Since my previous blog entry was an entirely partisan guess about how things are going to turn out...and is already approaching a potentially unwieldy one hundred comments...I invite folks who actually want to discuss this election night to do so here.
Posted by Peter David at November 2, 2004 11:20 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingSadly, I think Bush will win. Kerry doing okay, but not specatularly and Bush looks set to take Florida by several hundred thousand. But it's too early to say more than that, I guess.
When even Fox News is dithering, you know it could go either way.
John
I think I'm gonna mostly avoid the coverage until I wake up tomorrow, and cross my fingers.
Well, I'm glued to the BBC web site, since they're projecting more aggressively.
But the game is still too close to call. 211 Bush vs. 188 Kerry, leaves 138 uncalled for. That's 14 states to go, of which two (Florida and Ohio) have 47 votes between 'em.
What am I predicting? That I'm staying up all night. That's what I'm predicting!
Crap.... there's an election???
(hehheh.... Just got home from work. And am Canadian. )
Given the disaster of the early exit polling it would be crazy to predict anything right now...Ohio may be this years Florida.
Some of the more depressed Democrats are now floating the idea that Karl Rove floated the exit polls to get Democrats to stay home and/or call off their lawyers, thinking they had victory cinched. He couldn't be that smart and they couldn't be that dumb.
The map looks almost exactly like the last elections...there will be lots of second guessing no matter who wins.
I predicted a kerry victory and I'll stick to it, though it looks like he may well lose the popular vote...there would be a certain irony in that. In all honesty it looks like Bush has a slight edge at this point but I still don't understand the suicidal ravings over at the hardcore democrat sites.
Hey, doesn't maine have another electoral vote? Who gets it?
I caught a little of the coverage, but right now it's non-news: The networks don't know who won, but they have to cover it from every angle they can. This means lots of speculation and little actual news. At least in the morning there'll be more of a result.
My bet: Lots of challenges and debates, eventually leading to the announcement that the person who initially won, will remain the winner.
Hey, doesn't maine have another electoral vote? Who gets it?
It's based on who wins the congressional districts, just like NE.
So, more than likely, in the end, that 4th Electoral vote will go to Kerry as well.
It's a shame to see all the same-sex marraige amendments passing. Also a shame to see our Amendment 36 fail here in Colorado.
It's down to Ohio. If Kerry doesn't win it, he's toast. If Bush loses it, he still has a chance, but we're back to a razor thin margin.
Yep, it's sure looking more and more like Ohio is gonna be this year's Florida.
Michigan's still up for grabs as well, although some exit polls have been giving Kerry a slight edge.
KET
I'm still following the BBC site.
If Bush gets Ohio and New Hampshire, we are indeed toast.
If all he gets is Ohio...NH seems to go for Kerry..and everything else follows the 2000 pattern...
Hello President Kerry!
My math gets damned optimistic after midnight.
Bush gets Ohio + Nevada + Alaska, he gets more than enough to win.
Pfui.
I think Kerry will get Nevada, but Bush will get NM and Alaska. Add that to Ohio, as Fox just called it for him, and Bush has won.
Bush elected president. That would be a first.
PAD
It looks like Bush is winning (guess we should count all the votes, huh?).
But I've notice several questions that are being asked about why Kerry lost. I mean on the surface there were several factors in his favor. Would like to hear from some Kerry supporters... what do you think?
Jim,
I'm what you'd call a Kerry supporter, having voted for him. So why do I think Kerry lost? Because I wasn't voting for Kerry so much as against Bush. I wasn't all that thrilled with Kerry, I just wanted someone other than Bush. If I were undecided, neither of them would've impressed me, and I would've gone with the devil I knew vs. the one that I didn't. Maybe that's why.
Well, as a Kerry supporter, I think one thing that hurt him was his inability to take a firm stance on a lot of the issues. During the debates, whenever Kerry was asked a question with any potential ramifications on religion (stem cell research, Roe v. Wade, etc.) he tried too hard not to alienate the more conservative voters. I'd have liked to see him accept that he's not going to get the vote of the religious right, and just go for it. I would have liked to think that the American people were more liberal than their leadership (although the same-sex marriage ban results would seem to prove me wrong) and were waiting to see whether Kerry could muster the courage of his convictions. I think there were those that wanted Kerry to give them an excuse to vote Democrat, but he was too concerned about being "too liberal" that he couldn't pull the trigger. He should have been accepting Bush's "most liberal senator" label and wearing it proudly!
Of course, there's always the likelihood that I don't know what I'm talking about.
To Saul:
I felt exactly the same way you did, until I watched Going Upriver, the Long War of John Kerry. Turned me from anti-Bush to pro-Kerry. I don't expect Kerry will be the Democratic nominee in 2008, and now I feel that we're really missing out by not getting to see what he could do.
Well, it is done. The people have spoken. As much as some of you fear Bush, I suspect in 4 years many of your fears will be proven wrong. (One fear that there would be an "October surprise" by Bush never happened. Instead, again like in 2000, there was an "October Surprise" to attack Bush.)
Jim in Iowa
"Bush elected president. That would be a first."
And quite possibly with more votes than any candidate in history. Go figure.
Ok, you can start your spin now Peter and other Kerry supporters. Tell us about how you've been wronged, etc., etc.
Or, you can just start fresh and give George a chance to try and win you over his next 4 years.
Optimistic or Pessimistic? What's it going to be?
Novafan
Sorry, Jim. It is by no means done.
Ain't no f***ing way Kerry will concede Ohio without a fight. Not with absentee ballots yet to be counted.
Fox News does not dictate reality. Not yet.
Not yet.
TWL
Scott,
It's interesting that you meationed the social issues (stem cell research, Roe v. Wade, etc). A couple of the reports I've listen to tonight have suggested that these issues swayed the vote more than Kerry might have thought.
Saul, you say, "I wasn't all that thrilled with Kerry". Let me push you just a little and ask what is you favorite trait of Kerry?
To quote C J Cregg:
"Oh Me-o, Oh My-o, Oh Cleveland, Ohio..."
TWL, Yeah I've been listening. When they started talking about the Ohio vote, I pulled out my spread sheet and Bush has maintained over 100,000 during these last counts. Did you hear the Ohio SOS? I liked what he said. One point which was no matter how long it took they would provide an correct count. When these elections are so close we should all be patient and let the process work. This is the best way to keep it out of court.
The best kerry can do is tie @ this moment (12:50 cst) in which case it goes to the house that has the republican majority. but i doubt it'll get to that since in New Mexico bush leads by 30,000 votes & in Iowa by 11,500.
**Ain't no f***ing way Kerry will concede Ohio without a fight. Not with absentee ballots yet to be counted.**
Tim,
i doubt Ohio has enough absentee ballots to make up 102,000 votes that kerry lost to bush.
Joe
Jim,
Honestly? My favorite trait of Kerry is that he's not Bush. What can I say? I watched the debates (or at least as much as my infant and toddler would allow) and just wasn't all that impressed. Nothing he said really blew me away and made me say "Now there's a guy I *want* to vote for."
I look at the country and how it's doing (in my eyes) and how I'm personally being affected. If I like what I'm seeing, I vote for the incumbent. If I don't, I vote for the challenger. Right now, I don't like the way the country's going, and I'm nervous about my future job prospects, so I want to change things.
Doesn't really matter, anyway, 'cause I'm in Colorado and we're not decided by so few votes that mine *really* matters, at least not since I've been here :( But I'll keep supporting the system!
Scott, I didn't see that show/movie/whatever it is. See above (re: infant and toddler); my time just doesn't allow for that much watching of stuff. I keep up on a couple of reality shows w/my wife and Smallville if I'm lucky.
Gotta go to bed now.
"But I've notice several questions that are being asked about why Kerry lost. I mean on the surface there were several factors in his favor. Would like to hear from some Kerry supporters... what do you think?"
Well, first and foremost, there's a lot of stupid people out there. Three quarters of Bush's supporters STILL think Saddam was in league with bin Laden and had WMDs. Stupid people's votes count.
Second, as is indicated by nearly a dozen states going out of their way to formalize bias insofar as gays are concerned (displaying the same frame of mind that once said, "Oh my God, blacks can't marry whites" or "Jews can't marry Catholics") there's a ton of people out there who share Bush's narrow-minded bigotry and intolerance, and thus embrace him. They believe, like Bush, that government shouldn't intrude into people's lives except, of course, if someone's sexual orientation or a woman's uterus is involved.
Third, Bush and Cheney have been working on keeping Americans in fear and at war for three years, betting on the historical track record that Americans don't like to switch leadership if they're afraid or at war.
Fourth, I said months ago that if Kerry didn't manage to present a credible alternative in terms of Iraq, people would simply stick with Bush.
Fifth, a rabid Bush supporter built the computerized, non-checkable voting machines. I suspect that we're going to be overwhelmed with stories in the next weeks of malfunctions and screw-ups at polling places.
Sixth, see the first.
PAD
"Well, it is done. The people have spoken. As much as some of you fear Bush, I suspect in 4 years many of your fears will be proven wrong."
Excellent. So you're saying he and Cheney will be impeached and out of office before then?
"(One fear that there would be an "October surprise" by Bush never happened. Instead, again like in 2000, there was an "October Surprise" to attack Bush.)"
You can't be serious. The tape from bin Laden was right in Bush's wheelhouse. It reminded people that bin Laden was out there and gave them another last minute, healthy jolt of fear, which is what the Bush campaign feeds off of, like vampires. The timing was impeccable and only helped Bush.
PAD
Oh, here in south dakota, John Thune leads 1 of the biggest pain in the ass to GWB, Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle by 7,000 votes. looks like the D's are going to have to nominate a new leader.
This will only be the 2nd time in US history the current party senate leader looses his seat.
Joe
"Ok, you can start your spin now Peter and other Kerry supporters. Tell us about how you've been wronged, etc., etc. Or, you can just start fresh and give George a chance to try and win you over his next 4 years. Optimistic or Pessimistic? What's it going to be?"
Spin what? Aside from the fact that nothing's over or decided, I've been predicting this for ages.
I assure you I will give Bush as much of a chance as the GOP gave Clinton.
PAD
as someone who voted for Kerry because i was sick of this administrations lack of finishing what they start, I can only say that if Bush squeezed out in this, that we continue to dog him and his Supporters as Iraq, Afghanistan, and the middle east will continue to spiral out of control. Im very, very dissapointed in my fellow citizens, especially after seeing how bigoted people are.
I mean, come on, how much longer than the Bush administration keep this B.S. up for? They were starting to run dry before the Election started, and Im waiting for the next thing that tarnishes our countries image.
"I mean, come on, how much longer than the Bush administration keep this B.S. up for? They were starting to run dry before the Election started, and Im waiting for the next thing that tarnishes our countries image."
No kidding. The only global saving grace we've had as a country thus far is that the current fiasco is courtesy of a president who lost the popular vote and was inserted through dubious means that has made a shambles of how we're seen globally. An actual, genuine election of him would be seen as an endorsement despite all the crap he's pulled, and that's going to make things go from bad to worse...something the Bushies cannot, will not grasp.
The way I see it, there's only one remote upside: If Bush is re-elected, things are just going to get SO much worse (bring on the scandals and investigations that dog second terms, kids)that even his most devoted, blind followers will finally wise up. Which means that what's left of the country in 2008 can put a true Democratic slate into the White House and Congress and reverse the continuing horror show that is Bush, something that wouldn't have been possible with a Kerry win but a Republic House and Senate in place.
PAD
"Bush elected president. That would be a first.
PAD"
Oh Jesus tap danceing Christ PAD don't say that he might use that logic to run for a third term!
Hmmm... should Bush win, do you think there will be a good chance that Hilary Clinton will run for the Dems' presidential nomination?
"The first day for the 2008 presidential campaign starts today."
Oh, and a quick question from a foreigner who is puzzled by the US election process: people are voting for the House of Representatives and the Senate? How is that panning out?
Widya Santoso
"The way I see it, there's only one remote upside: If Bush is re-elected, things are just going to get SO much worse (bring on the scandals and investigations that dog second terms, kids)that even his most devoted, blind followers will finally wise up."
Someone get Kenneth Starr of the phone!
I think what surprises me the most through this election is the belief that America is safer, or will be in safer hands with Bush at the helm. Leaving your own feelings on Iraq and Afghanistan aside for a moment, look at it from the perspective of the rest of the world. Having lost almost all our credibility throughout Europe and Asia, having lost many moderates of the MidEast to a more radical point of view, do you honestly feel that being this ethnocentric is healthy? That terrorism is combated by killing more terrorists? While I'm sure that members of Al Qaeda and other groups have now been killed, how many more have we pushed to the other side? Rather than trying to find the root cause of a problem, President Bush continues to try and cut off the head, and I just can't see how that is sound foreign policy. And you might argue that some Iraqi's are happy we're there, which im sure they are...but you're dead wrong if you think that there are just as many all over that region that are starting to agree with Osama....man, no wonder he made a tape now, Bush bolsters his ranks for every dumb decision he makes.
Hmmmmmm, liberals as the "new Confederates"? Never surrender, "the South (Hamptons) will rise again!". Sheesh, if I was so full of self-loathing to be an American I would move to Canada...
And oh yes, BA-WAHAHAHAHA!!! So, what's the theme for the next four years of "rebels without a clue?" "Bush is Satan!" Oh, crap, no, religious stuff. I know, "Bush is Stalin!" Oh wait, one of the people we liked, "Uncle Joe". Hmmmmm, "Bush is Osama!", yes! I think I found your new theme...
Thanks for providing a shining example of the mentality we can expect from the American leadership over the next four years.
I wanted to write something long and looming, but in the end, I think we can all agree (Republican and Democrat alike) that with George W. Bush unchecked in power, we, the people, are f*cked.
I don't know how the cards will fall; it still looks too close to call, and I don't think Kerry will duck the challenges like Gore did.
However, if the Monkey gets to stay in office, there is one thing to look forward to; the bloodletting in the Democratic Party. They might have done more with a stronger candidate like Howard Dean; he wouldn't have ducked anything. But the party regulars were upset that he did a hoarse victory whoop on television.
Those party regulars don't represent anyone I know. And now that the Democratic base is energized, said base can apply that energy to beating the crap out of the Democratic leadership that betrayed them.
As of right now (249 to 269 votes for Bush, depending on netowork), Kerry should just let it go. Don't concede, but don't get impatient. Have faith that democracy will come fully through. And if it is fated that he should lose (it's still not a clear thing), he then should concede with respect. There's no shame in patience; in the days before radio, no one knew who the President would be for days, even weeks. But thanks to the "me"dia, we want it tonight. Well, people will just have to accept that, even though it looks like Bush is going to win, we won't know that he did with certainty for at least a day or two.
Patience is the key, for Kerry, for Bush, for the rest of America. Impatience was the number one cause of the 2000 election fiasco.
Re: How's the Senate and House elections going.
The Republicans are projected to increase their Senate majority to 55 out of 100, and increase their existing House majority by about six seats (five of which seem to be coming from Texas. Not sure if this is accountable to that redistricting hoohah that had the Demos in the Texas Legislature fleeing the state). Scary bit? Supreme Court nominees only have to be confirmed by majority vote of the Senate. Which, barring the possible ability to filibuster such, means Bush would have close to carte blanche in his choice of nominees.
Btw, a bit more details on the Congressional election procedure. 1/3rd of the Senate is elected every two years (staggered six year terms). The entire House is up for election every two years, but because of increased sophistication in redrawing House districts, very few House seats are actually competative in any one election.
And, we won't know for sure who won until November 13th. Ohio law requires 11 days to count the absentee et al ballots. And Ohio's what decides the outcome.
Thanks Tom. It looks like the Repubs will have a majority in both houses.
BTW, not to question your description of the voting for Supreme Court judges, but I thought there had to be a majority of 60, not just a straight majority. I read this in regards to the current judge who is ill, and the possibility that in the case of a deadlocked election, the Supreme Court would have to decide the election. Because this judge (whose name I can't recall) holds the deciding vote, there is a good possibility that the Court would also be deadlocked. The President would try to push through his nominee but unless he has a majority of 60 he wouldn't be able to; and as sure as eggs the Dems wouldn't accept any nominee he puts forward. I of course defer to your explanation- you are more familiar than I am.
BTW, the joke going around Australia is that these elections are more important than the recent Federal elections we have had here last month. Why? Becuase it'll determine who runs Australia for the next four years.
(Ahh, I guess you have to live here to get it.)
Widya Santoso
What I don't understand....how can you say Bush is abopve the baord when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to show he isn't honest or looking out for the country's best intrest. how long can people just ignore it ?
How incredibly depressing, John Howard back as PM down here in Oz, Bush again up there in Texas, sorry, America, lets keep are fingers crossed for born-again conservative Tony Blair and maybe I can justifiably commit a guilt free suicide in despair at nations gripped by faer of things that are a lot less inevitable than all the miriad of dangers that have always surrounded our world, galaxy, universe, none of which is very clever of me to say, but hey when stagnation gives birth to regression at least comics will seem like a more adult, realistic alternative to the farce we call western civilisation, thus comics sales will boom and ye verily, the meek shall inherit thee eath.
Have I been smoking something, and if so where can I get some of what I'm smoking?
I always knew that bush would end up rotting my brain! :)))
"... should Bush win, do you think there will be a good chance that Hilary Clinton will run for the Dems' presidential nomination?"
Gods below.
Time to move to the U.S. and vote Republican, in that case.
PAD says: "The way I see it, there's only one remote upside: If Bush is re-elected, things are just going to get SO much worse (bring on the scandals and investigations that dog second terms, kids)that even his most devoted, blind followers will finally wise up. Which means that what's left of the country in 2008 can put a true Democratic slate into the White House and Congress and reverse the continuing horror show that is Bush, something that wouldn't have been possible with a Kerry win but a Republic House and Senate in place."
PAD
THAT'S your wish? that things get so bad that people will finally admit that you were right? How about wishing that things go well? Or is it more important to be right?
I realize that it's easier to be philosophical when one's candidate actually wins and I honestly sympathize with my friends who were devoted kerry supporters (and far more passionate about their guy than I would ever dream of being--you didn't see me talking about emigrating if the vote went poorly) but some of this talk is quickly descending into self indulgence.
BIG WINNERS- Bush, duh.
Al Franken--has a job.
Sinclair Broadcasting-Will now not get auditted
Hillary Clinton- Happier than she will ever be able to let on.
Republicans- hit the trifecta
BIG LOSERS- Kerry, duh
Pollsters- Zogby must want to drink hemlock
Exit Polls- that's 2 in a row they flunked. take this dog and shoot it.
Michael Moore- rapidly approaching the magical Jean Dixon level of prophecy (where he is wrong to a mathematical degree that may actually indicate some kind of psychic powers of prediction)
George Soros- So long and thanks for all the fish
Main Stream Media- dinosaurs watching an asteroid streak across the sky.
argh! As much as I hate to admit it, it looks like we are stuck with the current "President" for another four years. And I put that in " " because I don't think a lot of what he has done has been very presidential.
Should have added Obama to the winners list--this guy has star potential written all over him.
Biggest loser--Conventional wisdom.
Another big loser- campaign finance reform. Jesus, we could have built cities on Mars for what this all cost.
My initial comments on the matter are at my own blog ( www.xanga.com/averagejoe523 ). Feel free to stop by and comment. As for here, I am still in wait and see mode, but scared for my wife and children in the eventuality of Bush staying in office.
averagejoe wrote:
"As for here, I am still in wait and see mode, but scared for my wife and children in the eventuality of Bush staying in office."
Can you be any more melodramatic?
America made is just a little over 200 years. But 4 more years of Bush will show this country is just the the Taliban with Christians instead of Muslims....
Dennis:
>averagejoe wrote:
"As for here, I am still in wait and see mode, but scared for my wife and children in the eventuality of Bush staying in office."
>Can you be any more melodramatic?
How is a man expressing that he is scared for his family under President Bush melodramatic? I fear for the nation and the world. This is stronger than his statement and still doesn't reach the level of "melodramatic" to me. If someone stated that they thought Bush was waiting to press the button and wipe out our enemies.... well, that might be.
Fred
This is SO depressing. How can people be so bigoted and so stupidly close minded to not see what's happening to the country? Gay marriage bans everywhere, jobs being lost left and right, our economy closer and closer to a tailspin...
Stupidity, obviously, carries a great deal of weight in the world. Am I disenfranchised voter (my first time, too...)? You betcha. No faith in the system here, folks. None at all.
I ever see Bush, it'll depress me more... because I so desperately want to spit on him but know he isn't worth the effort.
Sigh. Just means more of "Daddy's War" for the next four years.
That's it. Next time, I'm voting for Superman. Or Captain America. Whomever can best wipe the floor with this rampant stupidity.
James Tichy: Fox News says Bush has Ohio.
Luigi Novi: Even though everyone else is saying that Ohio is too close to call, and has to be thoroughly examine?
Gee, I’m shocked!
Nope, no Republican bias at that network. J
Peter David: Bush elected president. That would be a first.
Ken: That is the best that you can come up with??? Pitiful!
Luigi Novi: What more do you need than the truth? The Supreme Court made a partisan decision four years ago, one made solely for personal and political reasons, that was not based on any legal principle or precedent, and disenfranchised many voters. If Bush is elected this year, it’ll be the first time for him.
jim in iowa: Well, it is done. The people have spoken. As much as some of you fear Bush, I suspect in 4 years many of your fears will be proven wrong.
Luigi Novi: How can they be proven wrong in 4 years when they’ve already come true for us now? The economy is still in the toilet, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, Iraq’s a mess, over 1,100 Americans have been killed in Iraq, not to mention thousands of others seriously injured, and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed.
jim in iowa: (One fear that there would be an "October surprise" by Bush never happened. Instead, again like in 2000, there was an "October Surprise" to attack Bush.)
Luigi Novi: If you’re referring to the notion that bin Laden had been captured, and would be trotted out before the election, that was a conspiracy-type idea that existed only on the fringe, and I doubt anyone in the mainstream seriously considered it. If you’re talking about the recently surfaced videotape of him, I’ll let Peter handle that one.
