PeterDavid.net

As a Canadian, I can say that Mr. Sevush certainly isn't the only person to ponder that "wall" idea.

I also agree with not adding fuel to the political fire on this site for a while. Bush and Kerry agreed on one thing yesterday, and that was that your nation needs to heal. We can doubt the sincerity of either one of them all we like, but that doesn't make the initial sentiment any less correct.

I sincerely hope that all of our neighbours to the south can find at least some common ground, and that the "two Americas" can become one again.

That would make it easier to figure out who to carry on our Canadian love/hate relationship with.

The last thing that gave the vast majority of us common ground was September 11th. If that's the price, I'll stick with contention and devisiveness, thank you.

Heh.

The author wishes to move to canada in the name of tolerance, then refers to those who merely vote differently than he does as
"...the belligerent,
imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip
the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped
in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first
cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death."

And it's the red states they call ignorant, bigoted and intolerant. Go figure.

"The last thing that gave the vast majority of us common ground was September 11th. If that's the price, I'll stick with contention and devisiveness, thank you."

Agreed.

I am truly shocked by how much distain the Blue stater's have for the Reds. And how simplistic their arguments are. As someone who was enraged that I was expected to vote for one of these below-average politicians (talk about damning with a faint insult) I feel free to make this observation - Y'all, blues and reds alike, are intolerant and moralistic. Reasonable and intellgent people can have diametrically opposed views on Iraq, taxes, health care, abortion, supreme court justices, and so forth. If these issues were simple, we wouldn't be split 50/50 on them. And, although I usally lean left on those issues, in my experience the Reds are a hell of a lot more sympathetic to the Blue view, than vice versa. Red intolerance of gays certainly drove a lot of Red votes, but Blue intolerance of Reds drove a lot more.

BTW, to the 'succession' dream. Here's a nice map showing the Red/Purple/Blue continuum by county. The USA is a lot more complicated than the Blues like to admit.

Hmmm...the link didn't work.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/purple_america_2004.gif

Well, that's an amazingly ignorant little piece. Mr. David, I'm surprised that someone as intelligent as yourself finds this amusing. Definately the most ignorant thing I've read since the election. On par with the Mirror headline.
Keepers of tolerance. Feh.

People keep pointing to these exit polls about "values". Did it occur to anyone that these same exit polls also point to a double-digit Kerry win? There's a lot more going on here than gay-bashing. Most of the states Bush won didn't have a gay marriage item on the ballot. Bush increased his percentage of vote in virtually every state in the Union, not just the red states.

The Left is trying to paint the 51% of Bush voters as either rich or stupid and Bible-thumping. Guess what, there's others in that 51% who are middle-class who don't worry so much about the DMA, but much more about terrorism - and Bush appeared much more willing to face it head-on then Kerry. Maybe when the Left gets through their grief and rage they'll start to get it.

I'd say more than 51% of the Bush voters are either rich and/or stupid. Bible-thumping, I'm not so ure about...

My hope is that the Republicans get drunk on their own power, try to pass to much radical legislation to fast, and the party self destructs. Bush only won by 2% of the popular vote. If they truly think that they have a mandate then they will screw them selves over. The Republicans have become the party of big government and fiscal irresponsibility. That’s not conservative. With the failure of the Democrats and the Republicans new base being religious to the extreme, the stage is set for a new centrist third party that could take the presidency and a swing vote in congress.

Reasonable and intellgent people can have diametrically opposed views on Iraq, taxes, health care, abortion, supreme court justices, and so forth. If these issues were simple, we wouldn't be split 50/50 on them.

OK, the above was a quote, I'm not sure how to tag it since I can't get the preview button to work properly and I seldom post here.

SOME of those issues are complex like Iraq and the economy, etc. Everyone would be able to agree to a decent compromise if one were proposed. ONE side of the issue won the election, and therefore it feels no need to compromise with the losers. The same would've happened had the election gone the other way.

The only issues that most are completely unwilling to compromise on are their morals. Neither side is willing to give. These are not complex issues. One either believes one side or the other. The only real compromise would be tolerance of everyone, and that's not really a compromise since that's basically what the liberals want. No one wants/expects conservatives to suddenly say "you know what maybe being gay isn't a choice." They could say "Aw...do whatever you want, we don't care anymore." This would be amazing as most liberals would be more than happy with a live and let live type society. It's ok for you to disagree with me, but don't make laws restricting my rights. One side wants freedom and choice for all (even for the conservatives that they don't agree with). The other side wants to restrict those freedoms because they are completely sure that they are right, and no one should disagree with them. This line of thinking is much more dangerous because lots of people disagree with them.

