Let's say florida goes to bush, and the west palm beach thing is ignored. What if ten of florida's 25 electoral voters think to themselves, "Well, that palm beach thing should matter. Besides, Gore won the national popular vote. I think he should be president."
Guess what - they can do this. The presidental election is decided on this vote, and not before. Whatever happens in florida, these elected electors can vote ANY WAY THEY WANT.
Well, now I have a clearer picture of the mind of a Bush supporter. His success is less of a mystery to me now, assuming there are millions more like you...
I'm not talking about the dictionary definition. The word in this context is used that way in any american history book. It wasn't coined by 'talking heads on tv'.
And besides, Bush's ability to get things through congress would hinge much more on the fact that it's a republican congress than on the election results, which makes the context much different than what were were talking about.
and whooptie doo, the talking heads were wrong about florida. what's your point? Do you think I'm trying to defend the television networks? This little talk we're having about an election mandate really doesn't have anything to do with the tv networks, so whatever.
A mandate is the term used when a candidate captures over half the vote. So, as in the Clinton-Bush-Perot election, you can get a minority vote and still win, but you have no 'mandate'.
It's pretty certain, now, that Gore will win the popular vote, but they'll both be short of a majority due mostly to nader.
People always knew you could lose the popular vote and still win, but it hasn't happened in the last century, so this is pretty cool.
heh... forgot Buchanan himself is running on another ticket. regardless, those holier-than-thou guys are behind Bush.
Jerry Falwell made a comment during the GOP convention to the effect that he hoped his crowd (christian right) would keep their mouths shut until Bush is elected.
This isn't just about abortion. It's about preserving the separation between church and state. For example, religous convictions notwithstanding, there is no reason to disallow gay marriages. This is not a country by and for christians. There are lots of others, too. (for what it's worth, I in fact have no problem with making partial-birth abortions illegal)
I'm a fiscal Republican but a social Democrat. I've yet to see a candidate that ever made me feel at all inspired.
How about if the Republican party ceased to be in the pocket of all sorts of religious organizations?
Yup. That pretty much says it all.
Dammit. I HATE Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and James Dobson and Ken Hamm and Pat Buchanan and Billy Graham and Bill McCartney and all the rest of them.
And all those guys and their vast herds of sheep are salivating at the chance for a victory at the polls tomorrow, and it looks like they are going to get it. That, more than anything, is the worst part of it to me. I don't know exactly why it gets me so much, but I have such a gut-level revulsion to those people that most of the other issues are insignificant to me compared to the importance of turning away their increasing grabs at political power.
Agreed - I definitely don't want to give the impression that suspending the kid was justified. I just didn't want to jump on the bandwagon of praising him as a great hero. Actually, if the vote for him was indeed the "elect the dork" kind, I have nothing but respect for the kid, based on what I've heard.
well, he's got an IQ of 160 and a PhD from Harvard in, I think, quantum physics.
Now, I have to admit that I'm a bit creeped by the transcendental stuff. But, I really like his platform, and agree with him on a wider range of issues that matter to me than any other candidate running. I wish he wasn't so into that trippy stuff, but if it works for him, ok. His beliefs are no more wacky than those of all the mainstream religions...
In my high school, you didn't "run", you were just elected. Some people really want it and go around asking for votes but that generally doesn't work too well.
What I am imagining here is the old incredibly mean ploy in which everybody gets together and votes the dork as homecoming king. Then, when he's elected, they all laugh at him - or worse, pull an embarassing prank while he is in the spotlight. It happens more than you think.
Now, if people voted for him because they really do like him, then I don't like his attitude. At my high school, the homecoming king was a really nice guy who also happened to be a straight-A student and a very intelligent, very likeable person - and he graciously accepted it. Freshmen at the school want to be him. He took AP Calculus and AP calc-based physics as a Junior and goes to a local college every day.
He's not a star athlete, and in truth he abhors the archtypal high school culture Katz often writes about. That he feels this way is well known throughout the school, and that's partly the reason they elected him. In fact, from watching previous homecoming kings at the same school (football captain, more the typical kind) and the general change in attitude, I would say that this person has literally changed the entire culture of the school for the better, and made them all really think about those stereotypes.