Novafan: Ok, you can start your spin now Peter and other Kerry supporters. Tell us about how you've been wronged, etc., etc. Or, you can just start fresh and give George a chance to try and win you over his next 4 years. Optimistic or Pessimistic? What's it going to be?
Luigi Novi: Oh please. Why is it that Republicans only take this approach when it’s their guy who’s supposedly won? How come we didn’t see this approach when Clinton won both his elections? Instead, we had an organized effort from the moment Clinton set foot in Washington to find anything embarrassing on him that could used to discredit him, regardless of whether it was legally salient. Spare me the hypocrisy. I prefer “realistic,” and realistically speaking, Bush is an awful President.
Peter David: The way I see it, there's only one remote upside: If Bush is re-elected, things are just going to get SO much worse (bring on the scandals and investigations that dog second terms, kids)that even his most devoted, blind followers will finally wise up. Which means that what's left of the country in 2008 can put a true Democratic slate into the White House and Congress and reverse the continuing horror show that is Bush, something that wouldn't have been possible with a Kerry win but a Republic House and Senate in place.
Bill Mulligan: THAT'S your wish? that things get so bad that people will finally admit that you were right? How about wishing that things go well? Or is it more important to be right?
Luigi Novi: He said it was a remote upside. Not a “wish.” Try reading what people actually say, Bill.
bushwins: Jewish fat poor man. All your efforts in order to Bush fail have turned just like your comics: sweepings. Why don't you retire a dedicate to the circus, idiot stupid white fat person? Bwa-ha-ha-haaaaaaa!!!!!
Luigi Novi: Oh look. Another extra from the set of Deliverance has stopped by to visit. Hey, Bushwins! Squeel like a piggie! And say hi to “Dee” for us! :-)
"As a mere observer of this tasteless phenomenon.."
.. I would probably get thumped equally by both sides for expressing any preference. There was however, a fairly interesting TV piece shown over here on Monday, with figures that indicate that the actual eventual choice of who gets to have his finger on the button will be made by less than half of one per cent of Americans eligible to vote, most of whom are woefully ignorant on a number of relevant facts and all of whom have been lied to and manipulated by both sides...
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/27110.html
Cheers!
I don't know what is more sad about this election; the legions of Bush apologists, the legions of ABB (anybody but Bush) Kerry supporters, or the fact that the sum total of independent candidates were not able to exceed 2% of the popular vote in any state (source - USA Today).
It seems to me, especially based on the voting patterns, that the Democratic party caters to entitlement mentality (I'm not going to vote for you unless you can give me something), which speaks very poorly for our national sense of accountability and responsibility.
It also seems painfully obvious fashion that the Republican party won't be happy until they've legislated the melting pot out of existence. Let's all be white, Christian, straight, church-going folk. If you don't fit into that paradigm, America has no place for you.
Despite your political leanings, the fact remains that either candidate planned $2.5 trillion in new spending that John Q. Taxpayer will have to fund. Can one of you Bush apologists (seems to be no shortage of them here) please explain to me how that's fiscally conservative?
I think the saddest thing (next to thinking about 4 more years of the same) is how many people are willing to vote for a guy because of "moral standings" or "he's a decent guy with a good heart."
As if these are that is required for a person to be qualified to run a world power.
The scary thing is that a majority of our voters seem to approve of invading another country, in the name of self defense, even if it ends out being that we really weren't in any imminent danger from that country. Oops our bad, sorry for the needless death and destruction, but your leader was a creep anyway, and you're so much better off with the lawlessness and war. I've read reports from troops over in Iraq finding mutliple mass graves with "thousands of bodies." While I question how an average Joe knows what thousands of bodies looks like, I'm willing to take that at face value. I still question whether Iraq is better off...tens of thousands killed by Saddam during bouts of "ethnic cleansing (murder)" or tens of thousands (up to 100,000) dead because of lawlessness and instability caused by our invasion. Either way, people are dead. I'm sure those innocent civilians who have died over the past 18 months feel so much better that they died in the name of America's Freedom.
Sad, scary times.
In regards to the Gay Marriage thing: You know, when I went to vote in my small southern town where a state constitutional amendment was on the ballotto ban gay marriage, I was actually TOLD how to vote on it (i.e., yes on the ammedment against gay marriage). The person said that "...for this they want everybody to vote yes...". Of course, I voted 'no'.
I'm not sure if this was just the person saing this (who I know is a strong christian fundamentalist), or if she was actually told to tell everyone to vote yes on the ammendment. I decided not to report this, since the person is also a friend of the family, and I didn't want to get her into any serious trouble; but it did seem very wrong to me.
Thank you, America, for voting for the gibbering idiot.
You're on the verge of guaranteeing us another 4 years of stupidity and insanity.
At this point, I'd almost think that we deserve whatever happens to us now.
"God curse America"
I decided not to report this, since the person is also a friend of the family, and I didn't want to get her into any serious trouble
And in the mean time, we continue to let poeple get away with voter intimidation.
I hope you're proud of yourself. :(
Actually, she wasn't intimidating anyone in the 'vote this way or die!' manner. She just told me (and I can only speak for myself) to vote this way on this ammendment; no instructions on how to vote on anything else.
I just think that most people, if she said the same thing to them (espically the elderly), would just do as she told them, trusting that this was the right thing to do.
things are just going to get SO much worse (bring on the scandals and investigations that dog second terms, kids)that even his most devoted, blind followers will finally wise up. Which means that what's left of the country in 2008 can put a true Democratic slate into the White House
Dreaming, PAD. Reapportionment has shown that country is only growing more conservative. The states Bush won in 2000 have 7 more electoral votes, while the Democratic states have 7 less this time around. And it's a trend that's continuing. The next president elected will be anti-gay, anti-choice, militaristic, and thoroughly pro-corporate. No matter how bad the screw-ups, our increasingly conservative population will not vote for someone who doesn't represent their "values".
It's not your (or my) country anymore. It's Dick Cheney and Jerry Falwell's.
On behalf of my fellow Ohioans, I'd like to apologize to the country and the world. Sorry we ****ed it up for the rest of you.
MJ
I'm not sure if this was just the person saing this (who I know is a strong christian fundamentalist), or if she was actually told to tell everyone to vote yes on the ammendment. I decided not to report this, since the person is also a friend of the family, and I didn't want to get her into any serious trouble; but it did seem very wrong to me.
If this person was an election worker at the polls, then "ideally" you should report them to the County. It's hard to turn in a friend, though, especially if you aren't sure if they were saying it to everyone or just sharing their opinion with you as a friend.
I'm glad that Bush won. Now, when the radical Shiite fundamentalist faction assassinates Allawi and takes over Iraq and in bloody coup, installing a repressive regime making the Taliban look like a brownie troop, we won't be subjected to three years of Congressional hearings about how Kerry "lost" Iraq.
Karl Rove will have to figure out a way to blame it on Clinton getting a blow job.
I just think that most people, if she said the same thing to them (espically the elderly), would just do as she told them, trusting that this was the right thing to do.
It is not a poll workers job to tell you what to vote for. Plain and simple.
If she gave her opinion, which she is not supposed to do, that's intimidation imo. Her job is to answer questions about how to fill out a ballot.
You can't be serious. The tape from bin Laden was right in Bush's wheelhouse. It reminded people that bin Laden was out there and gave them another last minute, healthy jolt of fear, which is what the Bush campaign feeds off of, like vampires. The timing was impeccable and only helped Bush.
PAD,
You are not suggesting that Bush had anything to do with the tape, are you? My point is that for the last 3 years, I have heard conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory of how Bush was going to pull an October surprise, such as suddenly capturing Bin Laden.
The CBS story with forged documents, and the "sudden" discovery, one week before the election, that some weapons (can't call them WMD's, but Kerry sure acted like Bush let someone have WMD's) are gone, are just two examples of the tricks pulled by the left in this election.
So yes, I am totally serious.
Jim in Iowa
I think Kerry lost for a number of reasons, among them:
1) The Bushies ran a superior campaign - they never got caught flatfooted like Kerry did with the Swifties nor did they fall into the trap of nuanced, complex talking points...instead they stuck with bite-sized sloganeering which, let's face it, works better.
2) Clinton's health waylayed him for such a long time, he was unable to effectively stump for Kerry.
3) The "youth vote" never materialized - sure, there was Vote or Die, Choose or Lose, Rock the Vote, etc. etc. but everyone forgets that teenagers are lazy shiftless punks who don't follow through. And their music sucks.
4) People are scared to death. The Vice President told us if we vote for Kerry then a surly Muslim extremist would stab us in the eye with a salad fork as soon as we left the voting booth. Dude, I'm not taking the chance...
5) Maybe it's true that the country is slowly drifting more to the Right as the Democratc party drifts more to the Left. Beats me.
"jim in iowa: (One fear that there would be an "October surprise" by Bush never happened. Instead, again like in 2000, there was an "October Surprise" to attack Bush.)
Luigi Novi: If you’re referring to the notion that bin Laden had been captured, and would be trotted out before the election, that was a conspiracy-type idea that existed only on the fringe,
Only if you assume that people like Theresa Heinz Kerry (and more than a few active posters here) are members of the lunatic fringe.
Bill Mulligan: THAT'S your wish? that things get so bad that people will finally admit that you were right? How about wishing that things go well? Or is it more important to be right?
Luigi Novi: He said it was a remote upside. Not a “wish.” Try reading what people actually say, Bill.
Ok, if I misread that I apologize...but what exactly is the "upside" part of 4 years of a "horrorshow"? Is that worth it for the eventual prize of a takeover by the democrats? If you are partisan enough, I guess the answer is yes.
Bushwins-- You are either an idiot or you are someone who is pretending to be an idiot. Either way, you are, in fact, an idiot.
>B>Well, first and foremost, there's a lot of stupid people out there. Three quarters of Bush's supporters STILL think Saddam was in league with bin Laden and had WMDs. Stupid people's votes count.
I have no idea what the polls show, but then again, yesterday showed how wrong polls can be.
As for me, I did NOT believe Saddam was "in league with Bin Laden" but that Saddam clearly was sympathetic in general to Al Quaida (sp?) and that there were clear ties between the two. Saddam was friendly to a large number of terrorists.
I currently admit that there were not the stockpiles of WMD's (since we can't count the weapons that were not WMD's that are now missing and that Kerry had a fit over, then dropped when there was personal testimony of a major who destroyed much of said weapons), but the dirty little secret the media likes to ignore is what the FULL text of the inspectors report said: Iraq was just biding its time and had clear intentions for making WMD's. They had the parts ready to put together as soon as we looked the other way.
Second, as is indicated by nearly a dozen states going out of their way to formalize bias insofar as gays are concerned (displaying the same frame of mind that once said, "Oh my God, blacks can't marry whites" or "Jews can't marry Catholics") there's a ton of people out there who share Bush's narrow-minded bigotry and intolerance, and thus embrace him. They believe, like Bush, that government shouldn't intrude into people's lives except, of course, if someone's sexual orientation or a woman's uterus is involved.
Opposing gay marriage is fundamentally NOT the same as saying a Jew cannot marry a Catholic. There is a reason why a ban on gay marriage won overwhelmingly in 10 (and possibly won in 11) states. There is a clear, physical difference between men and women. That difference is (apart from medical intervention), only a man and woman together can have a child. Having kids is not the sole purpose of marriage, but it is a fundamental one in principle. A mixed racial couple can have a child. A gay couple cannot.
Why is this such a big deal? Because it is clear that this is not just about a gay couple having legal rights of hospital visitation, inheritance, health care, etc. It is about the destruction of the concept of marriage. I don't expect you to agree, but when you listen to what the gay activists actually say, it is clear that they want to destroy the traditional definition. If so, what do they want to replace it with? Anything suggested is a pale imitation which will not last.
You go look at gay marriage where it is legal in Europe and relationships last an average of 1.5 years, and the majority are not monogamous relationships. Why does this matter? It will matter to the kids involved if a gay partnership is treated as equal to a traditional marriage, so that adoption of kids (or artifical births) become the norm. We thought things were bad now with children of divorced homes, it will only get worse.
Third, Bush and Cheney have been working on keeping Americans in fear and at war for three years, betting on the historical track record that Americans don't like to switch leadership if they're afraid or at war.
I understand why you see it that way. I would suggest Kerry's campaign was based on a false fear of Bush, while Bush's campaign was based on a valid fear of terrorism.
Fourth, I said months ago that if Kerry didn't manage to present a credible alternative in terms of Iraq, people would simply stick with Bush.
On this we agree.
Fifth, a rabid Bush supporter built the computerized, non-checkable voting machines. I suspect that we're going to be overwhelmed with stories in the next weeks of malfunctions and screw-ups at polling places.
If this is true, I hope it is discovered soon and dealt with. I have no desire for Bush to win based on such tactics.
That being said, the popular vote at this point is so large, that I doubt one voting machine could have made that much of a difference and it not to have been immediately evident. This is an easy allegation to make, but there is absolutely no proof. It is based on the assumption that this man who made the machines will cheat. But if this man was a rabid Kerry supporter, would you make the same assumption?
This is one prediction that I think will be proven wrong.
Sixth, see the first.
Gee, nice to know that you consider a loyal reader of many of your works stupid. Don't worry, I am too hooked on Madrox to dump it, so I will have to forget it.
Calling an overwhelming majority of Americans "stupid" doesn't really answer the question of why this happened. If they are so stupid, how were they all convinced by Bush rather than Kerry and his news services on most of the major media. How were they not convinced by Michael Moore? I love Bush, but I have already admitted that Kerry is a far better debater, etc. I was very frustrated that Bush did not make a better case on a lot of issues. But if it makes you feel better to think we are stupid, that is fine. It just means we have a good chance of winning again in another 4 years.
Jim in Iowa
jim in iowa: Well, it is done. The people have spoken. As much as some of you fear Bush, I suspect in 4 years many of your fears will be proven wrong.
Luigi Novi: How can they be proven wrong in 4 years when they’ve already come true for us now? The economy is still in the toilet, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, Iraq’s a mess, over 1,100 Americans have been killed in Iraq, not to mention thousands of others seriously injured, and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed.
The economy is in the toilet? This lie is ridiculous. I guarantee you that if Kerry were to become president, we would suddenly discover that we are doing well. Unemployment is lower than it has been in decades. Many other indicators are all going up. Even the supposed net loss of jobs may be virtually wiped out in the next month. There has been a fundamental change in employment, with far more working at home and in other ways that are traditionally undercounted. Our economy is not as strong as we may want, but it is by no means in the toilet.
Listing the "sins" of the last 4 years misses my point completely and don't even need to be dealt with here. I am talking about the (in some cases wild) predictions of the horrible things Bush will do in the next 4 years. I suggest that for the most part that will not be even close to the case. If nothing else, Bush would now be a lame duck president. As Clinton and Reagan showed, it can be harder to push your agenda through in your second term. With the additions Republicans have gained in both houses, that may change, but only time will tell.
Jim in Iowa
"The CBS story with forged documents, and the "sudden" discovery, one week before the election, that some weapons (can't call them WMD's, but Kerry sure acted like Bush let someone have WMD's)"
He did let someone have WMDs. They're called North Korea. He not only dropped the ball, he kicked it 30 yards the wrong way down the field. With Iran, I think that he's simple dropped the ball on field, it that makes you feel any better.
Kerry just called Bush to concede. That's that, now he won popular and electoral with record turn out. Can we stop with the "stole election", "not my President", this clearly was will of the people.
Clearly the will of the people, indeed - and that's pretty sad. See, I'm not surprised about it being the will of the people because the people are Americans and they love their evil. If memory and history serves me correctly slavery, woman descrimination, jim crow, lynching and genocide was also the will of the people. I don't mind having a dumb guy in as president, but the Republican's are just evil as what all. They believe in racism, sexism, and any ism that makes white people feel safe and comfortable. That why New York put that Ghoul Gulliani in office twice. Had nothing to do with track record (because the man was as bad a Mayor as Bush is a president) but as long as they keep the darks in line, bomb people for not reason - white people feel safe therefore are happy to keep them in office.
So it's indeed the will of the people. Just not the people who are humane and dont' mind acting like it.
Air America just reported that Kerry has conceded. I hope you Bush supporters are happy. We now have a man who started an unnecessary war, is ruining our environment, wants to gut social security, and cares only for his base (the haves and have mores) Congratulations. Your blind worship has put in office the worst president we've ever had.
Umar,
Not all white people. Just the ones with the money to control this country.
Calling an overwhelming majority of Americans "stupid" doesn't really answer the question of why this happened. If they are so stupid, how were they all convinced by Bush rather than Kerry and his news services on most of the major media.
No, I think it DOES answer the question pretty convincingly. The American public IS, by and large, stupid. For just one indication, look at the television they watch. Slack-witted people are easily swayed by fear-mongering and manipulation, which is what Bush/Cheney excels at. They were spoon-fed lies (Iraq was behiond 9-11! They are minutes away from a noo-kyuler bomb!) and they ate it up because they WANTED to believe it (why start questioning cherished assumptions now? It's much easier to believe what daddy, I mean, the President, I mean Bill O'Reilly tells me!)
How were they not convinced by Michael Moore?
Slack-wittedness, see above.
I love Bush, but I have already admitted that Kerry is a far better debater, etc. I was very frustrated that Bush did not make a better case on a lot of issues. But if it makes you feel better to think we are stupid, that is fine. It just means we have a good chance of winning again in another 4 years.
Your gullibility doesn't make me feel better, it makes me feel sad. George Bush and his cronies are are pillaging this county at the behest of their corporate masters, and no one cares. It makes me sad that women voted for Bush when he's actively working to curtail their civil rights. It baffles that any African-American would vote for a party that actively works to disenfrachise them. It further depressed me that young men are lining up to vote for a man who -- in a matter of months -- will likely have to draft them and send the to die in Iraq so Halliburton can continue to soak up fat government contracts.
So no, your ignorance, and the ignorance of those who "love Bush" doesn't make me feel better, because I have to live in this little retrograde fantasyland you're creating for yourselves, too.
At least you have the gays to kick around. I mean, they're used to it, right? Be that much longer before you guys come for the Jews and the Catholics and the blacks and the liberals and all the rest of us undesirables.
He did let someone have WMDs. They're called North Korea. He not only dropped the ball, he kicked it 30 yards the wrong way down the field. With Iran, I think that he's simple dropped the ball on field, it that makes you feel any better.
My post had nothing to do with what you are talking about. More importantly, a very strong case can be made that at the very least, it was the Clinton administrations handling of N. Korea that paved the was for them to have nuclear weapons.
The issue of Iran exposes the way those on the left want things both ways. When it came to Iraq, there is an insistence that we should have waited for the rest of the nations to agree (forgetting the fact that they actually authorized many UN resolutions, they just lost the resolve to actually do something when Saddam refused to comply). Yet in Iran Bush is criticized for not acting, conveniently forgetting that those same allies voted against even strong sanctions agains Iran (which are only unilaterally in place by us).
So which is it? Should Bush wait for the UN and a "league of nations" to go after Iran, or should he go it alone? (Or suggest another alternative that is consistent with your position.) You can't have it both ways.
Bush has both acted on this issue and worked hard to bring along our allies. What exactly do you want him to do that he has not done?
Jim in Iowa
The election is over and we may not all be happy with who won (I'm personally more upset that my senator, Tom Daschle, lost) but it's time to go on and try to do our best for our country. Those people commenting here that this is the death knell of America or that we will become a "Christian fundamentalist Taliban" obviously have a very narrow view of history and of current events. We'll go on and we'll do the best we can. That means instead of whining over this election, do what you can to help your candidates in the next election--and I don't mean four years from now. Get involved in local elections. Vote. You've got House elections every two years. You may have a senator up for re-election in two years. Get involved, stay involved and keep voting.
In the meantime, support your country and don't try to make things worse for yourself or others. I saw this at another blog today and it's very fitting:
The post-election peace pledge
I promise to... Support the President, even if I didn't vote for him..... Criticize the President, even if I did vote for him..... Uphold standards of civilized discourse in blogs and in media while pushing both to be better.... Unite as a nation, putting country over party, as we work together to make America better.
Clearly the will of the people, indeed - and that's pretty sad. See, I'm not surprised about it being the will of the people because the people are Americans and they love their evil. If memory and history serves me correctly slavery, woman descrimination, jim crow, lynching and genocide was also the will of the people. I don't mind having a dumb guy in as president, but the Republican's are just evil as what all.
Where do you get all of this stuff? Does American history have its share of mistakes and horrible crimes. Sure. But it has a much larger share of ways it has made restitution and fought for what is right. Go check history. Lincoln was the first Republican president. He was the one who freed the slaves.
Bush won with more popular votes than any other president in history, including Clinton or Reagan. Go ahead and assume it is because you think we are stupid or evil (or both). You will only help show us evil, stupid masses how out of touch you are with reality.
Jim in Iowa
My wife and I don't have kids ...um ...does that mean we should divorce ?
Yb wrote: “Having lost almost all our credibility throughout Europe and Asia, having lost many moderates of the MidEast to a more radical point of view, do you honestly feel that being this ethnocentric is healthy?”
You apparently forget that the U.S. was attacked by Middle East terrorists at least half a dozen times – including a first attempt to topple the World Trade Center in 1993 – long before Bush II was elected and embarked on his offensive in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.N. has been largely anti-American since it was founded, thanks to the immediate efforts of Iron Curtain countries, their allies and China to sway the electorate against the “imperialists in America” – despite the fact that historically we have underwritten the majority of U.N. budget. This is why, over the years, many in the U.S. have questioned our continued participation and funding for an organization that continues to overtly “bite the hand that feeds it.”
Not all countries revel in tweaking the U.S.’s nose, however, and these true allies are supporting us through thick and thin, despite the protestations of vocal leftist minorities who almost always get disproportional coverage from a sympathetic press.