I am truly shocked by how much distain the Blue stater's have for the Reds.

I prefer Green myself, but what the hell.

But hey, if you want Georgia, you can have it. Just be prepared to uproot Atlanta and move it somewhere else, cause based on the votes, that city doesn't want to be part of a Red state.

"I am truly shocked by how much distain the Blue stater's have for the Reds."

We learned it from watching you!!!
In the Clinton years that is. :)

There are just a lot of Jim's here i know, but i'm just adding to the bunch...

About gay marriage.

If we allow a very small minority, the gay community, to dictate how their deviant behavior is treated, whats to stop other groups from trying the same behavior?

Now i have nothing against gays, and really, nothing against civil unions, but gay relationships shouldn't be treated as equal to marriage if thats not what the majority wants. Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture, and right now, the majority of society says that gay marriage is not right, and shouldn't be. If gays can get gay marriage legitimized, what is to stop another fringe group, like NAMBLA or polygamists, from rising in popularity and influence and fighting for marriage rights?
Now right now, most of you are probably opposed to men sleeping with little boys, or marrying 10 women, our culture is against it. But with time, and continued moral decline, and the passage of things like gay marriage, eventually it'll be fine to sleep with little boys, animals, or marry as many as you want at once.
America, and other countries, legislate morality all the time, like the polygamy example and NAMBLA example, as well as drugs and alcohol, and mebbe you disagree with the government stepping in at all, then you are a liberatarian, and i doubt most of you here are. But if you believe that the government can restrict drug use, and stop sex with little children, and animals, and stop polygamy, then you should also accept that it is not innappropriate for the government to legislate against allowing gays to marry.

You may disagree, but currently, you seem to be in the minority, like polygamists were and drug users are, and the government, and the majority of the public and society can legislate against your position.

Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture,

oh, like how society dictated that slavery was okay, that women were second-class citizens with no rights, or that interracial marriage was a Very Bad Thing?

Kathy Maddux Pearlman wrote I'd say more than 51% of the Bush voters are either rich and/or stupid. Bible-thumping, I'm not so ure about...

Wait, I thought the Republicans are supposed to be the party of irrational intolerance and pathetic stereotypes? We need to work hard to catch up with her. On the bright side we have four years to refine our art.

But if you believe that the government can restrict drug use, and stop sex with little children, and animals, and stop polygamy, then you should also accept that it is not innappropriate for the government to legislate against allowing gays to marry.

Actually, I don't.

But go on ahead, trying to tell me how to think. That totalitarian impulse you and the rest of your cronies like Stalin and Mao is going to get you in trouble one of these days.

>

Here's a tip. When you call it "deviant behavior" a lot of us on the left tend to tune you out. I've yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn't basically come down to "My God says it's wrong!" (which is simplistic and inaccurate) or "It'll destroy the institution of marriage!) (which I also highly doubt). Nobody's been able to say "It's the right thing to do, because it doesn't discriminate against anyone" which is what those of us in the pro-gay marriage camp can say about our position.

Btw, I am dismayed to count myself as one of the left. Before this election, I considered myself a moderate. But it's been clearly shown by the votes this year that you're on one side or another of this little culture war, and I guess I'll pick the side that doesn't give to the rich with one hand, pick away at the division between church and state with the other (something that makes us atheists nervous, understand?) and in between, spends its time discriminating against people who just want to live their lives and love who they want.

But really, I'm just venting here. You guys on the right have won. You control every facet of the government, no checks, no balances. I'm not entirely sure why you're still arguing with the rest of us, when it's clear that our opinions don't count for squat.

"This would be amazing as most liberals would be more than happy with a live and let live type society."

Not all of the ones at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, judging from the number of cars with Bush/Cheney bumper stickers that got keyed. (But of course, both sides have crazies).

As I've said before, conservatives should be willing to cut Kerry supporters some slack, though I hope to God if the shoes had been on the other foot I would not have been as bitter as so many of the posters here have been (And given how low that bar has been set, it would not have been difficult). Moving to Canada? Splitting from the country? Grow up, folks. You will see many many elections in your lifetime. You'll win some, you'll lose some. Try to show some class and dignity in either circumstance.