The guy who I really hope answers the slashdot questions is one Howard Phillips, though I'd bet money he won't. That would be some real comic relief. This guy is more of a bigot than Pat Buchannan - he left the republican party because they are - get this - supposedly too liberal in matters of religion and morality...
Yeah, he's a little new-agey, but John Hagelin is awesome. He's got my vote.
It is perhaps debatable what a president should be, since he can't be everything to all people. However, I like the fact that Hagelin is a scientist. If you guys look at his background, he's got more in common with this crowd than all the other candidates combined.
He's undeniably very intelligent, and is (imho) in this for the right reasons. Of course he doesn't realistically expect to win, but the natural law party is in it for the long haul. They are building from the lower levels on up - where I live, there are more natural law people running for office than any other third party. It is my hope that a number of those people will be elected, and their party will eventually be a force to be reckoned with.
Anyways, I realize that there is no way Bush wrote those answers (or evasions, in some cases), but I think they speak for themselves.
You, mr anonymous coward, stand for something I abhor. I am an agnostic. Is it your position that I don't have a place in this country? I know your type is big on military spending and "protecting our borders". Well, I happen to work at a prominent defense contractor, doing intelligence work. Do you consider me unfit to contribute to the country like this because of my lack of religious beliefs? Are folks that aren't "god fearin'" inherently lacking in moral character? Organized religion is dangerous in its drive to convert everybody else and control its members.
Well, I'm one of those "this election is about the supreme court" people.
But, I don't much care about the abortion issue, for pretty much the reasons you just gave. I'm fed up with the agressive grabs for political power on the part of the christian right, especially where things like school prayer are concerned.
It it were up to them, nobody would learn biology, every high school football game would begin with a prayer over the PA system, schools would have the ten commandments on the wall, etcetra
You know, Bush's father made a statement to the effect of "no I don't think athiests should be considered citizens - this is one nation under God". Granted, nothing came of it, but this is not the kind of person I want representing me. Dubya, this June, declared a "Jesus day" in Texas. To me, these religious types are overreaching their bounds, and legislators are catering to their whims. Without a court to keep them in check, things would get pretty outrageous.
You may not be concerned by this - fine, I can't blame you. But for some reason, it bothers me - and that's why it matters to me that the next president will nominate all those justices.
But my original question is still unanswered. If Atheism is the belief in no god then "a god of reason" or "a god that is reason" is still a "god" and seems to violate the principles of Atheism. Even if he was speaking metaphorically, i still find it an interesting and paradoxical statement.
I'm glad that you've dissociated yourself from the power-hungry christian right, and I wish more conservatives shared your point of view.
Free speech is most definitely a liberal concept. It is conservatives like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who would like to impose censorship in the name of "family values".
Now, the DMCA and stuff like that might be liberal, I don't know. I think of them as evil. However, I don't think Bush is any more likely than Gore to oppose things like that. He's just as firmly in the pocket of big business.
Regarding censorship of material on the internet in the name of 'decency', I don't know how you could possibly characterize that as liberal. You can repeat nonsense, but it's still nonsense.
A Gore supreme court will respect free speech, a Bush supreme court will go for "family values".
This is ironic, considering how I started this thread. I was just going for the cheap laugh there.
Of course, according to that winning patent, I now have to offer to proofread Slashdot for free. It hasn't been granted though (yet) so I'm safe for now.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a twist:
Let's say florida goes to bush, and the west palm beach thing is ignored. What if ten of florida's 25 electoral voters think to themselves, "Well, that palm beach thing should matter. Besides, Gore won the national popular vote. I think he should be president."
Guess what - they can do this. The presidental election is decided on this vote, and not before. Whatever happens in florida, these elected electors can vote ANY WAY THEY WANT.
-------
Gore could beat up Cheney and Bush together, by himself, though Cheyey might put up a fight.
But Bush's piddly arms and legs would snap like twigs - you know he was a cheerleader? Liberman's probably a pacifist, so he'd stay out of it.
Of course, Ventura would twist the four of them together into a pretzel...
I can just picture it now - wonder if celebrity death match has done (or will do) this fight?
-------
Well, now I have a clearer picture of the mind of a Bush supporter. His success is less of a mystery to me now, assuming there are millions more like you...
