarrassed to retract his concession, given his past history of flip-flopping!
Erm, might have something to do with the fact that 1960 was 44 freakin' years ago, and the men who were running that year are as dead as the issues they campaigned on. Whereas 2000 was only 4 years ago, and the man who rather dubiously acquired power then is still the President, and now will be until 2009. With a little bit of imagination, you should be able to discern some small difference between the two situations, and work out why Democrats might feel a little more strongly about 2000 than Republicans do about 1960.
Oh, yes, that makes perfect sense. They didn't want to win because they didn't think they could win. Imagine the downcast faces in the Democratic campaign headquarters if Kerry had won somehow! Not that this was possible, of course. It's not as though Kerry would have won had a mere 80,000 voters in Ohio voted for him instead of Bush. Oh, wait ...
I'm curious: do you think you are above or below average intelligence for an American voter?
I think the point is not so much that the Republican Party chose Bush again - you're right, there was never any chance of that not happening - but that Republican voters chose him again. They could have voted for the other guy, or an indepedent, or just stayed home, but no, they clearly believe Bush is the best choice.
That's right, the US government is still a joke.
(runs away)
The actual phrasing (from Teddy Roosevelt) is that America should speak softly and carry a big stick. If Bush had been capable of doing this (as he promised - do the words "humble foreign policy" ring a bell?), there wouldn't be such a problem.
Well by that if you mean gay marrage should be between a man and a woman, then we can have a discussion.
I'm not sure what a gay marriage between a man and a woman would involve, but I don't think it's going to help! :)