As a counterpoint to all around good guy Ralph, heres an interesting take: http://backseatphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/11/to-my-fellow-democrats.html

excerpt:

Many Democrats think that our patience and understanding are our weakness. "We don't know how to fight like the Republicans," we all told ourselves after Florida 2000. "We have to be more like them: tougher, meaner." "We have to energize our base more."

Actually, no. Our error is that we Democrats actually are far less understanding than we think we are. Our version of understanding the other side is to look at them from a psychological point of view while being completely unwilling to take their arguments seriously. "Well, he can't help himself, he's a right-wing religious zealot, so of course he's going to think like that." "Republicans who never served in war are hypocrites to send young men to die. " "Republicans are homophobes, probably because they can't deal with their secret desires." Anything but actually listening and responding to the arguments being made.

And when I say 'responding,' I don't just mean 'coming up with the best counterargument and pushing it.' Sometimes responding to an argument means finding the merit in it and possibly changing one's position. That is part of growth, right?

The Boston Globe today printed up an electoral map based on how the different counties in the country voted. It basically showed the division actually isn't really between red states and blue states, but between urban and rural. This morning I was watching C-Span in a lead-up to the President's press conference and I heard disdain on both sides. I don't think either side can really claim a moral high ground there. I'm guilty of it myself - I don't UNDERSTAND how these culturual issues could be a factor in this election. And apparently, from watching C-Span, those folks don't understand how I can't feel that gay people getting married has ZERO affect on the "sanctity" of my marriage. I've been told I should be more tolerance of all this, um, intolerance but that's hard to wrap my head around, too.
If America becomes a giant version of that town from "Footloose" as a result of all of this I will be genuinely distraught. Kevin Bacon did not give up when the Reverend John Lithgows of the world told him he COULD NOT DANCE and neither will we!!! We'll take to the streets in our skinny ties and we'll blast our Quiet Riot tapes and if John Lithgow tries to stop us we'll do an angry gymnastic dance in an abandoned warehouse and then we'll START ALL OVER AGAIN. My fellow Americans, let's hear it for the boy.

Peter,

I find it odd that you would like a piece that basically condescendingly and simplisitically steroetypes huge numbers of people. But let's have fun with it!

I grew up in Illinois. That is a blue state. I must be enlightened. Lucky me.

And then I went to school in Indiana. Oh no. a red state! Now I am a buffoonish hick.

But I got a Ph.D. in English, moved to New York and taught at an Ivy League university. Oooh. An Ivy League faculty member in a blue state. Definitely enlightened.

But now I'm back in Indiana. So, I've become a Bush-loving, bible-thumping hick again.

And I'm an adult who reads comic books, and I'm sure there is a steroetype there, too, and not a nice one. (I'm probably in danger of having my Ph.D. revoked).

What will be interesting is seeing which party is smart enough to figure out the way to ensure victory--don't run a red or a blue candidate...run a purple. John McCain or Rudy Guliani would have beaten Kerry in a landslide. The Democrats have fewer "purples" to work with, though Obama has terrific potential (I hope they don't make the mistake they did with Edwards and push him too soon--2 terms as Senator and the guy is gold.)

If the democrats think that Kerry just wasn't liberal or mean or tough enough, they will lose by a bigger margin next time. If the republicans take this election as an invitation to go ever further to the right they will risk losing it all (after 8 years of Bush it would be a mistake to just offer more of the same--voter fatigue sets in). 2008 will be the first opportunity for a whole new set of faces.

... that we could learn a lesson from Israel and build a massive wall along our southern border that would separate us from the belligerent, imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death;

I am constantly amazed by the Jefferson Davis clones who want to whine, stamp their little feet, and take their marbles and go home just because they lost an election. I always assumed it was hyperbole, that "I'm going to leave the country if X wins" was the functional equivalent of "If you eat the pumpkin pie before the rest of the family gets here for dinner, you're dead, young man," but I've seen it enough in the last few days I'm starting to wonder. It is appalling to think that so many people find that the Republic is far less important than disassociating themselves from those nasty Republicans.