-------
I'm not talking about the dictionary definition. The word in this context is used that way in any american history book. It wasn't coined by 'talking heads on tv'.
And besides, Bush's ability to get things through congress would hinge much more on the fact that it's a republican congress than on the election results, which makes the context much different than what were were talking about.
and whooptie doo, the talking heads were wrong about florida. what's your point? Do you think I'm trying to defend the television networks? This little talk we're having about an election mandate really doesn't have anything to do with the tv networks, so whatever.
-------
huh?
A mandate is the term used when a candidate captures over half the vote. So, as in the Clinton-Bush-Perot election, you can get a minority vote and still win, but you have no 'mandate'.
It's pretty certain, now, that Gore will win the popular vote, but they'll both be short of a majority due mostly to nader.
People always knew you could lose the popular vote and still win, but it hasn't happened in the last century, so this is pretty cool.
-------
hardly has a mandate??!!!!
:-)
What it looks like is that he'll LOSE the popular vote but win the election!
Talk about not having a mandate! People wanted the OTHER GUY
This is awesome - I don't know how a bigger spotlight than this could be thrown on the electoral college.
-------
I cringe at the very idea of Bush being president BECAUSE he IS the "Christian" candidate.
Unfortunately, you are in the minority in your thinking. I wish more christians were like you.
-------
heh... forgot Buchanan himself is running on another ticket. regardless, those holier-than-thou guys are behind Bush.
Jerry Falwell made a comment during the GOP convention to the effect that he hoped his crowd (christian right) would keep their mouths shut until Bush is elected.
This isn't just about abortion. It's about preserving the separation between church and state. For example, religous convictions notwithstanding, there is no reason to disallow gay marriages. This is not a country by and for christians. There are lots of others, too. (for what it's worth, I in fact have no problem with making partial-birth abortions illegal)
-------
I'm a fiscal Republican but a social Democrat. I've yet to see a candidate that ever made me feel at all inspired.
How about if the Republican party ceased to be in the pocket of all sorts of religious organizations?
Yup. That pretty much says it all.
Dammit. I HATE Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and James Dobson and Ken Hamm and Pat Buchanan and Billy Graham and Bill McCartney and all the rest of them.
And all those guys and their vast herds of sheep are salivating at the chance for a victory at the polls tomorrow, and it looks like they are going to get it. That, more than anything, is the worst part of it to me. I don't know exactly why it gets me so much, but I have such a gut-level revulsion to those people that most of the other issues are insignificant to me compared to the importance of turning away their increasing grabs at political power.
-------
Agreed - I definitely don't want to give the impression that suspending the kid was justified. I just didn't want to jump on the bandwagon of praising him as a great hero. Actually, if the vote for him was indeed the "elect the dork" kind, I have nothing but respect for the kid, based on what I've heard.
-------
However, you may take solace in the fact that it's the judicial system which ultimately decides if something is a religion
And the next president will nominate HOW MANY JUSTICES to the SUPREME COURT?
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
-------
well, he's got an IQ of 160 and a PhD from Harvard in, I think, quantum physics.
Now, I have to admit that I'm a bit creeped by the transcendental stuff. But, I really like his platform, and agree with him on a wider range of issues that matter to me than any other candidate running. I wish he wasn't so into that trippy stuff, but if it works for him, ok. His beliefs are no more wacky than those of all the mainstream religions...
-------
heh :-)
maybe I should rephrase that - I read at +3, so I sometimes forget who the majority of slashdot is.
-------
In my high school, you didn't "run", you were just elected. Some people really want it and go around asking for votes but that generally doesn't work too well.
What I am imagining here is the old incredibly mean ploy in which everybody gets together and votes the dork as homecoming king. Then, when he's elected, they all laugh at him - or worse, pull an embarassing prank while he is in the spotlight. It happens more than you think.
Now, if people voted for him because they really do like him, then I don't like his attitude. At my high school, the homecoming king was a really nice guy who also happened to be a straight-A student and a very intelligent, very likeable person - and he graciously accepted it. Freshmen at the school want to be him. He took AP Calculus and AP calc-based physics as a Junior and goes to a local college every day.