Most of the countries that don’t support us want us to fall on our faces anyway, and could care less about what is best for U.S. security and economic interests. Leadership in many of these countries would stab us in the back at the first opportunity, so what they think shouldn’t really carry a whole lot of weight, now should it?
Bill Mulligan wrote: “Hillary Clinton- Happier than she will ever be able to let on.”
You are absolutely right.
Jim in Iowa:
Bush won with more popular votes than any other president in history, including Clinton or Reagan.
Oh come on, let's not start the spin already. yes, Bush did what you say he did, but it's not nearly as significant as you and Andrew Card suggest. Bush won with more popular votes than any other president in history, but John Kerry came second with more popular votes than any other runner-up in history.
More people voted, yeah, but Bush still only won by about 2%. Don't try and make it look like a more significant majority than it was.
From a news story in the Dallas Morning news: Putin said U.S.-Russian relations have improved under Bush's presidency "for the benefit of our peoples and global security."
Bush has shown himself to be a "tough politician, a man with strong character ... and a predictable partner," Putin said.
Guess Bush has not been as bad with our allies as suggested. For those who want to hear directly from Iraqi's about how they feel about us and what the war in Iraq actually means, go see "Voices of Iraq." You will hear things you will never hear on the mainstream media.
Here is a review of the movie: http://www.jamesbowman.net/reviewDetail.asp?pubID=1568
Oh come on, let's not start the spin already. yes, Bush did what you say he did, but it's not nearly as significant as you and Andrew Card suggest. Bush won with more popular votes than any other president in history, but John Kerry came second with more popular votes than any other runner-up in history. More people voted, yeah, but Bush still only won by about 2%. Don't try and make it look like a more significant majority than it was.
And don't make it less significant than it really is. For 4 years the constant refrain has been that Bush lost the popular vote. For him to be so clearly re-elected, by far more than voted for him the first time, and by far more than have ever voted for a president IS significant. Even more significant, he won with a majority of the votes, something Clinton never did.
It further depressed me that young men are lining up to vote for a man who -- in a matter of months -- will likely have to draft them and send the to die in Iraq so Halliburton can continue to soak up fat government contracts.
So no, your ignorance, and the ignorance of those who "love Bush" doesn't make me feel better, because I have to live in this little retrograde fantasyland you're creating for yourselves, too.
You actually believe Bush will bring back the draft and you call me ignorant? There is absolutely no reason or cause to believe he will do so. More importantly, it really is not up to Bush, it is up to those in Congress. I can guarantee that even if Bush asks for it, the Republicans in Congress would not support a draft because they are not subject to term limits -- they will want to be elected next time around. This absolute lie about the draft is more an act of desperation than the reaction to a real threat.
At least you have the gays to kick around. I mean, they're used to it, right? Be that much longer before you guys come for the Jews and the Catholics and the blacks and the liberals and all the rest of us undesirables.
How, exactly am I kicking around gays? I have stated one thing: that I do not want to expand the definition of marriage to include a gay partnership. Such as definition has never existed. I have not suggested (and would utterly oppose) any violence against gays. I would not even agree with the reinstitution of sodomy laws any more than I would want to make adultery illegal. I think both are wrong and harmful to society, but I would not fine someone or put him or her in prison.
Jim in Iowa
R. Maheras:
The U.N. has been largely anti-American since it was founded...
Um...the UN was formed largely by efforts from the US. They can't have done a very good job of it if it was immediately anti-American...
It's also based in New York, which doesn't seem like a very sensible place to be based if you're an anti-American organisation...
The reason the UN was put in New York was because the League of Nations (UN I) failed without US support.
Iowan Jim:
And don't make it less significant than it really is. For 4 years the constant refrain has been that Bush lost the popular vote. For him to be so clearly re-elected, by far more than voted for him the first time, and by far more than have ever voted for a president IS significant. Even more significant, he won with a majority of the votes, something Clinton never did.
Jim, 51% of 105 million is not more statistically significant than 51% of forty.
More people turned out to vote this time. Great. Bush got more of the vote than last time out. Good for him. But Bush still only got 51%. You're trying to make it sound like he got a clear majority nearer to 75% or something. He didn't. 51% is not a clear statistical majority.
Mark L:
The reason the UN was put in New York was because the League of Nations (UN I) failed without US support.
Well exactly. I just find it odd that a US-pioneered organisation can be said to be anit-American from its inception. :)
Sad truth is that half of America's voters are morons, or acting moronically. They obviously believe the crap that Bush has told them. America is in for a lot of division because those of us who hate Bush are not going to start backing the jerk.
I would like to see bumper stickers that say "Osama Heart Bush." Makes a valid point, I should think.
Anyone who wants to help me kill my bosses, loot the company funds, and run away to Brazil where I can't be extradited gets a free Big Mac.
You know, I really AM considering leaving the USA if I can figure it out. It's more a problem of personal finances than anything else to leave. There are times when you say, "I am so afraid that it won't get any better that I'm packing up and leaving."
Every pathetic idiot who voted for Bush should take a long hard look at the way to Armaggedon. 'Cause that's where we're going.
Iowan Jim:
>
And don't make it less significant than it really is. For 4 years the constant refrain has been that Bush lost the popular vote. For him to be so clearly re-elected, by far more than voted for him the first time, and by far more than have ever voted for a president IS significant. Even more significant, he won with a majority of the votes, something Clinton never did.
Seems to me that the times have been more of a factor than the man himself. Fear has been the ongoing issue in the campaign and has been played to the hilt by the administration. Unfortunately, the facts, actions and inconsistancies have never gotten in the way. When fear is a factor, educating oneself on the facts, taking a breath and looking objectively at the issues tends to take the back seat a majority of the time...... anybosy been keeping track of the stats being thrown out on the American public's perceptions of the "reason" for going into Iraq, the Hussein/bin Laden connection, WMDs, etc?
"Every pathetic idiot who voted for Bush should take a long hard look at the way to Armaggedon. 'Cause that's where we're going."
Actually all of the Democrat whining that you're all doing is pathetic. I think this was a vote for morality, which the Democratshave lost all sense of. It was giving a finger to the U.N. and all of the Oil-For-Food scandal countries, losers like Michael Moore, the liberal press, and most importantly the terrorists.
And not to pile on but all of you whining about Bush winning, seem to be oblivious to the fact that Republicans strengthened their hold on the House and Senate (which is probably more important than the Presidency) and kicked out the Senate's Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. And now they'll be able to get Supreme Court Justices confirmed.... God, I guess it must be really hard to be a liberal democrat today...
'Not all countries revel in tweaking the U.S.’s nose, however, and these true allies are supporting us through thick and thin, despite the protestations of vocal leftist minorities who almost always get disproportional coverage from a sympathetic press.'
Who are these countries?
Us Brits support you through thick and thin but I'm not convinced this is a popular result here.
Polls quoted on our TV earlier said that only Russia and Isreal seem to have populations in favour of Bush's relection .....
Blake:
>.... God, I guess it must be really hard to be a liberal democrat today...
Dunno. I've never labeled myself as such..... or anything else for that matter. Simply look at situations as they occur, attempt to make sense of them and then form an opinion. Today, I'm floored and again trying to make sense of it is all.
Fred
Well it's over and Bush has given us proof that fear wins out over hope
"Kerry- If Bush wins, draft"
"Bush- Thats fearmongering"
"Bush- If Kerry wins there will be another 9/11"
Bush and I differ on the definition of fear mongering I guess.
Furthermore, and I apologize in advance for the strong language, the backward ass state I'm in was one of the 11 to, and I use the states apperent opinion on this, not mine. "Pass the ban and stop those faggots from destorin' marrige. cause only proper couples like me an my sister should be allowed to marry."
I'm running a 101 degree fever right now, so I'm pretty light headed and pissed off, and if this pisses off anyone here, Oh bloody well.
"Bush- Kerry will raise taxes and spend more than before."
Better to lower taxes and spend more, thats good math! All quotes are paraphrased of course.
Before if I were to go on vacation there were severl place that come to mind I wouldn't go, thinking of my safty. After the first term, theres a lot more now. After the second, well I only hope Canada doesn't get to pissed off at us. I don't know if I'll be able to go anywhere else. Half of them for safty concerns, and the other half for the shame I already feel mounting.
I pine for the days when the GOP tried to use a hummer get a president out of office.
Its the day after the election and I'm quite sick. There hasn't been a flu shot within 100 miles of me for about a month.
Parting shot for this depressing entry: Unlike PAD I do see a major upside to Bush winning, the daily show is going to be frickin' great for the next 4 years. Unless freedom of the speech goes away with some of our other dwindling freedoms, such as the right to choose. But hey maybe Bush has a grand plan to not need the draft by getting rid of abortion. Think about it. The poor inner city family that is below poverty level may really need that eighth kid, and when he turns eighteen what options does he have?
Sigh....
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The reason the democrats lost is because they didn't run on an agenda other than "Bush Is Bad". Where were the new ideas? "I have a plan" just didn't cut it. What was this plan? Oh, you'll tell us after you're elected? Then, no thanks.
The democrats and all their fringe groups have spent the last year or so calling people stupid if they vote for Bush. Well, people don't like being called stupid and it probably drove more people towards Bush than against him. The democrats campaign was about fear and hate more than anything else and now they are suprised that the average person didn't fall for it.
If the decocrat party wasn't so intent on stacking the primaries so far ahead and rushing thru the process of finding a candidate, then they might have been able to come up with someone more likeable to middle America. Kerry might be fine to the northeast and California crowd, but his message sure didn't flow to a lot of the rest of the country. Even a lot of people that weren't totally behind Bush didn't believe/trust in what Kerry was saying, so they either voted for the "evil that they knew", or just stayed home.
Agree with him or not, people know where Bush stands on issues. That's a lot more that Kerry ever did.
For me, I'm just glad that John Edwards is soon out of politics for a while. If I need a personal injury lawyer, he's the guy I would want. But not for a governmental leader.
Jeff:
>The poor inner city family that is below poverty level may really need that eighth kid, and when he turns eighteen what options does he have?
Well, he has the option of putting all of his savings into a private Social Security fund and properly managing it so that he has tons when he retires to.... oh, wait. :p
"More people turned out to vote this time. Great. Bush got more of the vote than last time out. Good for him. But Bush still only got 51%. You're trying to make it sound like he got a clear majority nearer to 75% or something. He didn't. 51% is not a clear statistical majority."
Actually, I think it is. At any rate, it is far more of an actual majority than 43% or 49%, right?
"God, I guess it must be really hard to be a liberal democrat today..."
Gloating is bad form...
"Every pathetic idiot who voted for Bush should take a long hard look at the way to Armaggedon. 'Cause that's where we're going."
So is being a crybaby...
"See, I'm not surprised about it being the will of the people because the people are Americans and they love their evil."
And then there are those who are just in their own little world. Back away slowly, smiling.
Dhanson-- What, a calm, rational, adult response? Who let this guy in?
Unfortunately the American people seem to not believe in the “balance of power.” The Senate, the House and the Presidency all reside in the Republican hands.
Fine. Really. This is fine.
I may not agree with the views of these people (okay, I do not believe in the views of these people at all), but really, this is fine.
Why?
They have two years to show that their way is the right way. They have two years to show that they can pass whatever laws they want to pass to make this country a lean, mean conservative machine. Because, you know, they know better.
So let them.
But…
I don’t want to hear any whining how the Democrats stood in their way if they fail. Because it is NOT POSSIBLE. Period.
They screw up? Their fault. Can’t be Democrats, because the Democrats have NO POWER.
So you get what you vote for, and you deserve it.
The only problem is I get to suffer through your decisions, too.
To the Democrats, start recording now. Do everything you can to make sure people understand exactly what the Republicans are doing. Spread it to all newspapers so when the mid-terms come around, there is a documented record. Of everything.
Right now, we’ll just deal with a Neo-Con led government. Or move. Whichever.
Oh, and Republicans: watch out, cause in 2008 – Hillary/Obama…
You get what you vote for.
Travis
A voting story:
I was in line waiting to vote yesterday when I started talking to a group of college students in line with me. They were very vocal on their support for Bush. They said they believed him to be a fantastic leader and applauded the war in Iraq.
“You really believe in this war?” I asked. “And you believe the lives that have been lost in this war, including those of the American military, have been worth it?”
“Yes,” they answered.
“Then I take it you’ve joined up to fight.”
“Um, no,” they answered.
“Why not?” I asked.
The best answer any of them could come up with was that they were still in school. When I pointed out that they could finish school when they returned and probably get financial help in doing so, they had no more answers.
They were also relatively quiet the rest of the wait.
Actually all of the Democrat whining that you're all doing is pathetic. I think this was a vote for morality, which the Democratshave lost all sense of.>>
Bigotry, unending greed, lying on an international scale, war profiteering, destroying social security, burning every bridge with governments around the world, a sky rocketing unemplyment rate and placing an unimaginable financial burden on our future generations....these are symbols of morality? The only thing lost here is a sense of reality for your half of the nation.
Sad truth is that half of America's voters are morons, or acting moronically. They obviously believe the crap that Bush has told them. America is in for a lot of division because those of us who hate Bush are not going to start backing the jerk..."Osama Heart Bush." Makes a valid point, I should think.
They believe in racism, sexism, and any ism that makes white people feel safe and comfortable.
Talk about sour grapes, yeesh. Just because the majority did not buy all the rhetoric from the left, Michael Moore and Hollywood using every bullet it had in it's chamber, then all white voters are stupid and evil and the lies start. If that makes you feel better fine, what's next laying on your back and kicking your feet in the air?
You know, I really AM considering leaving the USA if I can figure it out. It's more a problem of personal finances than anything else to leave.
Gotta love these guys, go already!! See how it's like in....Canada? Wait 3 months for an office visit...Mexico? If you can make your way past everyone going the other way to get into the US. Even if you don't like how things are, if your not willing to stick it out and see more bad than good, GO! Funny I only see this from the left...hmmm.
Okay, so Bush won both the popular vote AND the electoral vote. NOW can we get rid of the electoral college?
-tOjb
10/11 states amended their constitution to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. In fact, one state, even decided to not allow civil unions.
Florida now says that an underage girl most now notify her parents before having an abortion.
Bush wins and the Republicans gains seats in the Senate and control the House once again.
You liberals better figure something out. Your views are WAY too far left for this country. The people have spoken. PAD, you can say they are stupid, but perhaps its the Dems.
Okay, I've got it. We'll have TWO Americas... because when you think about it, that's what this election is all about: how 51% of the people get to further their version of America over the America of the other 49%. So we'll give the West Coast to the extreme liberals, the East Coast to the extreme conservatives, and the 80% of America's population that just wants to live peaceful, prosperous lives without screaming about whose candidate did what can live in the middle.
The great thing about my system is that Middleground America controls the country's breadbasket, so both extreme sides will have to earn their keep in order to get food.
Seriously, though, as a voter that lives in one of those "Ban Gay Marriage" amendment states, doesn't America's famous religious freedom imply a built-in opposition to religious tyrrany? I mean, let's be honest about this, the "Ban Gay Marriage" movement wouldn't exist without conservative Christians; it's primarily a religious issue. How is this not a clear-cut case of forcing a religious belief upon a whole?
-tOjb
Well, don't worry about that pesky ol' freedom of speech PAD's been using. Once the Supreme Court is packed with ideologues we won't have that to kick around anymore. Not to mention the overturn of Roe v Wade. I guess I better just go get that lobotomy I've always wanted, since the government probably won't let me think anymore...
Well, don't worry about that pesky ol' freedom of speech PAD's been using. Once the Supreme Court is packed with ideologues we won't have that to kick around anymore. Not to mention the overturn of Roe v Wade. I guess I better just go get that lobotomy I've always wanted, since the government probably won't let me think anymore...
And conservatives are called fear-mongers...
Bill Mulligan:
Actually, I think it is. At any rate, it is far more of an actual majority than 43% or 49%, right?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Bush had a 3% majority. Bush's people are talking about it as if it was a 75% majority.
Bush won fair and square. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the gloating that began almost immediately over how he got the most presidential votes ever, which is based on a statistical fallacy.
Bill Mulligan quoth: ""More people turned out to vote this time. Great. Bush got more of the vote than last time out. Good for him. But Bush still only got 51%. You're trying to make it sound like he got a clear majority nearer to 75% or something. He didn't. 51% is not a clear statistical majority."
Actually, I think it is. At any rate, it is far more of an actual majority than 43% or 49%, right?"
51% is a simple majority. It's not a statistical majority bacause it represents only those votes that were counted. You'll think I'm splitting hairs here, but that, after all, is what statistics are all about. It's not a statistical majority because the margin for error has to be greater than 1%. Votes discounted, not counted, misread, etc.
And even if it is, so what? I hope that, instead of claiming that the country is more behind him than ever, Bush wakes up and realizes that his side just got more people off their butts and out to the polls than the other side. We're still at, what, 60% of eligible voters this time 'round? Bush has a lot more bridge-building within this country to do over the next 4 years. And his GOP handlers had better recognize this, or come 2008, they might find themselves in those unemployment lines they claim don't exist.
They've got both houses, the Executive, and it looks like at least one Supreme Court seat to fill over the next 4 years. No more excuses for them. If they succeed and our Nation surges ahead into a glorious golden age, fantastic for everyone. But if not, they don't have anyone to point the finger at anymore....
sore losers.
it's no wonder ya'll lost dissing the mentality of a majority.
but it all balances out in the end because we get 4 more years of listening to liberals bitch and moan and demos hate bush as much as repubs hated clinton.
You liberals better figure something out. Your views are WAY too far left for this country. The people have spoken. PAD, you can say they are stupid, but perhaps its the Dems.
* Tom Coburn R-OK: said "lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom."
* Tom Bunning R-KY: admitted he was unaware that a group of Army reservists had refused a convoy mission in Iraq, and said he hadn't read a newspaper in weeks and relied on Fox News for information.
* A vetoed Missouri bill, the Infant's Protection Act, allowed the use of force against abortion providers (and the language suggests that lethal force would be acceptable) to stop any illegal abortion. The bill left unclear just what constituted an illegal abortion.
I don't think liberal views are far left. I suspect that, mostly, the conservatives in power are so far right that they've convince people that right is center, and modestly progressive is way left.
Oh go on.
You point out two quotes and one defeted bill and that is your argument that this country isn't anywhere near the views of the left?
Fine, I'll use the elction results.
Correction, my line should have read:
"You point out two quotes and one defeted bill and that is your argument against the left's views being too far left?"
Jim in Iowa: Opposing gay marriage is fundamentally NOT the same as saying a Jew cannot marry a Catholic. There is a reason why a ban on gay marriage won overwhelmingly in 10 (and possibly won in 11) states. There is a clear, physical difference between men and women.
Luigi Novi: There is a clear, physical difference between a Caucasian and an African.
Jim in Iowa: That difference is (apart from medical intervention), only a man and woman together can have a child. Having kids is not the sole purpose of marriage, but it is a fundamental one in principle. A mixed racial couple can have a child. A gay couple cannot.
Luigi Novi: People get married because they’re in love. Not because they need marriage to procreate, nor is your place or mine to dictate that people can only marry if they can procreate. Some people don’t care for marriage, but have children (Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins; Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel), some get married but choose not to have children (Jay and Mavis Leno), and some get married who are unable to conceive naturally.
Jim in Iowa: Why is this such a big deal? Because it is clear that this is not just about a gay couple having legal rights of hospital visitation, inheritance, health care, etc. It is about the destruction of the concept of marriage.
Luigi Novi: A meaningless euphemism. Marriage between men and women will not be changed if gays are allowed to marry, nor will the “concept” of it be destroyed. It’s an idiotic slippery slope argument.
Jim in Iowa: I don't expect you to agree, but when you listen to what the gay activists actually say, it is clear that they want to destroy the traditional definition.
Luigi Novi: No, it’s clear that they want to expand it.
Jim in Iowa: If so, what do they want to replace it with?
Luigi Novi: You already know the answer to that. They want it to be allowed for gays as well.
Jim in Iowa: You go look at gay marriage where it is legal in Europe and relationships last an average of 1.5 years, and the majority are not monogamous relationships.
Luigi Novi: There are heterosexual couples here in the U.S. who fit that description. But we don’t deny them the right to marry. We simply leave them alone and let them do what they want.
Jim in Iowa: I understand why you see it that way. I would suggest Kerry's campaign was based on a false fear of Bush, while Bush's campaign was based on a valid fear of terrorism.
Luigi Novi: Kerry’s campaign was based on showing what Bush has done while in office.
Jim in Iowa: If they are so stupid, how were they all convinced by Bush rather than Kerry and his news services on most of the major media. How were they not convinced by Michael Moore?
Luigi Novi: Perhaps because Moore, despite what he says, preaches only to the converted. Bush supporters see his film and see it for the collection of lies that it largely is.
Jim in Iowa: Lincoln was the first Republican president. He was the one who freed the slaves.
Luigi Novi: The parties in the 1860’s are not what the parties are today.
Jim in Iowa: I do not want to expand the definition of marriage to include a gay partnership. Such as definition has never existed.
Luigi Novi: That doesn’t not mean it cannot. “We’ve never done this before” is not the same thing as “We can’t do this.” Words and their definitions expand and evolve. Language is, after all, a human invention, and we can modify it when we feel it’s appropriate. So the argument is between those who feel it’s appropriate and those who don’t. The argument is not “it’s never existed,” because that doesn’t mean anything.
Yo: …but it all balances out in the end because we get 4 more years of listening to liberals bitch and moan and demos hate bush as much as repubs hated clinton.
Luigi Novi: The Republicans did a bit more than just bitch. They wasted years and tens of millions of dollars trying to persecute him, putting this country in danger in the process.
To grimmer:"Who are these countries?"
Israel, Japan, Australia are some of the major
ones ...England.... Tony Blair really put his neck on the line and because it was the right thing to do...That's being a leader who acts because it's right, not because of public opinion.... instead of a sheep. Or a country trying to cover up the fact that they were being paid to look the other away and to vote against U.N. sanctions against Iraq by Saddam(ala the Oil-For-Food program) by opposing our actions against Iraq. Like France.