To all of you who feel that way: You're cowards. As John Edwards put it yesterday, "You can be disappointed but you cannot walk away." If you don't feel strongly enough about this country to stand and fight, if you don't care enough to suffer through the bad times that you expect (and that I don't), then you deserve to lose elections. This nation deserves leaders who are committed to its survival and prosperity, leaders who recognize how unique and amazing it is, and most importantly, leaders who won't cut and run the instant they find themselves standing out in the cold. So go start your FONAS. I reluctantly have to remind you, however, that the territory of the United States extends from Maine to Florida, over to California, north to Washington, and back east to Maine again, in addition to Alaska and Hawaii. We didn't let the slave owners and the feudalists wander off with our territory, and we won't let you do it either. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Bill:

>As I've said before, conservatives should be willing to cut Kerry supporters some slack, though I hope to God if the shoes had been on the other foot I would not have been as bitter as so many of the posters here have been (And given how low that bar has been set, it would not have been difficult). Moving to Canada? Splitting from the country? Grow up, folks. You will see many many elections in your lifetime. You'll win some, you'll lose some. Try to show some class and dignity in either circumstance.

As bitter as "So many"? Weren't there only one or two posts about splitting or moving?

Fred

I've always been a Democrat and just this past election I have noticed how far to the left they have gone. Democrats had certain Liberal views and principles , but now they are the same exact thing and I think that is what's hurting us. Me, personally, I am pro stem cell research, pro choice , and pro civil union but against gay marriage. Mainly because seeing how agressive the activists at parades have been. I have heard numerous interviews with various people who are angered when parents make their kids leave the parade because they didn't want to see people with each others hands down their pants..regardless of which sex it is no parents want their children exposed to something so graphic at a young age. It just feels wrong to me to influence children...to possibly make them become somebody they might not have become otherwise. That's just me..

PAD,

Aside from the extreme liberal slant of the comment, I don't know anyone who would want Canada's socialized medicine. My friends from Canada, some of whom live here now, all prefer American health care for the much better quality and for the availability without having to wait months and months for routine procedures.

Dennis

Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture,

"oh, like how society dictated that slavery was okay, that women were second-class citizens with no rights, or that interracial marriage was a Very Bad Thing?"

(i don't know how to quote here, sorry)

Yes, at the time, that was acceptable at the time, and it was "right" according to those people. But as time went by, the ideas changed, and eventually, a large enough group decided that slavery was wrong and it was abolished. When a large enough group decides that gay marriage is correct and fine, it'll happen. Now by your understanding, and my understanding, and almost all now today believe that slavery is wrong, but AT THE TIME it was judged fine by A MAJORITY of society.

In other societies, cannibalism was practiced, and fine, and also eating the hearts of your enemy and other stuff we find atrocious. But in the CONTEXT OF THE TIME AND THE SOCIETY it was fine and good.

Now, since those darker ages, we have progressed, and we have gotten rid of terrible things and injustices, as we've evolved to see them as such. But putting slavery and gay marriage next to each other is wrong. Slaves were oppressed and beaten and treated terribly. Not granting gays marriage isn't oppressing them, its just not treating the word and institution of marriage as joke. I agree that gays can love each other as much as men and women do, and i'm fine with civil unions, no one should be separated from their loved one in a hospital as they die. But it is not marriage, marriage is between a man and a woman. And the tax breaks given to married couples are largely because of the fact that married couples make better parents and can bring up children better, according to conventional wisdom, and some psychologists. And mebbe you disagree with this, but the fact remains that nature, or God if thats your thing, made men and women procreate together, and that is what should be taught to children, not that every and any lifechoice can be the right one. There is evidence that children of gays are more likely to turn out gay themselves, or to experiment more, and if that doesn't demonstrate that upbringing has some effect over sexual orientation, i don't know what would.

Sorry i rambled some, and i'm sorry if i offend, but you have to think outside the box a bit. We, as a society, define and redefine evil, and wrong, and right, all the time. If the majority tries to put this in writing, thats not much more of a step, and its not one that hasn't been done before.

And again, every one who is for gay marriage, why not drop all statuatory rape laws, and allow marriage at 12 or 10 or 5, for those NAMBLA members out there. Its really not much different, you just gotta think about it, and i know most don't want to.

***"I am truly shocked by how much distain the Blue stater's have for the Reds."

We learned it from watching you!!!
In the Clinton years that is. :)****

Nail on the head. The righties spent the Clinton years listening to Flush Limbaugh demonize liberals, and now they wonder why the other side does the same to them.

***Actually, no. Our error is that we Democrats actually are far less understanding than we think we are***

I guess the catch-22 of being a liberal is being intolarant of the intolerant.

Jim wrote:

"Definately the most ignorant thing I've read since the election. On par with the Mirror headline."

The Daily Mirror in Merry Olde England. Ah, yes, I remember it well. Now THERE is a bastion of journalistic integrity if I ever saw one. You're sure to get all the facts in that rag -- not! The only things it's known for besides its screaming headlines is its famous "Page 3 Girl" pin-up photos.