He's not a star athlete, and in truth he abhors the archtypal high school culture Katz often writes about. That he feels this way is well known throughout the school, and that's partly the reason they elected him. In fact, from watching previous homecoming kings at the same school (football captain, more the typical kind) and the general change in attitude, I would say that this person has literally changed the entire culture of the school for the better, and made them all really think about those stereotypes.
That's how he made his 'statement'.
-------
The guy who I really hope answers the slashdot questions is one Howard Phillips, though I'd bet money he won't. That would be some real comic relief. This guy is more of a bigot than Pat Buchannan - he left the republican party because they are - get this - supposedly too liberal in matters of religion and morality...
-------
Holy Flurking Schnit...
Moderate that up.
-------
Yeah, he's a little new-agey, but John Hagelin is awesome. He's got my vote.
It is perhaps debatable what a president should be, since he can't be everything to all people. However, I like the fact that Hagelin is a scientist. If you guys look at his background, he's got more in common with this crowd than all the other candidates combined.
He's undeniably very intelligent, and is (imho) in this for the right reasons. Of course he doesn't realistically expect to win, but the natural law party is in it for the long haul. They are building from the lower levels on up - where I live, there are more natural law people running for office than any other third party. It is my hope that a number of those people will be elected, and their party will eventually be a force to be reckoned with.
Anyways, I realize that there is no way Bush wrote those answers (or evasions, in some cases), but I think they speak for themselves.
-------
I picked "Jeff", because I'm voting John Hagelin (natural law). Not that you probably care, but that's topic of this poll, so there ya go.
-------
wow, I encountered one right here on slashdot.
You, mr anonymous coward, stand for something I abhor. I am an agnostic. Is it your position that I don't have a place in this country? I know your type is big on military spending and "protecting our borders". Well, I happen to work at a prominent defense contractor, doing intelligence work. Do you consider me unfit to contribute to the country like this because of my lack of religious beliefs? Are folks that aren't "god fearin'" inherently lacking in moral character? Organized religion is dangerous in its drive to convert everybody else and control its members.
Get well soon.
-------
Well, I'm one of those "this election is about the supreme court" people.
But, I don't much care about the abortion issue, for pretty much the reasons you just gave. I'm fed up with the agressive grabs for political power on the part of the christian right, especially where things like school prayer are concerned.
It it were up to them, nobody would learn biology, every high school football game would begin with a prayer over the PA system, schools would have the ten commandments on the wall, etcetra
You know, Bush's father made a statement to the effect of "no I don't think athiests should be considered citizens - this is one nation under God". Granted, nothing came of it, but this is not the kind of person I want representing me. Dubya, this June, declared a "Jesus day" in Texas. To me, these religious types are overreaching their bounds, and legislators are catering to their whims. Without a court to keep them in check, things would get pretty outrageous.
You may not be concerned by this - fine, I can't blame you. But for some reason, it bothers me - and that's why it matters to me that the next president will nominate all those justices.
-------
yeah, M$'s thing was that they have it actively search for duplicate files and then delete one and make hard links, wasn't it?
-------
seems to me users that care about such things probably don't subscribe to aol
-------
But my original question is still unanswered. If Atheism is the belief in no god then "a god of reason" or "a god that is reason" is still a "god" and seems to violate the principles of Atheism. Even if he was speaking metaphorically, i still find it an interesting and paradoxical statement.
Think of it as an analogy like in the SAT:
Christian::God
Athiest::Reason
capiche?
-------
I'm glad that you've dissociated yourself from the power-hungry christian right, and I wish more conservatives shared your point of view.
Free speech is most definitely a liberal concept. It is conservatives like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who would like to impose censorship in the name of "family values".
Now, the DMCA and stuff like that might be liberal, I don't know. I think of them as evil. However, I don't think Bush is any more likely than Gore to oppose things like that. He's just as firmly in the pocket of big business.
Regarding censorship of material on the internet in the name of 'decency', I don't know how you could possibly characterize that as liberal. You can repeat nonsense, but it's still nonsense.
A Gore supreme court will respect free speech, a Bush supreme court will go for "family values".
-------
This is ironic, considering how I started this thread. I was just going for the cheap laugh there.
Of course, according to that winning patent, I now have to offer to proofread Slashdot for free. It hasn't been granted though (yet) so I'm safe for now.
-------