To Fred Chamberlain: "I've never labeled myself as such.... or anything else for that matter. Simply look at situations as they occur, attempt to make sense of them and then form an opinion." Oh, c'mon you must have some kind of idealogy or center to base your opinions on! I don't look at a problem and say: "Well, I'm conservative and this is the conservative way of thinking so this is what I must think.... " Or do you lick your finger, stick it in the wind to see which way it's blowing? C'mon...
And to your response to Jeff:"....putting all of his savings into a private Social Security fund and properly managing it so that he has tons when he retires to.... oh, wait."
I think you're trying to make a point here about the problems of bankrupting the Social Security system or something....Did you mean IRAs or something... I mean as far as if somebody investing their savings in a soc. sec. fund. Doesn't work that way. The government takes money out of your paycheck and gives it back to you when you retire, but most people invest in other alternatives because the soc. sec. check isn't enough, or it might not be there....
"Bigotry, unending greed, lying on an international scale, war profiteering, destroying social security, burning every bridge with governments around the world, a sky rocketing unemplyment rate and placing an unimaginable financial burden on our future generations....these are symbols of morality? The only thing lost here is a sense of reality for your half of the nation." Posted by wolfe
i see you're drinkin' the liberal Kool-aid...These are all talking points from the Liberal Manual...Bigotry? I say sanctity of marriage. There's no persecution going on...Voters like myself just don't want our government puting the stamp of approval on things that we believe are immoral and disgusting... Doesn't mean that people can't engage in whatever behavior that they want in their own homes...
Unending greed? I say giving tax cuts to EVERYONE so that that can have and decide what to do with their OWN money...
Lying on an international scale? He might have had wrong info about the WMDs, but Bush had the same info that France, Russia, Great Britain, etc. had and acted accordingly. Iraq had over a decade to comply with the inspectors of the U.N. and did nothing but stall and lie. And really despite what the 'unbiased' reportings of the media. Just a few weeks ago they glossed over the fact that the U.N. reported having lost weapons grade nuclear materials from Iraq's nuclear program. Doesn't that qualify?
Burning every bridge...? What? Whenever other countries need help, who is the first one to help? We send more foreign aide money than any other nation in the world.
A sky rocketing unemplyment rate? Bush inherited a declining economy and then, if you've forgotten, our country was attacked which had a huge negative economic impact....Our economy is rebounding and the unemployment is declining if you've been paying attention to the figures....
Again, all the usual liberal talking points.... Anyway....
-Blake
kevingreen wrote:
"Um...the UN was formed largely by efforts from the US. They can't have done a very good job of it if it was immediately anti-American...
It's also based in New York, which doesn't seem like a very sensible place to be based if you're an anti-American organisation..."
Exactly why the U.N.'s anti-American has been so frustrating over the years.
kevingreen wrote:
"Um...the UN was formed largely by efforts from the US. They can't have done a very good job of it if it was immediately anti-American...
It's also based in New York, which doesn't seem like a very sensible place to be based if you're an anti-American organisation..."
Exactly why the U.N.'s anti-American stance has been so frustrating over the years.
RE: "Do we need to get divorced since we don't have kids" comment --
The function of marriage is NOT solely to have kids. That alone does not define a marriage. However, I would strongly suggest (and some psychiatrists say there are actual studies that demonstrate) that a child being raised by his or her biological parents is without question better than any other option, all things being equal.
There is no question that a stable home environment is essential for developing a healthy child. The overwhelming evidence so far is that divorce has a devestating effect on children. The current evidence for gay marriage in Europe where it has now been legal for 10 years is that gay marriages are even less stable than traditional marriage. In addition, gay marriages are not monogamous even when they do stay together.
Can a gay couple be stable? I am sure some can. Can they be more loving than a "tradtional" couple going through divorce? Of course, some can. But is that a reason to change the very definition of marriage? No. We are now reaping the effects of no fault divorce and how it has impacted kids and families. We will pay even more if we change the definition of marriage.
...............................
For those wanting to read a wide variety of reviews about "Voices of Iraq" check out this site:
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/voicesofiraq/
...............................
Jim, 51% of 105 million is not more statistically significant than 51% of forty. More people turned out to vote this time. Great. Bush got more of the vote than last time out. Good for him. But Bush still only got 51%. You're trying to make it sound like he got a clear majority nearer to 75% or something. He didn't. 51% is not a clear statistical majority
By definition, a majority of votes IS 51%. Bush got more than half of those who did go out and vote. That is a fact. That is a majority. You can say it is not a landslide. You can say it is not an avalanche. Fine. But to say it is not a majority is to redefine the very meaning of the term.
Clinton did not get over 50% in either election. That means he did not win the popular vote. Bush did.
When you realize that roughly 40% will vote for a Democrat if his name is Micky Mouse, and 40% will vote for a Republican if his name is Bugs Bunny, the fact that Bush won 51% is statistically significant. The fact that Republicans added to their number in both the house and the senate adds weight to that significance.
Finally, 51% of 105 million IS more significant than 51% of 40 IF the number of possible voters is the same (or close to the same) in both examples. It shows more people were motivated to come out and vote. So yes, I have no problem saying these numbers mean something -- because they do. They mean that Bush has united more people than he has divided in this country. And considering the rhetoric on both sides in the last 4 years, that is not a small accomplishment.
......................................
For some reason, I can only sporadically get on this site, so sorry for doing one long post.
Jim in Iowa
You liberals better figure something out.
Oh, some of us have. We realize that we're on the cusp of a theocracy, and trying to figure out how to avoid the bloodbaths (figurative or, alas, literal) that will follow.
I'm entirely too numb to put together anything major here at the moment, but for now --
To Bill and a handful of other reasonable conservatives who've been on this thread -- thank you for not gloating. Thank you for at least attempting to keep alive the dying art of civil discourse. Thank you for proving by example that not all Bush supporters are slack-jawed maroons. You're Good Folks.
To those who've come here to gloat (and just in case you think I don't mean you, I *specifically* would like to point out James Tichy, Blake, "Eric!", and our lovely pseudonymous kamikaze pilots, though others may fit the category as well) -- thank you for embodying the stereotype of mean-spirited conservatism. It's not enough that you gained in the House, gained a majority in the Senate that borders on filibuster-proof (and thus, by implication, have won the courts), and won the White House. No, you have to make sure everyone who's NOT you feels appropriately bad about it.
Thank you for making plain how little you care about the common good, and how much you care only about Your Side Winning.
And rest assured that if you've ever got the balls to say these things to my face, you'll wind up chewing on 'em.
I may be back here in a day or two. But for right now, having read this thread ... frankly, not only do I not need to be here, I rather heavily need NOT to be.
TWL
Jim in Iowa: Opposing gay marriage is fundamentally NOT the same as saying a Jew cannot marry a Catholic. There is a reason why a ban on gay marriage won overwhelmingly in 10 (and possibly won in 11) states. There is a clear, physical difference between men and women.
Luigi Novi: There is a clear, physical difference between a Caucasian and an African.
Are you deliberately ignoring the sexual, gender difference that I clearly referred to later in my post? A Caucasain and an African can mate, two men or two women cannot. You are comparing apples to oranges and deliberately ignoring what I clearly stated.
Jim in Iowa: That difference is (apart from medical intervention), only a man and woman together can have a child. Having kids is not the sole purpose of marriage, but it is a fundamental one in principle. A mixed racial couple can have a child. A gay couple cannot.
Luigi Novi: People get married because they’re in love. Not because they need marriage to procreate, nor is your place or mine to dictate that people can only marry if they can procreate. Some people don’t care for marriage, but have children (Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins; Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel), some get married but choose not to have children (Jay and Mavis Leno), and some get married who are unable to conceive naturally.
Again you clearly ignore what I explicitly state. The question is NOT do you have to actually have children in order to be married. The point I am making is that nature or god (take your pick) have evolved or designed us to where we mate in order to have children. For a whole host of reasons (which used to not be questioned), it is better for a child to be raised by his or her biological parents. Call it nature or God's design, there is a biological bond that in most cases (admittedly not all) that causes a biological parent to care for an protect his and her offspring.
Can an adopted child be loved and cared for? Yes, but that is beside the point. We are not talking about exceptions but about what is the ideal, and yes, natural, way of raising kids.
Jim in Iowa: I do not want to expand the definition of marriage to include a gay partnership. Such as definition has never existed.
Luigi Novi: That doesn’t not mean it cannot. “We’ve never done this before” is not the same thing as “We can’t do this.” Words and their definitions expand and evolve. Language is, after all, a human invention, and we can modify it when we feel it’s appropriate. So the argument is between those who feel it’s appropriate and those who don’t. The argument is not “it’s never existed,” because that doesn’t mean anything.
Yes, language can change. You make my point -- this will redefine the defintion of marriage.
The argument "it's never existed" does matter in one regard: It is appropriate, considering thousands of years of recorded human history, to ask why this has never been an accepted norm to any real degree. I agree that does not prove I am right, but it is a valid question to raise. I think there is a valid and important reason this has been the case. (Of course, we can state the obvious, that until this century, adoption was pretty much the only option for a gay couple who wanted to have kids. Artificial means have only existed for perhaps the last 50 years. But I would suggest there are deeper reasons than just that.)
Jim in Iowa
There is no question that a stable home environment is essential for developing a healthy child.
While this may be true, it also depends on how narrow your idea of a “stable home environment” is. The kids that terrorized Columbine High School came from what would be considered by most to be a “stable home environment”, but I wouldn’t use that as fodder against heterosexual marriages.
I’m divorced, with two kids, and I have to admit that they’re turning out much better than anyone could hope. But then again, they also know that if they ask me questions, I’m going to do something that most parents won’t: I’m going to actually talk to them and (I know this is a radical idea, so prepare yourself) be honest with them.
Besides, if two gay people want to marry, who cares? Unless you are gay, it’s not going to affect you one way or another unless you’re the type who enjoys sticking your nose in other people’s business.
Correction, my line should have read:
"You point out two quotes and one defeted bill and that is your argument against the left's views being too far left?"
No, just making a point that just as often as not, the right's positions are too far right. Sorry if that was unclear.
Fine, I'll use the elction results.
The results suggest a grudging acceptance of right-wing foreign policy (*not* social policy), driven more by uncertainty and fear than conviction and belief of the philosophy behind it.
Lincoln was the first Republican president. He was the one who freed the slaves.
Oh gimme a break.
Lincoln no more fits the description of a Republican in the year 2004 than Reagan does.
Or perhaps, pre-Regan Republicans, since Reagan is the one that set us on this current ultra-right wing path.
You liberals better figure something out.
Oh, some of us have. We realize that we're on the cusp of a theocracy, and trying to figure out how to avoid the bloodbaths (figurative or, alas, literal) that will follow.
Last time I checked, neither Alan Keyes nor Pat Robertson were elected.
Your fear is baseless. I can say with utter confidence it will not happen. We are too pluralistic of a country, and Bush is by no means a believer in theocracy. Nor is Cheney.
I know it is hard to grasp, but it is possible that a large majority (roughly 70% of all Americans by many polls) opppose gay marriage (to take an example), not because of a desire to establish a theocracy, nor even because of a common, shared religious belief, but because they, based on their own, personal belief system, think it is wrong.
For a theocracy to work, there would have to be a much stronger shared religious belief system. Protestants and Catholics may unite on gay marriage and being pro-life, but there are far too many differences for them to ever unite to create a theocracy. Not to mention there are many practicing Muslims who agree on many with conservatives on many of these social issues.
This fear of Christians by a few of you on the left is disappointing. Historically, Christians have acted far more to liberate than dominate in American culture. In the last 30 years since Roe V. Wade, arbirtrary actions by judges have created a new atmosphere. Issues that would never have won a vote by the people are now being imposed on the people. While some rulings were justified, some are actions to move forward a political agenda that never was able to pass either a direct vote of the people or a representative vote in a legislature. That will inherently cause division and dissatisfaction and feelings of disenfranchisement on either side.
Let me admit that some on my side would be saying similar things about Kerry if he had been elected (and said them about Clinton in '92). The fact is, except when judges step in and make arbitrary decisions, our constitutional system has done a good job of correcting itself when needed.
I know there are some radical exceptions on the religious right side (as there are on the liberal left), but this fear of Christians as a whole is just plain bigotry based on lies and false allegations. The fact that we may disagree on some issues (such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.) does not mean we are going to become the next Nazi Germany any more than a Kerry election means we are going to become a godless communist country. Let's debate the merit of ideas rather than attacking the people who hold those ideas.
Jim in Iowa
I continue to be amazed by the number of people posting here who believe this election is the end of the world. I guess I have my problems with both candidates, but have never seen this election as a sign of the Apocalypse, no matter which way it went.
Perhaps the doomsayers are right, and we face an end to free speech and a budding dictatorship, but I just don't see it happening. I would suggest a trip to the library for some intense reading of history--both of this country and of some REAL totalitarian dictatorships. Those of you who are lamenting the end to free speech might want to take note of the fact that you are speaking freely right now and no one has broken in your door to haul you away yet.
This is not a perfect country, but complaint alone doesn't make things better--effort does. As a nation, we have done things I disagree with, but as a nation we have also done great things. And we have the potential to make things better for ourselves and for our children. If you don't like the now, you have the ability to work toward a future you may be happier with. I recall a quote, though I've forgotten who to attribute it to: "Democracy is the worst form of government in the world--except for all the others."
"Democracy is the worst form of government in the world--except for all the others."
Winston Churchill
While this may be true, it also depends on how narrow your idea of a “stable home environment” is. The kids that terrorized Columbine High School came from what would be considered by most to be a “stable home environment”, but I wouldn’t use that as fodder against heterosexual marriages.
I understand your point. In the cae of the Columbine students, I am not sure I would count them as the healthiest of families.
My point about gay marriage is that if the norm (as so far has been the case) is to cycle partners every 2 years, that is clearly not a "stable" environment for a child. I don't care whether it is a hetero or homo partnership, that is a recipe for disaster for a developing child.
My bigger point is the fundamental question of why do gays want to be considered married? One option suggested is to cause society to be not just tolerant but more actively accepting of their lifestyle. A corrolary option suggested is that it is to destroy the concept of traditional marriage in the first place (because if the concept of traditional marriage is removed, the stigma of homosexuality will also be removed).
I am curious. Those of you who support gay marriage, why do you think gays want to be considered married? (Saying that it doesn't matter, it is none of our business, doesn't answer a valid question. It just avoids it.)
Jim in Iowa
I continue to be amazed by the number of people posting here who believe this election is the end of the world. I guess I have my problems with both candidates, but have never seen this election as a sign of the Apocalypse, no matter which way it went.
Once again, someone summarizes well in a few words what takes me 5 posts to try to say.
Well said, Dhanson.
Jim in Iowa
Just read on CNN that Bush said he had a "broad, nationwide victory" Um, when I looked at the numbers, I don't see a nationwide victory. I see close to half the country realizing that are in desparate need of a change.
Be afraid....be very afraid.
Tim,
I hope you get to read this. Let me say that I genuinely respect your passion and I know that this is a very hard thing for you. I totally disagree with you that things will be at all as bad as you fear and I hope you don't go through with your considerations on leaving the country. At the very least, look forward to 2008, the first election in 50 years that will have totally fresh faces--no incumbent presidents or vice presidents trying to advance their career. It could be a real chance for a campaign that will make a difference.
Gloating is low class and indicative of, as you say, soeone who is more concerened with being on the winning side than they are with any philosophy or belief system. I think that a lot of the Kerry supporters are beng ridiculous here but one can cut them some slack on account of being tired and unhappy. No such excuse for any republican who feels the need to rub faces in the dirt. Only a fool thinks that they will always be on the winning side and memories are long. I rather hope that when it's my turn to be bummed out by an election my friendly opposition will remember this day and go gently on me.
For the record, had kerry won as I expected him to, my post was going to be a takeoff on a classic Simpsoms line: "I, for one, WELCOME our new Democrat overlords!"
Anyway, take care and ignore the turkeys. The fact that you actually bothered to say nice things about folks who differed with you on an issue of such personal importance instantly makes you a bigger man then they could ever hope to be.
My point about gay marriage is that if the norm (as so far has been the case) is to cycle partners every 2 years, that is clearly not a "stable" environment for a child.
Where do you get your statistics? Most homosexual relationships I know about last far longer than a lot of heterosexual ones.
I am curious. Those of you who support gay marriage, why do you think gays want to be considered married? (Saying that it doesn't matter, it is none of our business, doesn't answer a valid question. It just avoids it.)
They simply want to live their lives with the same rights, responsibilities, commitments and equalities as all other Americans.
I am curious. Those of you who support gay marriage, why do you think gays want to be considered married?
Probably for the same reason heterosexuals want to be married. It’s a public declaration of love between them, not to mention the legal advantages in regards to taxes and property, o name two. You can also add your spouse to your state health insurance, but not your boyfriend/girlfriend (at least in my state).
Personally, after having one failed marriage myself and watching friends and family b*tch and moan about how their husband/wife drives them crazy, etc., I don’t see why ANYONE wants to be married. But if you do, gay or straight, more power to you.
"Democracy is the worst form of government in the world--except for all the others."
Winston Churchill
Thank you Den W., for helping me out with the attribution for this quote!
Bill,
As you must know, some of us are devastated. While many on this board think a lot of us were only anti-Bush, most of us truly believed in the Kerry/Edwards ticket and the promise of a brighter future, based on our political philosophies. Since we are opposed to many, if not most, of this administrations policies, we are afraid of the future. This is not fear-mongering. This is simple reality based on past perfomance. This is still not the direction we want this country to go in.
Now, I also hear some of you accusing us of being whiners because our candidate did not win. Please give us time to mourn the (temporary) passing of our hopes and dreams. Then, I challenge all those who worked so tirelessly to elect Kerry to keep at it. There are elections every year and we need to stay involved and start working for change at the local level on up. The only way to change the direction of this country is to NOT give up. We lost a battle, but there are more ahead.
Where do you get your statistics? Most homosexual relationships I know about last far longer than a lot of heterosexual ones.
I will have to look it up. It is from a poll done in 5 (?) European countries that have had legal homosexual marriage for 10 years. It is quoted by a number of conservatives, such as by Jim Dobson and Rep. Dave Barton of Texas. I looked up the original info at one point but don't know if I can find it right now.
Jim in Iowa
s. yarish wrote:
"Just read on CNN that Bush said he had a "broad, nationwide victory" Um, when I looked at the numbers, I don't see a nationwide victory. I see close to half the country realizing that are in desparate need of a change."
Here in Chicago, the heart of Democratic country, the news of a Bush victory has them stunned. Some people are actually walking around today as if in a daze. A few folks I know have even said something to the effect, "This country is now more divided than ever."
To which I respond, "hogwash!" In 1992, Clinton won the presidency with 43 percent of the poplular vote, Bush the Elder had 38 percent, and Ross Perot (who I voted for) had 18 percent. THAT, my friends, is divided!
"We have nothing to fear, but fear itself"
Some Democrat said that a lifetime or two ago. Since then, all the "big picture" stuff has slowly come to light. Churchill meeting secretly with Hitler, the A-bomb, dividing up of Europe, etc. I hope I live long enough to find out that Saddam died in that first attack and the guy they have in prison is one of his doubles, and that Bin Ladden died of kidney failure in 2002.
Wouldn't that funnier than Hell to learn?
I forgot to post one comment:
I admit I am pleasantly surprised by Kerry's concession speech today. My opinion was that he would concede and not throw this into the courts, but that he would wait a lot longer until all the votes had been counted. I respect the fact that he was willing to look honestly at the facts and not drag this out for no reason. His desire to repair the damage was not just words today, he acted them out. It was a classy thing to do.
Jim in Iowa
I'm not a republican, I'm not a democrat. I believe in stem cell research. I believe in marriage being man and woman, but I also believe in human rights. I believe in better education for our schools. I am a card carrying member of the N.R.A. I believe that the economy is not dictated by the administration, but by the magic-weilders on wall street. I believe that should we, hevean forbid, get attacked again, we will hit back harder. I also believe that we need to focus on our national security, and as the big dog on the block, we need to make our stances perfectly clear. Can we win the war on terrorism? Doubt it, but we can bite back so damn hard that it will make the terrorists think long and hard about biting us on our own land in the first place.
The election is over. The great thing about democracy is that we can choose. The great thing about this country is that we can openenly dissagree with the choice. We can love it, hate it, or be indifferent to it. I don't think Bush is evil or mad with power. I don't think that Kerry would have done any better, or progessed any further. The choice has been made. Let's just accept it, support the country, go to work, go home to spend time with our kids, pray for a safe return for our troops and move on. Hatred is just a waste of energy.
And Mr. David.....I love your work.
Jim,
Yes, it was a classy speech and he would have made a classy president.
I'm guessing it's never too soon to start printing up those "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry" bumper stickers we should be needing in the next few years.--PAD
I'd like to order a few hundred for my closest friends.
I have to say that I've never felt more afraid of the next 4 years after an election since, well, ever. I'm actually surprised at how bad I'm taking all this. I feel like the soul just got sucked out of me. I watched Kerry's concession speech and really felt for him. The nation is divided, and if Bush continues his policies that gap won't be closed at all. I know people talk about the time to heal, but I'm very pessimistic about that. Bush got elected, despite the fact that a majority of the world didn't want him elected. Knowing that scares me. If we continue on the path that we're on, the world won't just look at Bush, they'll look at US. (or maybe they already have) He maybe the us president, but he isn't my president at all. I say that since I've never seen a president with whom I disagreed so fundamentally and so completely. Sigh, but that's democracy for ya. Least I'm thankful for having a chance to vote. Sorry, just needed to vent a little bit.
I will have to look it up. It is from a poll done in 5 (?) European countries that have had legal homosexual marriage for 10 years. It is quoted by a number of conservatives, such as by Jim Dobson and Rep. Dave Barton of Texas. I looked up the original info at one point but don't know if I can find it right now.