Fred,

Sorry, my post wasn't at all clear--the part about splitting from the country and all was referring to the Ralph Sevush column.

And anyway, the more I think about it, I can respect those who would actually be willing to go through the incredible trouble of emigrating--it's not just talking the talk, it's walking the walk. It think it is unnecessary and a mistake, but I can respect it. I hope that anyone seriously contemplating it will reconsider.

The ones who just want to moan about how everyone who disagrees with them is just too stupid to see the truth that they, the enlightened ones, offer...well, "grow up" still stands.

Actually, if we are going to have any secession, Hawaii should go first, as there is already a significant secessionist sentiment there, as I understand it, among the natives. If you ever want a story of underhanded, deceptive, scandalous political manipulations, read the story of Hawaii's annexation into the United States. If we left the Union, I expect Hawaii would go its own way, and rightfully so.

Of course, this is completely an Otherworlds story we're making up, so it really makes no difference.

This nation deserves leaders who are committed to its survival and prosperity, leaders who recognize how unique and amazing it is, and most importantly, leaders who won't cut and run the instant they find themselves standing out in the cold.

Well, maybe the Republicans need to own up to the fact that they offered up as crappy a leader as the Democrats have.

And that's part of the issue: many people voted against Bush knowing that Kerry was crappy, but Bush was wearing a toilet seat on his face, waiting for you to sit down.

Going back to the urban vs rual thing. On another forum, somebody posted comparison maps of the counties across the US for 2000 and 2004 (those counted so far).
And the results are amazingly similar - we're talking probably better than 80% of the counties in the country went to the same party as in 2000.
But those counties for the Dems - alot of it is the urban areas. The opposite for Bush.

Either way, I think religion still has alot to do with it.

OK--I didn't really want to argue specific topics or anything. I just wanted to state my opinion and try to gain some sense of closure after the election so that y'know "the healing process can begin." But, several posters in this thread have mentioned that they are against gay marriage. Why? What possible threat is this to you? That is the fundamental difference. If a libereal is opposed to homosexuality, he doesn't marry a man. If a conservative disapproves, he changes the constitution. In Ohio, (say what you may, but at least we made it interesting) we passed by an overwhelming majority an amendment to our constitution prohibiting gay marriage. Just a few months ago in March, we passed a law against gay marriage. Isn't this a little bit much considering it was never legal in the first place? This was only an issue because the president could rally up a few extra votes from those Americans that are scared of change. Hopefully, one issue voters are few and far between, but I can't really fault a person for voting the way that their church tells them to. If I were religious and didn't follow politics, I would be willing to blindly follow my religion to either side. That's what religion is all about, right? Having faith reguardless of the facts or in spite of them? So my question for everyone opposed to gay marriage is simply why? Explain to me the threat this holds for the country without using religion as a justification for anything. Remember this isn't a theocracy (although if we let the American people vote on it, it probably would be.)

Dennis Donohoe wrote...
I don't know anyone who would want Canada's socialized medicine. My friends from Canada, some of whom live here now, all prefer American health care for the much better quality and for the availability without having to wait months and months for routine procedures.

Your friends are in the minority. Our health care system is one of the nation's most cherished institutions. Granted it's far from perfect, but in our own national election earlier this year the mere suggestion that one of the parties might work towards privatizing health care contributed a lot to that party underperforming significantly in the election.

I just thought I'd toss this out for people to answer as they see fit.

Do you think that issues such as the ones you're currently facing in America could be avoided by the implementation of a true multi-party system?

It seems to me that there is a great split in your country, and it's mostly between the far-right and far-left. What are the people in the middle to do?

To Jim Farrand:

Gay marriage is not the same thing as sex with a minor. One involves consent, the other doesn't. And before you make the argument that adjusting the definition of marriage and adjusting the age of consent are similar notions, please keep in mind: everybody eventually turns 18, but gay people do not eventually turn straight.

Jeff Lawson posted:
"Your friends are in the minority. Our health care system is one of the nation's most cherished institutions. Granted it's far from perfect, but in our own national election earlier this year the mere suggestion that one of the parties might work towards privatizing health care contributed a lot to that party underperforming significantly in the election."

My comment: I certainly can understand people balking at having to pay for something (privatizing) that was once free. I'd have the same reaction. However, that doesn't really address my comment that US (non-socialized) health care, despite its cost, is much better. But I have no firsthand experience, since I'm not Canadian, so I'll defer on this.