Be useful to have the study itself, actually. Heated political debates tend to quote mine studies, and shear it of context and other facts (such as, possibly, heterosexual partners switch every three years, or that the sampling was taken from younger subjects).
Jim In Iowa said: However, I would strongly suggest (and some psychiatrists say there are actual studies that demonstrate) that a child being raised by his or her biological parents is without question better than any other option, all things being equal.
There is no question that a stable home environment is essential for developing a healthy child. The overwhelming evidence so far is that divorce has a devestating effect on children. The current evidence for gay marriage in Europe where it has now been legal for 10 years is that gay marriages are even less stable than traditional marriage. In addition, gay marriages are not monogamous even when they do stay together.
Don't even try to play the psychological research angle, because you will lose. While a stable home environment is the best environment to raise a child, a troubled marriage where the parents fight is worse for the child than divorce. No one can predict if a marriage will go sour, but if it does it is in the child's best interest if the couple divorces.
So you may have numbers saying that same-sex marraiges are less stable than opposite sex marraiges- what do these numbers say about the presence of children in the marraiges that disband? I am willing to bet that opposite sex couples are more likeley to remain together because they don't want to harm the children.
Oh great. So what's Bush's first act as re-elected president? Raise the national debt: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=11&u=/ap/20041103/ap_on_go_pr_wh/debt_ceiling
Please, Bush supporters, explain how this is a good thing.
I am curious. Those of you who support gay marriage, why do you think gays want to be considered married? (Saying that it doesn't matter, it is none of our business, doesn't answer a valid question. It just avoids it.)
Jim in Iowa
Simple... I think they should have all the same rights as heterosexual people, including the right to marry whomever they want. I don't give a damn about financial considerations... I just want the country to remember that all are created equal... And should be treated thusly.
Yo:
Liberals have bitched for years. We bitched during Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. Nothing new there...we're used to it.
Smart people have always been in the minority in this country, and that's our burden to bear.
Republicans can go on and on about morality while their leaders mortgage their grand-children's future with their tax cuts for the richest Americans. Clinton may have had consentual extramarital sex while in office, but he didn't screw up the country's finances the way the current Administration has ("Eight years of a booming economy. The man must be punished." Bill Maher).
Well, they have all the reins of power to themselves now. Nothing's stopping them from making everything Right and Perfect. I wait with clean hands and composure for the coming NeoCon Utopia.
...fortunately, I packed a lunch. May be a bit of a wait, there.
"I am curious. Those of you who support gay marriage, why do you think gays want to be considered married?
-Jim in Iowa"
Speaking of the gays that I know, most of them want to be able to share the same benefits (legal- and tax-wise) that hetero couples do. Most also want to be able to say they're married because it will legitimize their love for their partner in the eyes of others... particularly those who think homosexuality is an abomination. But mostly, it's for the same reason most hetero couples do- as a declaration of permanent love for another person; a binding mental, spiritual, and physical contract between two people who are in love and want to stay that way.
I'm hardly the go-to guy for the gay movement, but of the many, many homosexuals I know, none have ever said they want to 'tear down the current definition of marriage,' nor have I ever heard a serious proponent of homosexual rights claiming such. None I know have ever even hinted at wanting to destroy the sanctity of marriage, because most gays want to be blessed by that selfsame sanctity of marriage.
I don't want to insult Iowa Jim, because he's one of the few guys around here from either side of the fence who goes out of his way to discuss things like a reasonable person, but I'm tempted to think that you're (unknowingly) repeating a misguided falsehood: that gays want to destroy the institution of marriage. Again, I'm not the end-all-be-all of homosexual advocacy, but I've never heard of any homosexual making such a claim. They want to be invited into the house, not burn it down.
Responding to another poster, who said that homosexuality was 'immoral and disgusting': When you think about it, the act of heterosexual love can be both immoral and disgusting. I know adults who (sadly) don't enjoy sex because they think it's just plain gross. What makes the act of homosexual sex any more or less disgusting than heterosexual sex?
-tOjb
Oh great. So what's Bush's first act as re-elected president? Raise the national debt.... Please, Bush supporters, explain how this is a good thing.
Your comment can be misleading. The article you posted clearly says Congress (which yes, is Republican controlled) put off this action until after the election. Not exactly the first time this has been done by either party.
I agree, this is not a good thing. However, it should be clear that this is to pay for things already in motion, not to fund new things. This cannot continue, but this is not something Bush could change today even if he wanted. Time will tell if my fellow Republicans will do as promised and reduce spending.
By the way, thanks for those who answered my question about gay marriage.
Jim in Iowa
And another thing, while I'm riding shotgun for the homosexual rights movement: Iowa Jim, would you be willing to concede the point that the marriage habits of gays in Europe (from the study you referenced) might not be indicative of the marriage habits of gays in America? If memory serves, the divorce rate in Europe is significantly higher in Europe, even among hetero couples. If that's the case, would it still be accurate to base our standards on European ones?
-tOjb
That penultimate line should have read: "If memory serves, the divorce rate is significantly higher in Europe than in America, even among hetero couples." Mea culpa.
-tOjb
Jim in Iowa,
Thanks for clarifying that for me. I think you're right, I misread the article. In re-checking it, it looks like even if Kerry had won, Congress would've done this anyway. The timing just rankled me.
Perhaps if I go back to sleep, this entire day will simply have been a nightmare. There could be no way that some idiot like Bush could be reelected?
Democrats want to be upset they lost the election, fine. I can sympathize. If Bush had lost the election I would be upset too.
However.
What is absolutely uncalled for is this utter crap about "half the country are idiots" or "half the country were fooled by the lies" insults I've been seeing here. How dare you. HOW DARE YOU call those who were for Bush "stupid people" (PAD), "bigoted" (Nivek), "this country is just the the Taliban with Christians instead of Muslims" (Bladestar), "How can people be so bigoted and so stupidly close minded to not see what's happening to the country?" (Aaron Thall), "the Republican party won't be happy until they've legislated the melting pot out of existence. Let's all be white, Christian, straight, church-going folk. If you don't fit into that paradigm, America has no place for you." (Rich), "blind worship" (Karen-Full-of-Hate).
That's why you lost. And you lost. The Democrats lost. The. Democrats. Lost. You lost seats in the Senate. You lost seats in the House. You lost governorships. That doesn't happen when people agree with you. Until you accept that, you will continue to lose. You better not blame this on people you elitist snobs look down upon.
And to address the fearmongers out there (all liberals, I might add):
You know what? I would have loved to have said that when Clinton got his second term, he would lead us into economic nightmare, make us less safe, and create a scandal-ridden administration.
Wait a minute...he did. Or at least, I say he did. So if I say it, it must be true.
Ok, this was pretty venomous. But I'm still in a good mood because the majority of American voters decided John Kerry and John Edwards were DANGEROUS. the majority of American voters decided that John Kerry and John Edwards were MORALLY LACKING. the majority of American voters decided that the Democratic way is WRONG. And you cannot spin that by calling the majority of American voters STUPID. Or you know what, just say it. Because then you were defeated by stupid people, which puts you even lower on the food chain.
So that's it then.
You've chosen unilateralism over engagement. You've backed agression over diplomacy. You were lied to, and your lads are being kileld as a result, but that's OK by you.
Time perhaps to cede the leadership of the free world to someone that wants the job.
R. Maheras - I speak less of the political stances that countries have made in either supporting or not supporting the US (ie ome of your valid points about the UN and US allies) , and more of the position of the masses. Sure, it doesn’t directly matter what they think, because they don’t have US security foremost in their mind, and really have little to do with domestic or foreign policy here.
However, it’s my belief that through the actions of this administration - mainly, pursuing a war in Iraq for the stated purpose of finding WMD without exhausting means to ascertain whether definitively there or not - has caused the loss of American respect and sympathy throughout the world.
Rather than first finishing off the campaign in Afghanistan, or at least focusing on bin Laden before turning our attention elsewhere, we instead shifted to Iraq, where it has since been proven that Sadaam didn’t have direct links with Osama, or 9/11, that he didn’t have WMD, and that many Iraqi’s are obviously unhappy with us still there.
It can be argued that UN inspections weren’t working, etc. etc., but I feel that heading almost immediately into war in Iraq was not the correct course of action to take. Although Iraq is probably better off without Hussein in power, I don’t believe that makes the actions taken there more justifiable, although I know that many of you would disagree. And really, the argument I was originally trying to make was not how I personally felt about the war, but how America is now viewed in the rest of the world because of this war, and what this leads to…
After 9/11 the entire world felt the pain of the US. Osama was public enemy no. 1. Since our actions in Iraq, bin Laden’s ranks, or those of similarly violent groups have swelled. And many more, while not joining such groups, are much more sympathetic to his cause then they would have been or should be. Even some of those who aren’t sympathetic with him are now no longer as sympathetic with us .In the end, it doesn’t matter as much if we are proven right or wrong about Iraq, because its already too late. Bin Laden got what he wanted, and I feel Bush directly made his job that much harder.
Then again, it could just be me.
Well, unless proven that the election has been rigged (and that's what we're all hoping for), America has proven that it wants to suffer. They deserve everything they get from Bush's insanity.
This first and then hearing Rob Leifeld being over the moon that X-Force is selling really well, even provoking kids to 'collect' the comics as they intentionally print 5,000 less than people order, it's all too much.
America's gone too far. It's like they don't learn, they can't learn. They put idiots in charge and call talentless hacks artists. It might be just an odd/bad day in general but I say burn it. Kill everyone over there and burn the damn land to the ground. Leave no one alive and salt the earth so no one can live there. Make it a reminder of how wrong society can get. Maybe then the rest of us will learn not to be like that.
It's a harsh solution, but it might be the only one.
*sorry, didn't mean to make it look like i was quoting r maheras, just addressing his/her comments
Charles K:
>That's why you lost. And you lost. The Democrats lost. The. Democrats. Lost. You lost seats in the Senate. You lost seats in the House. You lost governorships. That doesn't happen when people agree with you.
*snip*
>Ok, this was pretty venomous. But I'm still in a good mood because the majority of American voters decided John Kerry and John Edwards were DANGEROUS. the majority of American voters decided that John Kerry and John Edwards were MORALLY LACKING. the majority of American voters decided that the Democratic way is WRONG. And you cannot spin that by calling the majority of American voters STUPID. Or you know what, just say it. Because then you were defeated by stupid people, which puts you even lower on the food chain.
Your statement of not happening when people agree with you" is a simplistic one that treads dangerous ground. This mentality will continue to drive the wedge between people. The simple fact is that people did agree. Almost 50%.
Although this is a single statement and not the words of every "Conservative", the biggest issue that I continue to have with the whole idea of a two=party system with "sides" is that it often becomes whittled down to a sense of right and wrong, black and white. The world is neither of these, nor are any of the issues being debated.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm not feeling like a sore loser. I'm not chewing on any sour grapes. I'm not being melodramatic. I am truly saddened that a possible future for this country and the world that has become so important to me as a possibility is over. I'm sad to think about continued policies, both domestic and foreign, that I disagree with and consider avoidable will continue for another 4 years.
Fred
Wow, Charles K! Way to take the high road by making sweeping generalizations about why the Republicans won. I mean, a lot of the liberal/Democratic folks here aren't above blame either, but I've got to tip my hat to you.
My favorite line was how "the majority of American voters decided that John Kerry and John Edwards were MORALLY LACKING." Do you really think 51% of American voters went to the polls and said to themselves, "boy, the Kerry/Edwards ticket is just too MORALLY LACKING for me. Better vote for Bush!" Do you think even a significant portion of the vote was decided solely because Kerry was percieved as MORALLY LACKING?
This gets back to what PAD was saying about 'stupid voters.' I can guarantee you that a significant portion (if not a majority) of voters cast their ballots yesterday while being mostly-to-totally unaware of where the candidates stood on some-to-most of the issues. And that goes for both sides of the fence... there are just as many people out there (well, 48% to 51%, anyway) who voted blindly Democratic. But when a majority of the populace thinks Saddam Hussien was behind 9/11, it's not much of a stretch to call that voting populace 'uninformed.' And when you're uninformed, 'stupid' is just a hop, skip and jump away.
-tOjb
"If memory serves, the divorce rate is significantly higher in Europe than in America, even among hetero couples."
Memory does not serve. The divorce rate in Europe is significantly lower than in the US. Except for Sweden and Finland, all the industrialized countries have lower divorce rates than the US (e.g. Germany:39%; France: 41%; to the US's 54%). And that's after you take their somewhat lower marriage rates into account. If you just look at the rate per 1000 people, the US has double the divorce rate of all the European countries except England. Even there, the US is 25% higher.
Curiously, Canada, though superficially similar to the US in culture, has a divorce rate about half that of the US. Marriages in Canada last an average of about 14 years, while those in the US last an average of about 8. Go figure. Perhaps if they didn't allow gay marriage in Canada, those divorce numbers would improve even more.
FWIW, some former Eastern bloc countries do have higher rates than the US.
Also, there are currently only two countires in the world (Canada & Netherlands) that allow gay marriage, with Spain possibly becoming the third soon: http://www.gmax.co.za/look04/10/01-spain.html
I don't know how long it's been allowed in the Netherlands, but it's only been a bit over a year in Canada.
So how did they do a ten year study on five European countries where it's allowed?
What, am I, at only 41, an elder statesman here? I think we all need a little perspective...
We did not witness the arrival of the Four Horsemen today - just the reelection of a sub-par intellect who takes the advice of ethically-questionable people. It's happened before, folks. Our Constitution has safeguards built into it to keep such conditions from becoming devastating. Just keep the neocons from amending anything for four years, and we should be okay.
The Democrats didn't lose - John Kerry lost. It's entirely possible that, had another candidate been nominated, he might have won (perhaps, for instance, the wet dream of John McCain switching parties, and getting the nomination...).
And for Jim - I am white. My wife is black. There are clear physical differences between us. Further, for reasons we need not go into here, we cannot have any more children. Does this delegitimize our marriage? Did we "tear down the institution"? (And before you claim this has nothing to do with anything, remember - thirty-five years ago, when Loving v. Virginia was before the Supreme Court, there were those who argued that the "clear physical differences" between blacks and whites meant that intermarriage was "against Nature". I'm [barely] old enough to remember...)
Charles K
What is absolutely uncalled for is this utter crap about "half the country are idiots" or "half the country were fooled by the lies" insults I've been seeing here. How dare you. HOW DARE YOU call those who were for Bush "stupid people" (PAD), "bigoted" (Nivek), "this country is just the the Taliban with Christians instead of Muslims" (Bladestar), "How can people be so bigoted and so stupidly close minded to not see what's happening to the country?" (Aaron Thall), "the Republican party won't be happy until they've legislated the melting pot out of existence. Let's all be white, Christian, straight, church-going folk. If you don't fit into that paradigm, America has no place for you." (Rich), "blind worship" (Karen-Full-of-Hate).
Man, all those comments about stupidity and idiocy, and I'm full of hate? Did you read the rest of you're "uncalled for" message? I guess you aren't living in that proverbial glass house.
Jonathan,
What, am I, at only 41, an elder statesman here? I think we all need a little perspective...
I've got you beat, but I won't say by how much.
And I must take exception with your statement, "the Democrats didn't lose..." Yes, they did. And across the board. We couldn't even re-elect the Senate minority leader.
Neil C said...
Also, there are currently only two countires in the world (Canada & Netherlands) that allow gay marriage
*snip*
I don't know how long it's been allowed in the Netherlands, but it's only been a bit over a year in Canada.
Just to clear up some of what you said there, I'd like to say that gay marriage is far from a done deal here in Canada. Canada as a nation has not legalized gay marriage; however five out of ten provinces and one out of three territories have, with a sixth province expected to do so very soon. The greater question of whether denying marriage to homosexual couples constitutes a violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is currently before our Supreme Court, with a ruling expected early next year.
As for your suggestion that our divorce rate would be lower if we did not allow gay marriages, I find that to be both highly unlikely and slightly ridiculous. As you said, gay marriages haven't been allowed anywhere in this country for more than a year, so I highly doubt many, if any, of these marriages have ended in divorce already.
J. Alexander wrote:
"Perhaps if I go back to sleep, this entire day will simply have been a nightmare. There could be no way that some idiot like Bush could be reelected?"
I could never understand those who write off Bush as some village idiot cowboy, yet, at the same time, attribute all of these incredibly intricate conspiracy theory schemes to him as well. This "idiot" beat the best the Democratic Party could throw at him, and, in the process, increased Republican control of both the House and the Senate.
Why do you suppose that is? As someone who understands boths sides, I'll tell you my opinion. I think the people driving the Democratic Party today are arrogant, smug, self-righteous know-it-alls who don't even try to understand or empathize with anyone who is "stupid" enough not to agree with them. They underestimated Bush because they do not respect him or his simple philosophy. Big mistake. As someone who played quite a bit of competitive sports and spent 20 years in the military, I learned a long time ago that you should NEVER underestimate or disrespect your adversary. There's an old saying that says, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." This means know and understand your adversary, or you won't know what hit you when if you do meet in battle.
One final observation: The Democratic Party today is not the Democratic Party I once knew, except, perhaps, in Illinois. I don't know why that is, but that's my perception.
An addendum to my previous post: Canada did, in fact, have its first homosexual divorce on Sept. 13. As far as I know, this is the only time it's occurred, and I doubt that one divorce was enough to make our rate skyrocket.
They simply want to live their lives with the same rights, responsibilities, commitments and equalities as all other Americans.
They do. Gay Americans can marry any one I can, and have the same rights I do.
As for your suggestion that our divorce rate would be lower if we did not allow gay marriages, I find that to be both highly unlikely and slightly ridiculous.
Yeah, I was being extremely sarcastic. I, too, can't imagine that the # of gay marriages that have taken place would have affected the divorce rate here (I live in Canada too!) in the slightest, not even if every single union had ended in divorce the very next day.
And of course you're right about only some of the provinces/territories allowing such marriages. Doesn't change my point. It's hard to find two, much less five countries with which to "prove" gay marriage destroys "traditional" marriage.
It's worth noting that one of the British Columbia cabinet ministers is gay, and got married last year. And it's also worth noting that the BC currently has a right-wing government. Interestingly, nobody really cared that he did that.
As for "destroying marriage as we know it" front, well, so far, it doesn't appear that anyone is trying to force my wife and I to dissolve our marriage or whatever the heck was supposed to happen. In fact, I don't notice any difference at all. Does that mean I'm being obtuse?
...on a side note, hopefully people payed close attention to their local elections, too-- lots of judges, sheriffs, county commissioners and so forth, folks that have an even more direct effect on our lives..
..disappointed that michigan passed the gay marriage ban-- which, technically, was already on the books.. I guess gays will all slowly evaporate now..
detroit public schools will retain a "corporation" type structure with a CEO appointed by the Mayor (now 2 years in place), and other positions as decided by the CEO.. but IMO it leaves little direct accountability/involvement to parents of the community... For what it’s worth, why deny gay people the opportunity to have their money wasted by wedding planners, photographers, caterers and dining halls, most of whom can be counted on to charge exorbitant fees for minor returns? Why cut out such a potentially lucrative source of income and maybe give the economy a minor boost?
Ah, sorry for missing your sarcasm. I haven't come close to reading the entire thread. I just thought I'd throw out the facts for our neighbours to the south.
I, too, await a solid definition of what is supposed to happen when the time-honoured institution of marriage crumbles. No fire and brimstone raining from the heavens just yet, but you never know I guess.
Just keep the neocons from amending anything for four years, and we should be okay.
With the Repubs in full control of our gov't now, I don't see this happening.
So, yes, I'll say it again: there are too many stupid people in this country, and it appears most of them voted for Bush.
Jeff:
>I, too, await a solid definition of what is supposed to happen when the time-honoured institution of marriage crumbles. No fire and brimstone raining from the heavens just yet, but you never know I guess.
With the current divorce rate in the U.S. at about 60%, maybe allowing gay marriage will save the institution. ;) Makes as much sense to me as theorizing that allowing such a thing would kill off something that is already squealing out its death cries.
Fred
um... before I'm misunderstood. My intention with the above statement was to imply that we need to look at the ridiculously high divorce rate within our society and attempt to figure out and trouble-shoot, rather than to point to straw man arguments against gay marriage..... my intention was NOT that marriage is dying.
"I am curious. Those of you who support gay marriage, why do you think gays want to be considered married? (Saying that it doesn't matter, it is none of our business, doesn't answer a valid question. It just avoids it.)"
It's been answered by others but I'll just add my 2 cents. They want to have a legal and ceremonial commitment to someone they love. Without having that right they probably feel like second class citiezens. Making some kind of civil ceremonies as a substitute is no more fair to them than making a perfectly nice water fountain for the colored folks to use.
"Bill,
As you must know, some of us are devastated. While many on this board think a lot of us were only anti-Bush, most of us truly believed in the Kerry/Edwards ticket and the promise of a brighter future, based on our political philosophies."
Very little of that came through, buried in the din of the over the top rabid Bush hatred. Say what you will about Bush, he has the tremendous good fortune of having enemies who, more often than not, shoot themselves in the foot. If the Kerry supporters had spent as much time talking up Kerry as they did tearing down Bush they might have attracted more to their side...then again, since so many of them seem to believe that anyone who is not already on their side is a moron, that would probably never happen. The contempt was too obvious.
That said, Kerry did show a very good human side today. Like Bob Dole he never looked so presidential as when he no longer had any chance to win. Funny how that often happens, I think sometimes these guys are afraid to be themselves until it's too late and then you see what it was that made folks who know them think they might be the right guy for the job.
"Time perhaps to cede the leadership of the free world to someone that wants the job."
Well, have at it, old sport. I wish you well. Seriously.
"Well, unless proven that the election has been rigged (and that's what we're all hoping for), America has proven that it wants to suffer. They deserve everything they get from Bush's insanity.
This first and then hearing Rob Leifeld being over the moon that X-Force is selling really well, even provoking kids to 'collect' the comics as they intentionally print 5,000 less than people order, it's all too much.