Dennis

"Reverend John Lithgows of the world told him he COULD NOT DANCE and neither will we!!!"

It's been a while since I've seen that movie, but didn't Kevin Bacon's character solve the problem by holding a dance beyond the town's borders?

So basically the muttonheads in the town said, "No dancing in the town!" and, at the end of the film, bsaically, they got their way. Ignorance prevailed, and the young dancing guys had to go elsewhere.

PAD

Dennis Donohoe said...
However, that doesn't really address my comment that US (non-socialized) health care, despite its cost, is much better. But I have no firsthand experience, since I'm not Canadian, so I'll defer on this.

And I'm not American, and have never had to use your health-care system, so I suppose that makes us even =)

It all comes down to opinion, I suppose. In my opinion, and that of (I believe) the vast majority of Canadians, it is better to have a universal system where people have equal access to health care no matter their age, race, or social class, than to have a system where the highest-quality treatment is reserved for the wealthy.

Now, health care is always one of the top Canadian concerns, and there is no shortage of problems with our current systems. Waiting lists can sometimes be massive, and there tend to be shortages of doctors, due in no small part to the fact that they can be making far more money in America. Canada is still trying to get a handle on these problems, and I'm sure they'll be big issues here for years to come.

But the bottom line is, most Canadians would rather struggle with these problems than with the problems presented by American-style health care.

Dennis,

I'm a Canadian currently living in the States and I have experienced no increase in the quality of health care down here. The waits are just as long in emergency rooms. The difference is down here you pay an arm and a leg for it. The doctors aren't particularly better trained. If I'm going to be made to wait anyway... I'd prefer it was free.

I really miss feeling a little under the weather and stopping in to a clinic for a check-up just to find out whats going on.

Someone said "America doesn't have healthcare. We have sick-care" and I think that's a fairly accurate depiction.

So count this as one Canadian who has sampled both and misses socialized medicine.

Mike.

Jeff said:
"It all comes down to opinion, I suppose. In my opinion, and that of (I believe) the vast majority of Canadians, it is better to have a universal system where people have equal access to health care no matter their age, race, or social class, than to have a system where the highest-quality treatment is reserved for the wealthy"

I have no argument with Jeff or with the subsequent posting by Mike, except that I am nowhere near wealthy and I have received high quality health care for some serious problems. But hey, this posting was supposed to be about politics, and frankly I am no expert on health care outside of my own situation.

Regards,

Dennis

Dennis Donohoe wrote...

I have no argument with Jeff or with the subsequent posting by Mike

Me neither, just presenting the other side of the coin. Isn't civilized discussion fun? =D

Re: Canadian healthcare "waiting months for routine procedures"...just try getiing any medical procedure done, of any kind, even just a check-up if you don't have health insurance. If you're lucky and can find a clinic somewhere to treat you, you'll be seeing Frank Burns from M*A*S*H and Dr Nick Riviera from The Simpsons- "Hi Everybody"

I have no problem with colored people. I don't care what they do in their own place, as long as they leave me and my friends alone and understand that they had better stay away from me and mine.

Oh.

Wait.

You were talking about *Gay* people.

Okay. Just change the word 'colored' to 'gay'. Same argument, just a different word.

So many people in this country try to use words to cover up the fact that they are bigots.

Jim, the fact that you compare Homosexuality to Nambla is a situation I find disturbing, because you seem to link homesexuality with pedophilia. Which is an unfair view. Are there those in the homosexual community who have a prediliction for young partners? sure. But I doubt it it disproportionate to the heterosexual world. The prevalence of magazines like barely legal. The imagery of early Britney Spears. The whole count down to the Olsen twins 18th birthday. You think if the legal age was 16 instead of 18 the magazines and such wouldn't be photographing as many girls as close to their 16th birthday as they can as opposed 18 or when they might be fully developed? Of course not. So does that mean any guy who buys one of these magazines wants to have sex with a 6 year old? No of course not. The links you imply suggest that gay men see no difference between a 25 year old adult, and a 13 year old boy. Which is ignorant. Please tell me how there is no real difference between Gay marriage and dropping statuory rape laws.

Is Gay marriage the Marijuana of 'deviant sexual behaviour'? A gateway perversion?

Anything governing sexual morality is fairly simple. Does any party in the act have the choice, ability and opportunity to refuse? If they do refuse is that choice respected? Does one party hold a position of power that would signifgantly affect the ability to say no?

Do all paries have the intellectual and emotional maturity to understand the situation? This is a tough one. There are those at 16 who can handle adult relationships there are those at 25 who can't. It's like driving a car. not all 16 year olds are ready to drive, but you can't do it case by case.

Pick an age where you hope mental maturity matches phsyical.

I'm digressing

but the fact remains that nature, or God if thats your thing, made men and women procreate together,. That is a fact yes. and that is what should be taught to children, as part of basic biology sure. not that every and any lifechoice can be the right one Now you lost me. I do think there are some "lifechoices" such as say mass muderer or serial rapist that are in no way shape or form valid. But to say that ony one is? You're not really saying not every and any can the right one you're saying there is one right choice, and all others are wrong. I freely admit I do not understand where you are coming from. If the queer eye guys aren't having sex with you, does it really matter if they have sex with each other?

you say nature or God made it so men and women procreate, well judging by most statements Nature or God mad a certain amout of the population gay. Or as I believe god or nature made everyone bisexual to some degree. (Zero is a degree) As per your evidence that children in a house with to gay parents are more likely to be gay..(even if i were to buy that which i don't) That can probably be attributed to the fact thy are more open to possibiliies of any inherant bisexuality.

But putting slavery and gay marriage next to each other is wrong. Slaves were oppressed and beaten and treated terribly. Slaves were oppressed and beaten and treated terribly. Matthew sheppard.

In other societies, cannibalism was practiced, and fine, and also eating the hearts of your enemy and other stuff we find atrocious. But in the CONTEXT OF THE TIME AND THE SOCIETY it was fine and good.

That still doesn't make it right. You can look at where they're coming from, the reasons for why they believe what they believe, and accept for them it makes perfect sense. It doesn't mean they were right, or they should have believed. It was wrong for people to believe it was okay to enslave blacks. It was wrong for men to treat women like they were second class citizens. It is wrong to believe that the differences between someone else and you makes them less of a human being than you. it is wrong to believe that the love between two men or two women is less than the love between a man and a woman..

Sorry Pad I think I'm getting carried away, so I'll sttop here/

I meant to hit preview insted of post. I do apologise for all the grammatical and spelling errors.

Secession is impossible because, aside from 2 or 3 states near Maine, most states are "red".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

USA Today yesterday or the day before yesterday (hmm, possible movie title there) broke down the votes to a county by county election map and it's surprising and illuminating. When you break down the votes by county instead of state, you see the overwhelming majority of counties voted for Bush--even in "blue" states.

Put another way, many of the "blues" were asking on September 12, 2001:

WHY DO THEY HATE US?

About terrorists or people from other countries yet refuse to seek similar understanding about people from the same country, the "reds".

-- Ken from Chicago

> The Daily Mirror in Merry Olde England. Ah, yes, I remember it well. Now THERE is a bastion of journalistic integrity if I ever saw one. You're sure to get all the facts in that rag -- not! The only things it's known for besides its screaming headlines is its famous "Page 3 Girl" pin-up photos.

"Page 3"'s from Rupert Murdoch's The Sun, actually.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5055695-111675,00.html

Onward Christian soldiers

The hopefuls in the Democrat camp really believed victory in the US election was within their grasp. How did they get it so wrong? They failed to appreciate, says Simon Schama, that their country is now in fact two nations that loathe and fear each other - Godly and Worldly America
Simon Schama
Friday November 5, 2004

The Guardian
In the wee small hours of November 3 2004, a new country appeared on the map of the modern world: the DSA, the Divided States of America. Oh yes, I know, the obligatory pieties about "healing" have begun; not least from the lips of the noble Loser. This is music to the ears of the Victor of course, who wants nothing better than for us all to Come Together, a position otherwise known as unconditional surrender. Please, fellow curmudgeons and last ditchers, can someone on the losing side just for once not roll over and fall into a warm bath of patriotic platitudes at such moments, but toot the flute of battle instead; yell and holler and snarl just a wee bit? I don't want to heal the wound, I want to scratch the damned thing until it hurts and bleeds - and then maybe we'll have what it takes to get up from the mat. Do we think the far-right Republican candidate Barry Goldwater, in the ashy dawn of his annihilation in 1964, wanted to share? Don't think so. He wanted to win; sometime. And now, by God, he has.