America's gone too far. It's like they don't learn, they can't learn. They put idiots in charge and call talentless hacks artists. It might be just an odd/bad day in general but I say burn it. Kill everyone over there and burn the damn land to the ground. Leave no one alive and salt the earth so no one can live there. Make it a reminder of how wrong society can get. Maybe then the rest of us will learn not to be like that.
It's a harsh solution, but it might be the only one."
This is either some kind of satirical performance art or you are the craziest loon ever to grace this site, no small feat there.
And for Jim - I am white. My wife is black. There are clear physical differences between us. Further, for reasons we need not go into here, we cannot have any more children. Does this delegitimize our marriage? Did we "tear down the institution"? (And before you claim this has nothing to do with anything, remember - thirty-five years ago, when Loving v. Virginia was before the Supreme Court, there were those who argued that the "clear physical differences" between blacks and whites meant that intermarriage was "against Nature". I'm [barely] old enough to remember...)
I can't believe I actually have to spell this out. I understand that on its surface, a similar argument was used in the past. That does not mean it is the same thing today.
Skin color is the ONLY significant difference between you and your wife on the basis of race. There is a far more substantial difference between a man and a woman when it comes to their gender. A man cannot (naturally) give birth to a child, only a woman can. Two men or two women cannot, without artificial means, give birth to a child, only one man and one woman can. You are interchangeable with any other male of any other race for the purpose of procreation (all things being equal), and your wife the same. But if you change a wife in a marriage with a man, they cannot bear children.
Again, the fact that someone cannot or choses not to have children is beside the point. The issue is not whether a married couple have a child, the point is that if a child is born, what kind of "family" has nature or God designed as the right environment for him or her to be raised?
In one sense it is totally valid to make a distinction between marriage and having children. However, I am suggesting the reverse is not equally true. Marriage is not solely for the purpose of having kids, but marriage exists, in part, for the very purpose of nurturing and raising a kid.
You doubt this? Then why are "civil unions" not seen as enough? In my opinion, it comes down to a claim that gays do not have equal "rights" and that claim is in turn tied to a right to adoption or artificially have kids.
And another thing, while I'm riding shotgun for the homosexual rights movement: Iowa Jim, would you be willing to concede the point that the marriage habits of gays in Europe (from the study you referenced) might not be indicative of the marriage habits of gays in America? If memory serves, the divorce rate in Europe is significantly higher in Europe, even among hetero couples. If that's the case, would it still be accurate to base our standards on European ones?
Let me start with saying I cannot find the study I referenced earlier. I will keep looking.
What I have found is that once gay marriage became legal in the Netherlands, the rate of gays being married rapidly declined. (This fact is easily found with a Google search. I lost the link and won't take time to find it since it came up multiple times.) So to answer the question posed, I would agree it may well be different here. The marriage rate has also declined in Europe.
That being said, IF I can find the documentation, I am not sure it changes anything. It would suggest, at best, that gay marriages do not last any longer than hetero marriages.
What danger does gay marriage pose? I think it will further the problem that no fault divorce has already created. It will put kids in fractured homes, often with one parent. Now let me be clear, many single parents are doing the best they can and work hard at it. But the evidence is clear that the poverty level, conviction for commiting crimes, drug use, etc., are all significantly higher for kids of single parents than those who have a father and a mother. I believe that allowing gay marriage will just make this trend worse. Can't prove it since it is a prediction for the future, but it seems a very likely consequence.
Jim in Iowa
Oh great. So what's Bush's first act as re-elected president? Raise the national debt.... Please, Bush supporters, explain how this is a good thing.
Your comment can be misleading. The article you posted clearly says Congress (which yes, is Republican controlled) put off this action until after the election. Not exactly the first time this has been done by either party.
I agree, this is not a good thing. However, it should be clear that this is to pay for things already in motion, not to fund new things. This cannot continue, but this is not something Bush could change today even if he wanted. Time will tell if my fellow Republicans will do as promised and reduce spending.
By the way, thanks for those who answered my question about gay marriage.
Jim in Iowa
The point is still valid. Congress is having to deal with Bush's excessive spending. Do not even bring up the war, because taking that away, he is still spending more than we are taking in. Hiding the fact that we now have more debt than we ever did before is definitely on Bush's head. If not, why did he not mention this in any of his speeches? Because he didn't want to admit what a black hole he is leading the country into.
The point is still valid.
What part of my comment "This cannot continue" was unclear? I agree that without the war we are still spending too much. The truth, however, is that congress is having to deal with Congress' excessive spending. As has been accurately noted, Bush either vetoed either only one or no bills during his first 4 years, so I agree he shares the blame. But Congress has been and continues to be at least equally to blame (and I think even more).
You are preaching to the choir. My only point is that Bush's action today was not to take on a "new" debt for a "new" initiative, but to pay for what he has already overspent.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa wrote...
But the evidence is clear that the poverty level, conviction for commiting crimes, drug use, etc., are all significantly higher for kids of single parents than those who have a father and a mother. I believe that allowing gay marriage will just make this trend worse. Can't prove it since it is a prediction for the future, but it seems a very likely consequence.
You're correct in stating that single-parent households face enormous difficulties that are not always (but sometimes are) faced by families with two parental figures.
Why, though, do you think that this situation will be amplified in the case of same-sex unions? The principle reasons for the problems you listed are poverty, which results from having one source of income, and the parent being less able to care for his/her child.
In the case of same-sex marriages, you will (not always, but usually) have two loving parents, who likely each have a steady source of income. I fail to see how this would worsen the trends you speak of.
And yes, I realize you said that your prediction can't be proven, but I'd like to hear the reasoning behind your belief that it's likely.
My question is this, What do we have to do to get the South to seceed from the Union again?
I mean they could become the Confederate States of Nascarland, make Bush their king, ban same-sex marriage, but legalize same-family marriage, make Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red White and Blue" their National Anthem while they sit in their trailer parks spitting tobacco juice and firing their assault weapons in wildly into the air.
Okay, Now that I've offended someone, My point is this- We're hearing so much about this "mandate" the Republicans received, yet Bush loses by a landslide if you take the South and the Mountain states out of the equation. Of course, we can't really do that, It just proves that we're so divided now that it's hard to imagine that we'll ever get through as one nation.
gene hall wrote...
My point is this- We're hearing so much about this "mandate" the Republicans received, yet Bush loses by a landslide if you take the South and the Mountain states out of the equation. Of course, we can't really do that, It just proves that we're so divided now that it's hard to imagine that we'll ever get through as one nation.
It's true - you guys are in an awful mess. Of course, the first thing you could start doing about it is refraining from over-the-top rants like the one you opened with (though it's all too easy to think things like that).
There are no easy solutions when a country is divided so bitterly. I'm optimistic, though, that the "two Americas" can still find their common ground and stand together again...someday.
Sorry if I sound too sappy, but as a Canadian I know a thing or two about deep divisions within a nation :)
gene hall writes: "My question is this, What do we have to do to get the South to seceed from the Union again?
I mean they could become the Confederate States of Nascarland, make Bush their king, ban same-sex marriage, but legalize same-family marriage, make Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red White and Blue" their National Anthem while they sit in their trailer parks spitting tobacco juice and firing their assault weapons in wildly into the air. "
Wow, talk about your bigots. But you're wrong about your uninformed assertion. Breakdowns of district by district voting even in the states won by John F'ing Kerry (in the east, west, midwest, and 'up thar' where them damn yankees are, ya'all...) show that voters in the larger cities voted for Kerry, but outside of the cities in the surrounding burbs and rural areas went for good ol' W.
This is where I would jokingly quote good ol' John Rocker about your city subways, but then you'd probably think I was serious.
Who doesn't love The Onion?
Today's top story: God Puts His Tool
Back Into Office
Well, I for one am glad I got my so called Stupid self out and voted for Bush.
Get this. One of my friends who is on military disability was unfortunately told one of the lies by a Democratic representative that Bush was pushing a bill through Congress to cause him to lose half of his benefits. Another scare tactic and outright lie used to sway innocent voters to their cause. Of course he was voting for Kerry to prevent him losing money right?
I explained to him that he was lied to, that factcheck.org proved he was being lied to, and he still voted for Kerry. He didn't beleive me. What's going to happen to his vote in 2008 when he finds out, on his own, that his benefits never went down because of Bush. Which party do you think he'll vote for next time?
Me and My stupid self ~ signing out
Novafan
"Who doesn't love The Onion?"
Probably everyone that voted yesterday to put W back in office. God does love a winner though.
Charles... You just don't get it. The idiocy, bigotry, and close-mindedness I speak of isn't Bush. I can live with Bush, push come to shove. I cannot, however, tolerate raceism of any kind being LEGALIZED. And that's what happened on the second. Across the country, homosexual people were officially denied the right to legally be seen as families.
And that disgusts me. To no end does it disgust me.
Then again, I'm a bit of a bigot, too. I have this strong loathing of people with no ability to expand their horizons who go out of their way to prevent others from doing so.
So yeah, I think the majority in this country are IDIOTS. Thousands are being treated like they're less than full citizens because of their orientation. It's just WRONG. Everyone should be EQUAL. PERIOD.
Then again, this is a country well known for being blind to such things being in the Constitution... After all, how else do you explain the history of minorities here? Slavery, segrigation, japanese internment camps, and now a ban on gay marriage.
You say I'm wrong to be angry, to call this as I see it? To see ignorance growing stronger in a country that was supposed to bring equality to all within it?
And you call US the fools. Go take a good, long hard look in a mirror. And then come back here and tell us you're proud of what you see.
Well, this sucks.
I guess the one benefit is that Jon Stewart and the writers of the Daily Show will still have their work cut out for them by being able to show more clips of Bush being retarded and letting the footage speak for itself.
Should work to the advantage of Air America too. Look what Clinton did for right wing radio.
First off, let me start out by saying this.
I'm gay.
That's right. I'm an immoral, hedonistic, worthless dyke of a human being who only serves to pull myself and my love away from the gene pool and out of the clutches of girl-hungry men who want snoo-snoo. I'm that woman that no one wants around their children for fear she'll "infect" or "influence" them with her nasty nasty demonic ways. I am the terror that flaps in the--wait a minute.
Ahem.
Does it matter that I'm also a human being? Does it matter that I've been in a steady romantic relationship with a woman I've known for nine years? Does it matter that I, too, am a Christian with a conservative Texas background? That I came from the SAME SORT OF STOCK as many southern Republicans?
Apparently not because the moment I realise something about myself, I'm immediately ostracised and any opinion anybody has of me immediately falters if not crashes straight through the Earth.
God knows I prayed about it because He listened and lead me to the woman I'm with now and I'm not planning on ending that relationship any time soon and neither is she; I've never been this comfortable with another human being.
What most homosexuals I know want (and I honestly don't know many very well, all but four of my friends are straight, HAH) is not "marriage" but SOME SORT of legal recognition of their union and the rights that go along with it. Call it a Civil Union, I don't care. I just want to be able to cover my love on my insurance and share other government benefits. Any sort of step in that direction would be great and wonderful to me; the heterosexuals can keep their marriage.
And for some crap I wrote earlier today elsewhere:
No wonder I connect with rats and mice so much; they're not even included as animals worth protecting by the USDA and I'm not even considered much of a human being because, ooooh, I'm a woman and I don't like men in a sexual way. I'm a woman in love with another woman and she is the greatest blessing to my life that God could ever bestow upon me.
And yes, that WOULD be the same God whose name people are throwing around in order to put some religious backing to their votes and call it "morality."
Well, if you go by everything the New Testament says, then women shouldn't have the right to lead anything in the church. Women should serve only as an obedient little spaniel of a helper to their husbands, keep their graceful feminine voices quiet when a man is speaking, never argue with a thing he says, never think for themselves, and just wander aimlessly through life as trophy breedingstock. Well, gee. The Yoo Ess ain't like that no more. But them damn faggots are goin' ta hell anyway! The Bible says so!
Anyone else see the hypocrisy in this? The picking and choosing? Blot out this passage and take this one to heart, hmm.
To err is human. The entire New Testament was written by human hands, it contains human biases (by my personal belief), it is not the verbatim Word of God although I have no doubt that it was divinely inspired. We are not Elohim, we can NOT even begin to FATHOM what God is, we can only know the merest fraction of anything. Knowing too much would certainly cause us to go mad; you KNOW just by looking at history what sorts of mental issues supposedly "genius" people suffered, especially those of the artistic realm like Schumann, Beethoven, Van Gogh, Michelangelo, Edgar Allan Poe, Frida Kahlo, the list extends into eternity. God keeps us happily ignorant.
The moment you become God, then please. Pass judgment and condemn all you want. That is not the place of humans when one is not harming another in any way.
How is my love for Avery hurtful to anyone else? If you yammer on about how we each could be having children were we with men, I'll have you know that with my screwed up reproductive system, I'm probably not even fertile! Besides, with all the abortions, infantocide, starving and/or parentless children, why would we even want to contribute to the stinking morass of bodies when we could save someone who needs a family through adopting?
It's a hypothetical situation anyway. Why don't you say the same about heterosexual married couples who never have had children?
Mmm, the ongoing debates about companion/domestic animal overpopulation and no one dares face that fact about humans. Same stuff goes for us as it does for animals, folks. We run out of resources, we die. It may not be in this lifetime, but on down the road if things keep going as they are there won't be much of anything left.
You don't know what it's like until you're on the other side.
Luigi,
James Tichy: Fox News says Bush has Ohio.
Luigi Novi: Even though everyone else is saying that Ohio is too close to call and has to be thoroughly examined? Gee, I'm shocked!
Nope, no Republican bias at THAT network.
Jerome Maida: And, of course, it couldn't be that everyone else was WRONG and that Fox was RIGHT. As far as bias, please. Fox was the LAST network to call Florida. They were the first to call Ohio because Michael Barone accurately read the numbers. For CNN and everyone else (I watched some of them and ABC because of Jeff Greenfield, George Will and because Brit Hume looked bored most of the night) to say the race was "too close to call" with a 140,000 vote advantage and 97% of precincts counted was beyond ludicrous. You could see it in their eyes: THEY ALL WANTED ANOTHER FLORIDA and were determined to try and manufacture it if it didn't come naturally.
Am I being partisan?
Try this exchange, after a reporter told Peter Jennings at about 3 AM that the Bush White House was a little angry that Kerry was not conceding and that he was potentially going to try to drag out Ohio, despite the fact that Bush's margin was greater than the number of provisional ballots to be counted.
JENNINGS: Yes, but you're giving us White House spin -
REPORTER: Well, it's, uh, kind of hard to spin the simple math, Peter.
Nope, these other networks aren't biased at all.
Let's get this out of the way right now: I voted for Kerry.
Sad to see Bush win and John Kerry lose today. Kerry made a very moving, heartfelt concession speech while apparently choking back tears. I'd have to hope that George Bush learns something from the divisiveness of the voting electorate (just north of 2 percentage points isn't what I would call a comfortable majority), but I just don't think our President has it in him to unite the nation after the grievous mistakes committed in the wake of 9/11 when he squandered the world's opinion of this country. I know that as of this writing, foreign leaders have offered the olive branch to Bush in hopes of mending fences, but if the past four years have taught me anything, it's that being divisive is the President's strong suit, and he shows no signs of stopping the trend. I was hoping for a reprieve from the mess of the past few years in the form of John Kerry, but my hopes have been dashed in favor of a bleak world view where frankly, I'd consider renouncing my U.S. citizenship and moving overseas if only I had the funds.
President Bush should not have gone as far as he did back in 2000. He should have been stopped in the primaries. (Truthfully, he should have been stopped at Andover, where his grades were so poor it was only as a legacy that he was admitted to Yale in the first place. But, I digress...) It used to be the case that more moderate Republicans were able to keep the right-wingers off the ballots. Such is not the case today. President Bush's campaign teams have expertly exploited every weakness of their opponents in their patriarch's rise to the top. His Fundamentalist Christian values have no place being preached forth from the pulpit of the land's highest office. Sepration of Church and State should be obeyed but are not. If it makes me a liberal to state that I don't believe that those in power should have the right to preach their morals to the lesser peoples, then I am a proud liberal. I don't see why the Born Again/Fundamentalist Christian mentality must pervade the upper levels of government in Bush's administration (Speaker of the House Denny Hastert is Born-Again, for one; and it is a well-known fact that Bush employs Christian organizations to do government business).
I also don't see why Bush saw the need to bring partisan politics in where they, too, were not required. In the campaign, he did what no other candidate for re-election has done before, having the members of his cabinet effectively go out and campaign on his behalf. All that would have been required in their speeches at local halls would have been the closing "Vote Bush/Cheney '04" for their speeches to feel like even more an endorsement than they already had.
What do I foresee in the next four years? More privatization, turning over to big business that which has already started, i.e. veteran care, followed by Social Security and even the postal service. I see January bringing with it the harshest cuts yet to veterans' benefits, continuing the 10-year cycle whereby benefits will be cut by over $30 billion. I see more jobs created that earn less money (McJobs). I see science being limited as a thing feared, esp. the stem-cell research. I see Bush once again bypassing the U.N. and other countries to invade more middle-Eastern nations for nonexistent WMDs and abundant oil which disappears in weekly bursts of flame amid the fields. I see the United Nations branding the U.S. a terrorist nation and imposing further sanctions. I see more terrorist attacks, possibly nuclear, and the security of our nation naught but a dream when we realize in a moment of terrifying clarity that no other nations will offer us help because we have turned their aid away, squandered their well-wishes, and charted our own path, one that put at odds an isolationist policy with one that shows staggering arrogance that we are the only ones who can truly cure the world's ills.
President Bush is a dualist, his ideology flowing forth from his rigid Christian Fundamentalism. Everything is black or white, good or evil. Soon enough, if you're not a patriot, you're a terrorist. If you're not a Christian, you're a pagan demon. He can't admit he's wrong. It's arrogance of the highest order. Is it really such a sin to say, "maybe I made a mistake"? Evidently so. And this simple moralist attitude plays well into the south. "If you're not with us, you're against us"? Puh-lease.
I blame the anti-intellectual bias of society for the fact Bush has won another term. Is it really a sin that John Kerry couldn't hide his education if he tried?
I agree with the poster who said that the Republicans have crafted the illusion that the "far right" of GWB is more mainstream, so that by comparison, Kerry's stances seem that much further left.
Over the past few weeks, I've seen constructive criticism on the Democratic end of the ticket; that is, constructively damning Bush's policies and enforcing how the Democrats would approach those issues. By comparison, I've only seen attack after attack by the Republicans upon Kerry, and no real strict adherence to the issues. Bush wants re-elected because he's not John Kerry (Kerry will do X, Y and Z if he's elected...you don't really want that, do you?). I've heard both candidates misrepresent the facts, but none as much as Bush (57% of the tax cuts during his reign were to the uppermost 10%...only just more than 10% of the cuts went to the middle and lower classes). Facts were severely distorted and oversimplified, especially by Bush: when Kerry said he wanted healthcare for everyone, Bush told people Kerry wanted socialized medicine. When Kerry found new information and reformed his opinions, Bush called it flipflopping. That's some expert spin.
I'm going to mourn our country for a good while. I'll be mourning the loss of my mother's job when the VA hospitals close during this term. I'd like to get one of those bumper stickers: "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry."
Ha.
~Gary
Neil C- "If memory serves, the divorce rate is significantly higher in Europe than in America, even among hetero couples."
"Memory does not serve."
They say memory's the first thing to go... thanks for digging up the facts for everyone to see. I wish I had more time in my day to devote to this thread; when you tune out the petty bickering there's a good bit of interesting dialogue here. I'm grateful to those working to continue that dialogue, rather than letting it revert to name-calling.
-tOjb
Luigi Novi wrote:
"Even though everyone else is saying that Ohio is too close to call, and has to be thoroughly examine?
Gee, I’m shocked!
Nope, no Republican bias at that network."
Um... you were saying? It's so typical for the people on the Left to bash Fox News over and over. I often wonder if any of you actually watch FOX News or are you just getting fed this sort of anti-Fox viewpoint from the Al Frankens and Michael Moores of the world?
Fred:
"How is a man expressing that he is scared for his family under President Bush melodramatic? I fear for the nation and the world. This is stronger than his statement and still doesn't reach the level of "melodramatic" to me. If someone stated that they thought Bush was waiting to press the button and wipe out our enemies.... well, that might be."
Because this sort of "the sky is falling" mentality is ridiculous. And yes, your over-the-top statement does transcend into the 'melodramatic' realm as well.
Karen,
I am sorry you are upset. It's a shame a lot of people seem to be gloating or being melodramatic crybabies about all this.
I know I would be devastated right now if the outcome were reversed. When the exit polls came out in the afternoon, and it looked like Kerry was a lock, I got a serious headache, which I almost never get. By the time I was done with work at about 9PM, I was hardly able to function. Because i just felt this election was so IMPORTANT.
I won't rehash the issues with you at this time (I just wish you hadn't played the Guilty White Person with Umar's comments painting Republicans as racists).
You know, watching Kerry today, I think was the first time I saw him as a real person. You could tell he was very emotional. Perhaps if he had shared a bit more of himself and let people understand both him and his positions (what were his "plans"? What were his feelings today about his Vietnam testimony? Why couldn't he say,"I'm sorry if my testimony, though heartfelt, hurt anyone or caused anyone any pain) things would have gone differently.
I also have faith in and was inspired by Bush today. I realize you feel differently. Hopefully, your sense of dread will diminish, and maybe he will even surprise you. Nixon started affirmative action. Bush41 signed the Americans with Disabilities Act. Clinton signed NAFTA and Welfare Reform.
Anyway, I do admit Kerry was classy today. So are you.
Posted by: gene hall:
"My question is this, What do we have to do to get the South to seceed from the Union again?
I mean they could become the Confederate States of Nascarland, make Bush their king, ban same-sex marriage, but legalize same-family marriage, make Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red White and Blue" their National Anthem while they sit in their trailer parks spitting tobacco juice and firing their assault weapons in wildly into the air.
Okay, Now that I've offended someone, My point is this- We're hearing so much about this "mandate" the Republicans received, yet Bush loses by a landslide if you take the South and the Mountain states out of the equation. Of course, we can't really do that, It just proves that we're so divided now that it's hard to imagine that we'll ever get through as one nation."
Well, following that train wreck of logic, why doesn't the Northeast try to suceed? If those votes are taken out of the equation, then Bush would have won by a landslide, instead of just winning both the popular and electoral vote.
Your comments about the south just helps show one of the reasons why the democrats lost. If you want to convert someone to your way of thinking, insulting them or their way of life (even if it's a gross exageration) isn't the best way to start.
They simply want to live their lives with the same rights, responsibilities, commitments and equalities as all other Americans.
They do. Gay Americans can marry any one I can, and have the same rights I do.
...not in the 11 states that now say that "marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman." And especially not in Ohio, where now homosexuals (and heterosexuals who choose not to marry) can't file joint tax returns, give power of attorney to their love, take out a joint loan, or inherit their love's estate when they die. Why? Because that would "simulate marriage", and now Ohio's constitution forbids giving that to unmarried couples -- heterosexual OR homosexual.
If this amendment is enforced as written, thousands of heterosexual unmarried couples in Ohio will be suing for constitutionality. If it's enfoced as intended, thousands of homosexuals in Ohio will be suing for discrimination. In either case, this amendment isn't gonna wait long to see whether it's struck down or not...
I find it amazing that it was the Democrats...the ones who support gay marriage...who used the gay issue for political advantage, most famously when Kerry gay-baited Mary Cheney during the third debate.
Also, one toss-up Senate seat lost by the Republicans was Pete Coors in Colorado, where the Democrats did not hesitate to run commercials of a gay festival in Canada sponsored by Coors Brewing Co.
Karen wrote:
"Air America just reported that Kerry has conceded. I hope you Bush supporters are happy. We now have a man who started an unnecessary war, is ruining our environment, wants to gut social security, and cares only for his base (the haves and have mores) Congratulations. Your blind worship has put in office the worst president we've ever had."
Ah yes, the 59 million people who voted for Bush are practicing nothing but "blind worship." I can understand your disapointment that your guy didn't win, but please, don't insult those who voted for Bush with your hysterical statements.
Jim in Iowa: The current evidence for gay marriage in Europe where it has now been legal for 10 years is that gay marriages are even less stable than traditional marriage.
Luigi Novi: First, homosexuals are neither more nor less sexually promiscuous than heterosexuals. Like heterosexuals, many gays and lesbians are involved in monogamous relationships, considering themselves partners and committed to each other for life. Some gays and lesbians may also choose to remain celibate, and others may have multiple partners, just as some heterosexuals do.
Second, even if this were true, what would you say about those homosexual couples whom this does not describe?
Lastly, does this evidence indicate that gay marriage has “destroyed marriage” in those countries?
Jim in Iowa: In addition, gay marriages are not monogamous even when they do stay together.
Luigi Novi: Propaganda. Homosexuals are no more or less monogamous than heterosexuals.
Jim in Iowa: Are you deliberately ignoring the sexual, gender difference that I clearly referred to later in my post? A Caucasain and an African can mate, two men or two women cannot. You are comparing apples to oranges and deliberately ignoring what I clearly stated.
Luigi Novi: Are you deliberate4ly ignoring the fact that I simply answered that section of your statement separately right afterwards? Are you denying that you did, in fact, read that separate rebuttal, given that you quoted that section right after this one?
C’mon, Jim, you’re better than that. :-)
Jim in Iowa: Again you clearly ignore what I explicitly state. The question is NOT do you have to actually have children in order to be married. The point I am making is that nature or god (take your pick) have evolved or designed us to where we mate in order to have children.
Luigi Novi: And as I point out, that is not the only reason people get married, as you yourself said when you stated, “The function of marriage is NOT solely to have kids. That alone does not define a marriage.” They get married (at least ideally, in Western society) because they FALL IN LOVE, and want to formally codify the fact that they have pair-bonded, and want to spend the rest of their lives together monongamously. Gays should have the right to do that with each other, period. We’re not talking about children or adoption, nor is your paranoid slippery slope the basis on which we should deny consenting adults who fall in love the right to be married.
Jim in Iowa: Yes, language can change. You make my point -- this will redefine the defintion of marriage.
Luigi Novi: And what’s wrong with that?
Jim in Iowa: The argument "it's never existed" does matter in one regard: It is appropriate, considering thousands of years of recorded human history, to ask why this has never been an accepted norm to any real degree.
Luigi Novi: First, I’m not sure that that’s the case. If you have information that establishes this, please provide it.
Second, you could just as easily ask why it was so acceptable to have slavery for so long. Or why we didn’t have proper hygiene or dentistry for so long. Or equal rights.
Charles K: "the Republican party won't be happy until they've legislated the melting pot out of existence. Let's all be white, Christian, straight, church-going folk. If you don't fit into that paradigm, America has no place for you." (Rich), "blind worship" (Karen-Full-of-Hate).
Luigi Novi: While exaggerated, I believe there’s a certain grain of truth to some of this, at least for some conservatives, particularly those on the extreme right fringe to which Bush caters.
Charles K: But I'm still in a good mood because the majority of American voters decided John Kerry and John Edwards were DANGEROUS. the majority of American voters decided that John Kerry and John Edwards were MORALLY LACKING.
Luigi Novi: Sure they were. Kerry graduated from Yale and went to Vietnam, got shot at, lost some of his friends there, while Bush used his connections to get into the “champagne unit” of the National Guard, learning to fly an obsolete plane that would never combat, refused to take physicals, and went AWOL for a time. Yeah, Bush really has Kerry beat in the morality department. Thanks for illustrating why so many of us are utterly perplexed at how anyone could think Bush is a good leader.
I can understand voting for George H.W. Bush. I can understand John McCain. I can understand Rudolph Giuliani. I can understand Christie Todd Whitman. Those are Republicans I can see myself voting for. What I cannot see is people looking at this C-student, former drug addict, and failed businessman, who didn’t serve his country in battle like his opponent did, who is solely the product of his family’s influence, and who can barely speak coherent sentences, and seeing the leader of the most powerful country in the world. I can understand why the Republican party might have been driven by evangelicals who see themselves in someone like Bush rather than McCain, but I can’t see how Republican citizens can fall for it.
R. Maheras: I could never understand those who write off Bush as some village idiot cowboy, yet, at the same time, attribute all of these incredibly intricate conspiracy theory schemes to him as well.
Luigi Novi: Who has? I don’t know about “conspiracies,” but it’s people like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, et al. to whom I would attribute such Bush’s success, rather than any great intelligence on his part.
Jim in Iowa: Skin color is the ONLY significant difference between you and your wife on the basis of race. There is a far more substantial difference between a man and a woman when it comes to their gender.
Luigi Novi: Race and skin color was once considered substantial. Those who thought this were as wrong then as those today who think sexuality is.
Dennis V.: Um... you were saying? It's so typical for the people on the Left to bash Fox News over and over. I often wonder if any of you actually watch FOX News or are you just getting fed this sort of anti-Fox viewpoint from the Al Frankens and Michael Moores of the world?
Luigi Novi: LOL!!! New here, aren’t ya? Who here wants to tell Dennis here about my discussion with Robert Jung about Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11 back in July at http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/001777.html?
As for Franken, I can answer that by directing you here: http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/2310/24339.html?#POST271074
But hey, thanks for a good laugh, Dennis. And welcome to the blog. :-)
What do I foresee in the next four years?
Another attempt at a gay marraige amendment very shortly, targeting of Rowe vs Wade, targeting of a couple more Middle Eastern countries, and whatever else Bush can screw up in between.
Okay, Now that I've offended someone, My point is this- We're hearing so much about this "mandate" the Republicans received, yet Bush loses by a landslide if you take the South and the Mountain states out of the equation. Of course, we can't really do that, It just proves that we're so divided now that it's hard to imagine that we'll ever get through as one nation.
By the same token, Bush wins in a landslide if you get rid of the Northeast and West Coast.
We are no more divided today, then we have been over the last few elections. Look at the last few elections. Ignore 1980, 1992 and 1996 when there was a significant 3rd party turnout:
1976: 50%-48%
1984: 59%-41%
1988: 53%-45%
2000: 48%-48%
2004: 51%-48%
With the exception of 1984, most of these have been close - and election day was the deciding point.
If you look at the electoral maps, they look very similar. Northeast/West are blue, midwest and South are red. The states that have "turned" are a few southern states like Arkansas and Louisiana, as well as some midwestern states like Iowa and Missouri.
Luigi Novi: Who has? I don’t know about “conspiracies,” but it’s people like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, et al. to whom I would attribute such Bush’s success, rather than any great intelligence on his part.
Hey, why take my word for it? Chicago Richard M. Daley, one of the most powerful and respected Democrats in the country echoed my comments here yesterday in a Sun-Times quote today. Said Daley, "You have to give credit to his (Bush's)discipline and the message he stayed on. People made fun of him. They underestimated him all the time."
The seething arrogance of many Democrats and lack of respect for Bush and his values is exactly why the Democratic Party as a whole is drifting ever closer to fringe status. Many of the new party leftists are smugly self-righteous and refuse to listen to anyone, including the old-school Democrats who are trying vainly to shake some sense into them.
Sorry about posting this...something's messed up somewhere...I can't see the posts from today until I post something myself. Please continue to talk amongst yourselves.
In the case of same-sex marriages, you will (not always, but usually) have two loving parents, who likely each have a steady source of income. I fail to see how this would worsen the trends you speak of.
It is based on a conviction that same sex marriages (particularly guy/guy relationships) will be even less stable than traditional marriages. In other words, I do believe the "gay" divorce rate will be higher than those for straight marriages. Can I prove it? No. But I believe it is true.
It is also based on the conviction that gay marriage is not the best environment in which to raise a child. I know some of you disagree. But I do believe environment influences a child's emotional development. I am not worried that the kids will turn out gay. I am worried that they will struggle with other emotional issues. I know some of you may consider me bigoted for thinking this way. Without going into personal history, let me just say I have very first hand reasons for being convinced this is true. While my experience cannot be used to prove something to you, it cannot help but to guide me in my convictions.
I have said this repeatedly: Being married does not mean you have to have kids. But I believe having kids should mean you are married. There are exceptions, but they should be just that, exceptions.
I can only speak for myself, but I have a MORAL problem with gay marriage. I do not have a moral problem with civil unions. I think they cause other problems and difficulties and are not wise fiscal policy, but that is a civil matter.
What makes the fundamental difference between the two? For me, first and foremost, it is the issue of kids.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa said...
It is based on a conviction that same sex marriages (particularly guy/guy relationships) will be even less stable than traditional marriages. In other words, I do believe the "gay" divorce rate will be higher than those for straight marriages. Can I prove it? No. But I believe it is true.
But why do you believe it? What is it about these relationships that makes them inherently unstable (I'm most intrigued by your "guy/guy" statement)?
I realize that you can't prove what you say, but surely you have a proposed reason for your proposed instability.
I cannot, however, tolerate raceism of any kind being LEGALIZED. And that's what happened on the second. Across the country, homosexual people were officially denied the right to legally be seen as families.
For all of you who ask a similar question, here is my response: Homosexuals have NOT been denied anything, not according to the current definition and understanding of langauge.
Let me give an example. When we fought slavery, when we fought racial discrimination, it is true that blacks were defined as not being human. That was wrong, horribly wrong. So what did we do? Good people fought and finally established the obvious fact that black people are fully human, just as white people are. Note what happened: The core definition of being human did NOT change in any way during this debate. What changed was how we defined black people. Over time, it finally became obvious that there was no true difference.
I know some of you think this is the case with homosexuality. It is not. The question is not whether gays are human. The question is what is the function and definition of marriage? Right there, you introduce a new issue. You are discussing the function of an institution, of a government recognized "contract" if you will. As such, you enter into a totally separate realm than issues such as is a person human.
When we deal with gay "marriage," it requires you to change the very definition of marriage. That debate is reflected on this very site. Marriage has NOT always been defined as an expression of love between two people. Go look at the politically arranged marriages, much less the commonly arranged marriages, that have occured in many cultures for many centuries. Marriage HAS always included the concept of establishing a family, of establishing a place where kids can be born and raised. This is true in every culture in which marriage exists, and marriage exists in every recorded culture we have ever found. Gay marriage, by definition, does not permit any natural way to fulfill this potential. (Let me repeat again, this does not say a married couple must have kids. It is saying that kids should be born into a family, and a marriage is the formal way of creating that stable environment in which kids can be raised.)
My point is this: denying gays the "privilege" (it is NOT a right) to be married does not deny them a human right. We deny the "privilege" of marriage to a brother and sister. Should we change this law if they really love each other? We deny this "privilege" to a father and daughter. Are we denying them a fundamental human right?
Oppposing gay marriage is not simply a rejection of a gay lifestyle. It is an affirmation in a fundamental purpose of marriage: to provide the environment in which kids can be born and raised. What is being proposed is a fundamental CHANGE in definition of marriage, not the inherent recognition of a person's humanity. We can debate whether it is a good or bad idea to change the definition of marriage, but I reject the false notion that doing so is a denial of basic human rights to a gay individual. It is demonstrably not so.
Jim in Iowa
But why do you believe it? What is it about these relationships that makes them inherently unstable (I'm most intrigued by your "guy/guy" statement)?
I realize that you can't prove what you say, but surely you have a proposed reason for your proposed instability.
Anecdotal (sp?) evidence does not "prove" anything scientifically, but as I said in my post, it can shape your views.
Based on a lot of interaction with male homosexuals, I have seen a consistent problem with maintaining a long term, monogamous relationship. There are, without doubt, some who do. But they are not the norm. And some in the gay community acknowledge this. They suggest it is because gays are denied marriage that this occurs.
Let me get into a lot of trouble for the next comment: I believe there is strong, scientific reasons to believe that being gay is influenced by environment and is not just a genetic necessity. Note, I am NOT saying that a gay person woke up one day and decided to be gay. What I am saying, though, is that there a gay person is not gay solely because of their genetic codes. This can be proven with on simple fact: when one identical twin is gay, the other is not necessarily gay. They are more likely than fraternal twins, but it is NOT even close to 80 or 90% of the time. Identical twins share the exact same DNA, so if being gay was solely an inevitable result of genetics, than both should be gay, or at least it should be true in the overwhelming number of cases. It just is not the case.
Therefore, if environment plays a role, then how? That moves into pschology, which is not an exact science. Let me give you my opinion. I think one reason is because of a lack in male parenting. I know some don't like the stereotype that a gay man was raised by a weak and/or emotionally absent father. The problem is, this is often the case. The stereotype is often true. One theory is that gay men have this emotional hole, and they are trying to fill it. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is NOT why they became gay in the first place. It would still be logical that this drive would cause them to move from partner to partner to fill this hole in their heart. (This is not an "out there" theory. This happens with some women who lacked a strong father who then end up marrying an older guy who is like her father.)
In summary, I suggest that guy / guy relationships are often more unstable because they are driven to fill an emotional void. It does not make them bad people who want to have sex with anything that moves. It makes them hungry/thirsty men who have a need and who live in a culture that tries to deny that need exists.
Why are woman / woman relationships different? I think one reason is a core gender issue: I think women tend to form deeper relationships in general. Men have a lot of "friends," while women tend to develop 2 or 3 very deep, close friends. I also think it is because it has been documented that for at least some women, being gay IS a concious choice. They get fed up with men and so turn to another woman. Because it is a concious choice, it is easier to make a concious commitment. In other words, I believe women are driven differently than men, so they are better able to form longer relationships. (Not to say all of them are long term, and/or stable. Physical/verbal/emotional abuse between gay couples definitely exists.)
Jim in Iowa
Jim:
It's quite easy to verify that the definition of marriage can, and in fact has changed, many times.
So I suppose the real question is who gets to decide on the "final" definition of marriage, and why?
Jim in Iowa said
I can only speak for myself, but I have a MORAL problem with gay marriage. I do not have a moral problem with civil unions. I think they cause other problems and difficulties and are not wise fiscal policy, but that is a civil matter.
What makes the fundamental difference between the two? For me, first and foremost, it is the issue of kids.
Jim, this statement makes me curious as to what you think of as a civil union. What is the difference between a civil union and marriage. The only functional difference that I am aware of is that a civil union has no religion sanctionig it. Is this the what makes them different in your eyes? If not, what does? I'd be very interested in reading the answer.
Okay, here's the other shoe. If the only difference between marriage and civil unions is the presence or lack of a religious stamp, and you (at least as I see it) you don't think people in a civil union shouldn't have kids, what about heterosexual athiests?
There's still no denying, however, the mindset of a good number of the people who voted to ban gay marriage and civil unions. Some voters at my polling place actually went so far as to say that God would punish the gays. Those people, who carried BIBLES, scared me more than the thought of a box full of grenades one pin short.
Doesn't the Bible call homosexuality an abomination? Tough talk from a book that also states that an unfaithful woman can be stoned to death.
THIS is the word of God? In the words of InuYasha... "FEH!"
I gave up on religion years ago because of the hypocracy. Personally, I think marriage itself should be divorced from religion altogether in order for it to grow as it needs to.
But I DO thank you Jim, for providing intelligent counterpoints. It's quite refreshing in this day and age to talk to someone from the "opposite side" with the ability to coherantly argue their opinions. Too many on both sides resort to the equivilant of name calling and shouting to make their points.
Now, if I may ask a question... Why do people fear God? Isn't He supposed to be loving, accepting of all his children? If He's benevolent, why fear Him? And why would anyone following a loving God turn and hate their fellow man just for something that he does behind closed doors that doesn't affect them at all?
Jim in Iowa wrote...
I believe there is strong, scientific reasons to believe that being gay is influenced by environment and is not just a genetic necessity.
That's fine...there are any number of environmental factors that can affect the development of a human being which are still well beyond the control of the individual.
For example, there is a well-documented genetic influence on the development of schizophrenia; however there are cases where one identical twin develops the condition and the other does not. One of the more prominent theories suggest that this could be because of environmental influences from within the womb, that affects one twin but not the other.
I appreciate you bringing psychology into this, as I recently completed a degree in it and Lord (or whoever) knows I don't have a job where I can use it.
Your hypothesis about gay males seems fine on the surface, but if you take your statement to the next logical step, one would have to assume that most, or all, gay males should have highly similar personalities. Now this is where stereotypes of flamboyant "flamers" can cloud our vision, but I truly think that the personalities of the gay community as a whole are just as diverse as those in the "mainstream."
I'm going to cheerfully ignore any layers of extra meaning that can be inferred from your comments regarding gay men trying to "fill" their "emotional hole." =)
Chicago Richard M. Daley, one of the most powerful and respected Democrats in the country echoed my comments here yesterday in a Sun-Times quote today.
Who told you that Daley is one of the most powerful and respected Democrats in the country? Daley?
I hate to break it to ya, but outside of Chi-town, no one gives a rat's butt about him.
I'm going to cheerfully ignore any layers of extra meaning that can be inferred from your comments regarding gay men trying to "fill" their "emotional hole." =)
And we thank you for that. No "butts" about it.
Den W, wrote:
"Who told you that Daley is one of the most powerful and respected Democrats in the country? Daley? I hate to break it to ya, but outside of Chi-town, no one gives a rat's butt about him."
Based on your response, it's easy to see why the Democratic Party is in trouble. Not only do Democrats lack respect their adversaries, they don't even respect each other.
Not only do Democrats lack respect their adversaries, they don't even respect each other.
Maybe they do and maybe they don't.
I wouldn't know.
I've always been a registered independent.
I don't respect either party.
Blue Jackal
I think most of the bans will be challenged in court and overturned. I also think when this country calms down (it may take a number of years) we will eventually see that gay marriage is an equality issue. The most significant result of all of these ballot measures is it brought out so many voters against gay unions. This certainly worked to Bush's advantage.
Jerome
Thank you for the kind words.
Now, for all those who take exception to my statement about blind worship. I was very upset about the election and did not choose my words as carefully as I usually try to do. I really should have said blind loyalty. I was referring to the study which showed Bush supporters in very high percentages think he agrees with them on issues that are important to them. Also, many still think there are WMD's and Saddam was behind 9/11. This is blindness to a certain degree. I am not saying it is willful blindness, but they still don't see the truth on those issues.
What will Bush do now that he's going into a 2nd term? Well, in order to halve the budget in 5 years without rescinding his tax cuts for the wealthy, he's going to have to cut sevices and social programs. I don't think the "compassionate conservative" will lose any sleep over this.
Has anyone noticed that the number of abortions went down during the all inclusive sex education Clinton years and has risen during the abstinance only Bush years?
Has anyone noticed that the number of abortions went down during the all inclusive sex education Clinton years and has risen during the abstinance only Bush years?
This goes along with a study I've mentioned that risky sexual behavior and pregnancies went DOWN under more inclusive sex education (as opposed to abstinence only).
I think it goes to a credibility factor; if you tell folks EVERYTHING, they're not going to wonder what you left out (and that doesn't mean that you can't say abstinence is the best way not to get pregnant or catch HIV...mainly because it is...).
""Who told you that Daley is one of the most powerful and respected Democrats in the country? Daley? I hate to break it to ya, but outside of Chi-town, no one gives a rat's butt about him."
Based on your response, it's easy to see why the Democratic Party is in trouble. Not only do Democrats lack respect their adversaries, they don't even respect each other.
The same can be said of Republicans mein friend. A fair amount of right leaning chaps think Bush is a rube and a disgrace to the party.
"Who doesn't love The Onion?"
Probably everyone that voted yesterday to put W back in office. God does love a winner though.
You mean like Gore? :)
God is also known to punish nations by giving them a leader that they deserve. Be careful when determining what God’s motives are. You’re most likely going to end up wrong.
I find it amazing that it was the Democrats...the ones who support gay marriage...who used the gay issue for political advantage, most famously when Kerry gay-baited Mary Cheney during the third debate.
You’re implying that only the Dems used the homosexual issue in the election. You would be wrong. As for the Mary Cheney bit, well if the Republicans make an issue of homosexuality and Kerry puts a very human face on it, who’s to blame?
It’s rather like if the Repubs had a plank in their platform discriminating against blue people and Kerry noting that, hey, the VP has a blue person as a daughter. Is this blue-baiting? No. It’s just a very discomforting (for the Repubs) way of showing that blue people are people too and maybe that plank should be scrapped.
Also, one toss-up Senate seat lost by the Republicans was Pete Coors in Colorado, where the Democrats did not hesitate to run commercials of a gay festival in Canada sponsored by Coors Brewing Co.
I’m not familiar with this controversy. Can anyone fill me in?
Coors was known as an anti-gay company and hired Mary Cheney to put a good face on it.
Just let me toss this into the gay marraige ban issue.
Since this is PAD's board, I think I can assume that most folks here know the X-men. I don't mean today's X-Men, but the good ole days, when they were outcasts, persecuted, hunted, feared. I guess they still are, to a certain degree (based on what I read ABOUT comics, since the only comic I have time and money for is Fallen Angel).
Anyway, most people here, I'm guessing, would call themselves, or at one point, did call themselves, a supporter or fan of the X-Men. Were pulling for them. Felt for them. Wanted them to gain acceptance and equality from the world at large. Wanted them to have an equal chance at happiness and success. Heck, just wanted them to be able to have the same things that we all have and occasionally take for granted.
But the X-Men were different. They looked different from "normal" people. Could do different things. Or did the same things differently.
For everyone who thinks that the legal benefits and rights that come with marriage, should be denied to gay couple, ask yourself this. Do you support the X-Men? Do you support the idea of equality for all PEOPLE, regardless of what they look like or what they can do? Would you want those X-Men characters to buy property and vote and move in next door to you? (assuming that you could be assured that they'd not get attacked by Magneto every other week)
Because I'll propose that anyone who thinks that gays should be denied the same privliges and rights available under civil unions (of which marriage is one) cannot, if they hold true to their convictions, view the X-men in a positive light. Because that's what the X-Men stand for...trying to expand the concept of what is perceived as normal by the world, in order to gain freedom and equality for all people.
I’m not familiar with this controversy. Can anyone fill me in?
Yes, I'd love to see somebody fill this one in as well, since I live in Denver, have not heard of this nor seen anything about it.
And trust me, I saw plenty of shit being thrown back and forth between Coors and Salazar.
On an interesting note, not only did Ken Salazar win the Senate seat, his brother, John, also won a House seat.
Yet, not until the election was over did I know they were brothers - probably could have researched it, but nobody mentioned it.
It's quite easy to verify that the definition of marriage can, and in fact has changed, many times.
I suggested what I think is a universal definition of marriage. Can you give me an example where my suggestion was NOT one of the major purposes of marriage?
What have been the other definitions?
So I suppose the real question is who gets to decide on the "final" definition of marriage, and why?
In America, the majority gets the final decision. In this country, currently, the overwhelming majority oppose gay marriage.
I know how some will respond. What about slavery? That is a good question. Every example I can think of (slavery, civil rights, etc.), there have been clear, outspoken people throughout history who have fought for these rights. You don't find that type of record for gay marriage. Not a conclusive argument, but it is a valid one to consider why this is true.
Jim in Iowa
Jim, this statement makes me curious as to what you think of as a civil union. What is the difference between a civil union and marriage. The only functional difference that I am aware of is that a civil union has no religion sanctionig it. Is this the what makes them different in your eyes? If not, what does? I'd be very interested in reading the answer.
Okay, here's the other shoe. If the only difference between marriage and civil unions is the presence or lack of a religious stamp, and you (at least as I see it) you don't think people in a civil union shouldn't have kids, what about heterosexual athiests?
The problem with answering your question is that civil union is undefined. Two possible differences are what you sited: the religious recognition and kids. Your example is one of the reasons I think civil unions are not a workable alternative. Marriage is not just the expression of love for each other, it invovles emotional, financial, and physical ties.
My point was simply that a civil union would not put a church in the position of having to deny two gays the supposed "right" to be married. If gay marriage were to be approved, it is inevitable that some gays would then begin attacking and suing churches who continue to refuse to recognize them. This has already happened in Canada and in countries in Europe who recognize homosexual unions. This is not a wild fear, this is the clear direction that we are heading.
Jim in Iowa
Now, if I may ask a question... Why do people fear God? Isn't He supposed to be loving, accepting of all his children? If He's benevolent, why fear Him? And why would anyone following a loving God turn and hate their fellow man just for something that he does behind closed doors that doesn't affect them at all?
Depends on how you define "fear." There is a healthy respect and awe for God. I once was shown how to use a handgun for target practice. I "feared" the gun, and rightly so. It is appropriate to fear it because of what it could do. There is a healthy respect for God because, by definition, he is bigger than us!
According to the Bible, which you reference, God does love all of his children, but that does not mean he does not discipline or punish them. Let me use another example. Assume for a moment that a police officer is fair, honest, and just (since there are some who are not). Should I fear the police officer? It depends. If I am speeding, robbing a bank, or committing murder, I should rightly fear him. A good officer will respond in a way appropriate for each offense (he will not kill me for speeding, but he might shoot to kill if I am about to take a life). God is not just benevolent. He is also just and looks out for all of his children. The punishment is not instantaneous (a topic for another time), but he does punish.
Your final question is a good one. I rebuke anyone who verbally abuses a gay person. Let me be clear: Saying homosexuality is a sin is not being verbally abusive. Saying they are scum (etc.) is. The Bible is clear that I should love both my neighbor and my enemy. I do not hate anyone, including gay people.
Why should I care about what happens behind close doors? It depends. Some do out of a false self righteousness. It makes them feel better. That is wrong. Others speak up because they truly are concerned. If I knew someone was hooked on drugs, was an alcholic, etc., behind closed doors, it is a loving act to say something (in a firm but kind way). If I believe that homosexuality (or any sexual sin including any sex with another person outside of marriage) causes both emotional and spiritual harm to someone, it is a loving thing to say something about it in a kind but firm way.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa said...
What have been the other definitions?
Polygamy.
Endogamy.
Exogamy.
Common Law Marriage.
Arranged Marriage.
All of these are variations or redefinitions of "traditional" marriage. They are also all in practice today, in one region of the world or another.
One interesting article states:
""It is really much more complex in religious perspective than you might think,'' says Tolbert, the George Atkinson Professor for Biblical Studies at the Pacific School of Religion. "What the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) suggests as a general model for marriage is polygamy. You look at someone like Solomon who had 200 wives and 600-and-some concubines. Or Abraham, who had his first child by his wife's slave. It sounds as if it was quite normal.''"
Marriage has taken many different forms over time, and I'm sure it will continue to do so in the future.
I actually do believe that this entire conversation, on one level, is moot. I think that the natural progression of society is such that same-sex marriage will be universally allowed eventually. Some of us just want it sooner than others.
Jim, until the 14th century, the only people in Europe, at least, who got married in order to procreate were the nobility. Nobody cared if a peasant was a bastard - they had no property to inherit, and the whole question was about establishing legal right to property.
As for homosexual marriage, who here has heard of the Spartan Brotherhoods? The traditions of the Samurai?
And on one of your other points, yes, the abolitionist movement DID redefine what it meant to be "human". The slavers contended that since the Africans looked so different from "us", with those flattened noses and that kinked hair and that dark skin, they couldn't be human, so it didn't matter what was done to them. The abolitionists were attempting to redefine both the common and the legal definition of "person".
BTW, blacks do still suffer discrimination. Ask my mother-in-law, who can tell tales of the home-care clients whose contracts she was only able to escape after getting someone to witness them calling her a "nigger bitch" (and yes, this did indeed happen more than once). Ask my father-in-law, who, after retiring from the US Navy with 23 years' experience as a counselor, was forced to take a job at the local community college as a janitor - five years ago. Ask my wife, who can still vividly recall the threats of lynchings from her childhood in Missouri.
(Incidentally, I found the comment about the X-Men interesting. Did anything ever happen with Northstar's crush on Iceman? I ran out of spare money for comics a while back...)
In America, the majority gets the final decision.
Bullshit.
Proof? 2000 election.
Your hypothesis about gay males seems fine on the surface, but if you take your statement to the next logical step, one would have to assume that most, or all, gay males should have highly similar personalities. Now this is where stereotypes of flamboyant "flamers" can cloud our vision, but I truly think that the personalities of the gay community as a whole are just as diverse as those in the "mainstream."
I agree, there are differnces. But my personal experience is that there is a surprising level of similarities as well. The emotionally absent father is a good example. It is interesting how many gay men do not see thier father as such, but when you hear their childhood stories, it is true. It is definitely possible that this is a reflection of our culture as a whole, but I have not found this level of similarity in my work (which includes some counseling).
And thanks for not reading into my words a pun that I didn't intend!
Jim in Iowa
Something I forgot to mention earlier: there's strong evidence that modern North American society encourages emotional detachment in its males. Men are not expected to be sensitive, or really show emotion at all. If your theory is correct, I'm surprised that the homosexuality rates aren't greater than the 1% - 10% we currently see.
All of these are variations or redefinitions of "traditional" marriage. They are also all in practice today, in one region of the world or another.
Thanks for the examples. One made me even get out my dictionary. :-) However, you do not cite a single example that disproves my point. It is true that "one" man and "one" woman has not always been the case in the sense that a man may have had many wives. But the marriage was STILL between the man and the woman. The difference was how many wives (or husbands) a person married. That is fundamentally different than a man marrying a man.
Jim, until the 14th century, the only people in Europe, at least, who got married in order to procreate were the nobility. Nobody cared if a peasant was a bastard - they had no property to inherit, and the whole question was about establishing legal right to property.
The problem with your example is that what was called marriage is still the same concept involving a man and a woman (one from each gender) as it does today. Yes, nobody cared about the peasant. Their "marriages" may not even have been recognized (as many were not during American slavery). That does not change the fact that the act of marriage was between a man and a woman.
As for homosexual marriage, who here has heard of the Spartan Brotherhoods? The traditions of the Samurai?
There have been sexual unions in the past, but you do not find societies recognizing them as marriages as we do today. Greeks valued adult males having sex with boys, but it was basically a form of rape. It was not to form a long term, marital relationship. Homosexuality did not appear in the 20th century, but you don't find marriage being defined as between two of the same gender to any real degree in history.
And on one of your other points, yes, the abolitionist movement DID redefine what it meant to be "human". The slavers contended that since the Africans looked so different from "us", with those flattened noses and that kinked hair and that dark skin, they couldn't be human, so it didn't matter what was done to them. The abolitionists were attempting to redefine both the common and the legal definition of "person".
I agree, racists attempted to redefine what makes someone human. But they were doing it in reverse. They used external features to argue that at their core, Blacks were not human. They agreed on what was a human, they just disagreed whether it applied to a black person. Ablolitionists did not have to change the root definition of human, they had to show it applied to blacks.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa wrote...
However, you do not cite a single example that disproves my point.
I know. I was just tossing out those examples as proof that the definition of marriage has been fluid, not that same-sex couples have been included under marriage in the past. My only point was that the definition of marriage can, and does, change. It could also be strongly argued that the "purpose" of marriage is more closely related to the distribution of wealth than reproduction, but that's a whole 'nother discussion and I don't claim to be an expert on it.
Anyways, I've made my stance clear, and you've made yours. I find it refreshing that you're able to articulate your thoughts without falling into the mindless ranting that can arise so easily from people when a matter is close to the heart. You're clearly thinking about your position, and at the end of the day that's all anyone can ask.
Some predictions:
1.) Draft within one year.
2.) Canadian-US border open to US live cattle importations now that Daschle is gone, so that's a good thing.
3.) Supreme Court turns arch-conservative (no big surprise there).
4.) Bush appoints someone even more conservative than John Ashcroft as A.G. (likewise no surprise there).
5.) Iraq drags on.....and on.....and on......
6.) A small ray of hope: California voters approved state funding for stem cell research and it's supported by Schwarzenegger, so that will lead to a state-federal confrontation.
7.) Definition of "marriage" extrenched with consitutional amendment.
8.) Democratic ticket for 2008 includes Barak Obama as either lead or vice candidate.
9.) Value of US$ continues to drop. Great for Canadians, not so great for Americans.
10.) Bush revamps Social Security, allows direct investment in the markets creating artificial value bubble which pops causing largest and most severe economic downturn in world history.
11.) Accumulated US national debt balloons even worse than it is today due to unrealistic tax cuts and the cost of Iraq among other factors, further reducing value of US dollar and resulting in rampant inflation, along with the attendant higher interest rates and other woes that it brings. Coupled with #10, this creates real problems for the world economy let alone the US economy.
12.) Within 12 months the US confronts North Korea directly.
13.) Despite the rhetoric, Republican control of all branches of the government leads to extreme reduction of civil rights and other restrictive legislation which makes the Patriot Act look mild.
I hope I'm wrong on most of these, but I have the sneaking suspicion that I'll be proved correct.
Anyways, Bush won, and this time it was apparently fair and square, so now the question becomes one of how everyone adapts to make the best of what could be a very very "interesting" situation (Confucious' curse: "May you live in interesting times.")
Comments?
1.) Draft within one year.
That some of you actually believe this is beyond me. Let me make a prediction: Short of an unforseen truly world war, there will NOT be a draft in the next 4 years. Even if Bush were to ask for it, the Republicans in Congress value their seats too much to ever give it to him.
jim in iowa
Hi Jim. My last post for this night.
If you stop and think about it, it's inevitable. The longer that Iraq drags on and pulls military personnel, coupled with the other involvements throughout the world, it's going to have to happen just to maintain a sufficient standing force without wearing out the current personnel complement!
Look at what's already happening with National Guard folks who signed up for x months and are being told that they're being extended to y months and they have no say about it. Replacement personnel have to come from somewhere and I don't think you can argue that there are enough volunteers out there to satisfy that requirement. Ergo, it's just a matter of time, worldwide commitments (both current and unforseen), and numbers.
That's reality.
1.) Draft within one year.
No. Won't happen.
2.) Canadian-US border open to US live cattle importations now that Daschle is gone, so that's a good thing.
Probably correct.
3.) Supreme Court turns arch-conservative (no big surprise there).
Depends on definition of "arch" "conservative" and (just so it doesn't feel left out) "turns". The democrats can still fillibuster if they want.
4.) Bush appoints someone even more conservative than John Ashcroft as A.G. (likewise no surprise there).
I expect someone a good deal less confrontational, and thus possibly a lot more effective.
5.) Iraq drags on.....and on.....and on......
I would expect so.
6.) A small ray of hope: California voters approved state funding for stem cell research and it's supported by Schwarzenegger, so that will lead to a state-federal confrontation.
Don't see why there would be any such problem--people don't seem to understnd that there is NO BAN. You can set up a company today, call it DicedFetus Co and use the stem cells to do pretty much what you want. The government won't pay for it but if stem cell proponents are correct that should be no problem--having cured so many afflictions I would expect you to be rolling in dough soon enough.
7.) Definition of "marriage" extrenched with consitutional amendment.
I would have disagreed but the results of tuesday make me thing, glumly, that you have at least a 50% chance of being correct.
8.) Democratic ticket for 2008 includes Barak Obama as either lead or vice candidate.
I hope not. Too soon. Give him time.
9.) Value of US$ continues to drop. Great for Canadians, not so great for Americans.
Maybe. Could be right.
10.) Bush revamps Social Security, allows direct investment in the markets creating artificial value bubble which pops causing largest and most severe economic downturn in world history.
Not sure about this.
11.) Accumulated US national debt balloons even worse than it is today due to unrealistic tax cuts and the cost of Iraq among other factors, further reducing value of US dollar and resulting in rampant inflation, along with the attendant higher interest rates and other woes that it brings. Coupled with #10, this creates real problems for the world economy let alone the US economy.
I'm more optimistic though you could be correct.
12.) Within 12 months the US confronts North Korea directly.
God, I hope so.
13.) Despite the rhetoric, Republican control of all branches of the government leads to extreme reduction of civil rights and other restrictive legislation which makes the Patriot Act look mild.
I highly doubt it.
I give you mad props for having the guts to actually make predictions which can be dragged out in 4 years and used to say "Neener neener neener, you were wrong!" Of course, if you are proven right then YOU get to brag. No guts no glory.
If there is a draft, and I can’t see how the war can continue without one, they need to start with registered Republicans. If you support Bush and the war, you can do so with both feet planted firmly in the sand.
Well, Jim in Iowa I think has hit the nail on the head. Marriage is one of those mixed institutions, both with legal and religious ramifications. It's one of those things that has been around so long, everyone assumes that we'll recognize it when we see it, yet there's no hard and fast definition that people can point to. It's like rain, or more to the point, snow. Snow in the lower 48 comes in maybe 2 or 3 varieties...flurries, snow, and blizzard. Head up north, and you get 200 different kinds of snow. Yet it's all frozen ice crystals. You know it when you see it, but what you call it, someone else might have another word for it.
So, too, marraige. It's a union between 2 people. Ok, but for love? Money? Power? Prestige? Children? All of the above? None of the above? In a legal sense, marraige is really nothing more than a contract between 2 people that comes with a bundle of shared rights, including property, health, and survivorship rights. Boiled down to it's essentials, that is what a civil marraige is.
Religious marraige is a spiritual joining. A Christian marraige (I'm painting broadly here) is the public announcement of what God has made, two made one, for the purpose of procreation.
Marraiges of state. Mostly for the production of an heir, so that the ruling dynastic line can continue without the advent of civil war.
Arranged marraiges.
Marraige for the sake of citizenship, or to avoid deportation.
The point I'm trying to make is that if you start legislating one form of marraige, based essentially on religous teachings, you open the door to legislate other forms of marraige. If gay marraige is banned, what about marraige for those not wanting children? That is, after all, the point of Biblical marraige, so why should we allow those who don't plan or want to be parents to get married?
And further down the road, will adultery become a criminal offense punishable by jail time?
It's more than a discrimination issue, it's a question of where does it stop.
And, really, you see people sin all day. Gluttony is a sin...where are you calls to ban McDonalds? Pride is a sin...where are the laws banning end-zone celebrations at football games. Avarice is a sin...where are the laws against big corporate executives taking all those tax cuts and pocketing them?
Hmmm, now that I'm on that subject, I don't see "homosexuality" listed among the 7 "deadly" sins. You'd think that we'd be worried about controlling those sins first.
Of course, if you are proven right then YOU get to brag. No guts no glory.
Well, a (sarcasm)wonderful(/sarcasm) defense I saw for the Iraq war from somebody was that, on the issue of Iraq having WMD, that they'd rather be wrong than proven right.
Apparently people seem to think this attitude is ok when it has been at the cost of over 1000 American lives and who knows how many innocent Iraqis.
Or worse, that the deaths of innocent Iraqis is acceptable at all.
**You go look at gay marriage where it is legal in Europe and relationships last an average of 1.5 years, and the majority are not monogamous relationships.**
I just stumbled across this, and I just had to point out this example of statistical abuse.
First off, the "1.5 years" thing stated this way comes from a statistical game of telephone -- except when one is playing telephone, one is supposed to try to repeat precisely, while the anti-gay lobby has a long history of clearly and purposely misdescribing study findings.
This particular measurement (presuming that it's the same 1.5 year figure that is bouncing around the anti-gay-families sites) is culled from Dr. Maria Xiridou's study, focusing on efforts to fight the spread of AIDS. The study is based in Amsterdam, where gay marriage was not legal until 2001, by which time most or all of the data for this study had been accumulated -- not by Xiridou, but as part of the Amsterdam Cohort Study, which had been drawing in info for this for about 2 decades. The cohort study was not a random sample of homosexuals; it not only focused solely on young males, parts of the study actually specifically selected for promiscuity, picking only young male homosexuals who had had multiple partners within the previous six months.
But even if we were to ignore logic and accept that 1.5 year figure as being the length of the typical relationship for a young male homosexual, comparing it to the length of the typical marriage would be a bogus comparison. While some heterosexuals marry the first person they have a relationship, many (probably most, at least in the US) have several shorter relationships before they find the one they want to marry. These shorter relationships will bring that average down. If you took my average relationship even including the woman that I am now married to, it would likely come to less than a 1.5 years.
The anti-gay-family industry likes to claim they are fighting for morality, but their effort is so mired in dishonesty that one should not give their morality claims any credit.
Earlier I posted:
9.) Value of US$ continues to drop. Great for Canadians, not so great for Americans.
Looks like this one is coming true a whole lot faster than anyone expected. Despite the relatively positive jobs report of 377,000 newly created positions which came out this morning, the $ continued to weaken, particularly against the Euro. Most of the European leaders are blase about the situation, but an interesting point was made when it was noted that President Bush is probably happier than a clam with the situation for two reasons, one his openly touted and one mine privately opined:
The President's: It makes US exports one heck of a lot cheaper abroad, thereby stimulating economic activity.
Mine: If you have to pay the horrendous cost of the war, you might as well do it with devalued currency, because it'll be "cheaper".
Of course the codicil to the President's is that it brings higher interest rates, inflation, and all kinds of other corollary stuff that you might remember happened during the days of Reaganomics. Ah, the nostalgia of 15-20% interest rates. Those were the good ole' days, yup yup.
Anyways, today the Canadian dollar appreciated by a full 3/4 of a cent, or an attendant drop in the exchange rate of over 1%. So you can see all the guys who bought forward contracts just two short weeks ago searching for the closest building ledge to go jump from. The rise has been astonishing and shows no signs of stopping anytime soon.
I'll amend that prediction to state that the US dollar falls to within 10% of the Canadian dollar before six months is out. Maybe sooner.
By the way, I used the word "extrenched" in my earlier post about the gay marriage constitutional amendment. Of course I meant eNtrenched.
I think we should set up a betting pool on the draft issue. It is of course a sucker's bet.
Happy happy joy joy.