"We are one nation," the newborn star of Democrats, Senator-elect Barack Obama, exclaimed, even as every salient fact of political life belied him. Well might he invoke Lincoln, for not since the Civil war has the fault line between its two halves been so glaringly clear, nor the chasm between its two cultures so starkly unbridgeable. Even territorially (with the exception of Florida, its peninsular finger pointing expectantly at tottering Cuba), the two Americas are topographically coherent and almost contiguous. One of those Americas is a perimeter, lying on the oceans or athwart the fuzzy boundary with the Canadian lakes, and is necessarily porous and outward-looking. The other America, whether montagnard or prairie, is solidly continental and landlocked, its tap roots of obstinate self-belief buried deep beneath the bluegrass and the high corn. It is time we called those two Americas something other than Republican and Democrat, for their mutual alienation and unforgiving contempt is closer to Sunni and Shia, or (in Indian terms) Muslim and Hindu. How about, then, Godly America and Worldly America?

Worldly America, which of course John Kerry won by a massive landslide, faces, well, the world on its Pacific and Atlantic coasts and freely engages, commercially and culturally, with Asia and Europe in the easy understanding that those continents are a dynamic synthesis of ancient cultures and modern social and economic practices. This truism is unthreatening to Worldly America, not least because so many of its people, in the crowded cities, are themselves products of the old-new ways of Korea, Japan, Ireland or Italy. In Worldly America - in San Francisco, Chicago, San Diego, New York - the foreigner is not an anxiety, but rather a necessity. Its America is polycultural, not Pollyanna.

Godly America, on the other hand, rock-ribbed in Dick Cheney's Wyoming, stretched out just as far as it pleases in Dubya's deeply drilled Texas, turns its back on that dangerous, promiscuous, impure world and proclaims to high heaven the indestructible endurance of the American Difference. If Worldly America is, beyond anything else, a city, a street, and a port, Godly America is, at its heart (the organ whose bidding invariably determines its votes over the cooler instructions of the head), a church, a farm and a barracks; places that are walled, fenced and consecrated. Worldly America is about finding civil ways to share crowded space, from a metro-bus to the planet; Godly America is about making over space in its image. One America makes room, the other America muscles in.

Worldly America is pragmatic, practical, rational and sceptical. In California it passed Proposition 71, funding embryonic stem cell research beyond the restrictions imposed by Bush's federal policy. Godly America is mythic, messianic, conversionary, given to acts of public witness, hence the need - in Utah and Montana and a handful of other states - to poll the voters on amendments to their state constitution defining marriage as a union between the opposite sexes. But then Worldly America is said to feed the carnal vanities; Godly America banishes and punishes them. From time to time Godly America will descend on the fleshpots of Worldly America, from Gotham (it had its citadel-like Convention there after all) to Californication, will shop for T-shirts, take a sniff at the local pagans and then return to base-camp more convinced than ever that a time of Redemption and Repentance must be at hand. But if the stiff-necked transgressors cannot be persuaded, they can be cowed and conquered.

No wonder so many of us got the election so fabulously wrong even into the early hours of Tuesday evening, when the exit polls were apparently giving John Kerry a two- or three-point lead in both Florida and Ohio. For most of us purblind writers spend our days in Worldly America and think that Godly America is some sort of quaint anachronism, doomed to atrophy and disappear as the hypermodernity of the cyber age overtakes it, in whatever fastness of Kentucky or Montana it might still circle its wagons. The shock for the Worldlies is to discover that Godly America is its modernity; that so far from it withering before the advance of the blog and the zipdrive, it is actually empowered by them. The tenacity with which Godly America insists the theory of evolution is just that - a theory - with no more validity than Creationism, or that Iraqis did, in fact, bring down the twin towers, is not in any way challenged by the digital pathways of the information age. In fact, such articles of faith are expedited and reinforced by them. Holy bloggers bloviate, Pentecostalists ornament their website with a nimbus of trembling electronic radiance and, for all I know, you can download Pastor John Ashcroft singing the Praises of the Lord right to your Godpod.

Nor, it transpires, is the exercise of the franchise a sure-fire way for the Democrats to prevail. The received wisdom in these Worldly parts (subscribed to by yours truly; mea culpa) was that a massively higher turn out would necessarily favour Kerry. P Diddy's "Vote or Die" campaign was credited with getting out young voters en masse who ignored the polls in 2000. We saw a lot of Springsteen and Bon Jovi and ecstatic upturned faces. Who could possibly match their mobilisation, we thought? Answer: Jehovah and his Faithful Servant St Karl the Rove. The biggest story of all in 2004 is the astounding success of the Republicans in shipping millions of white evangelicals to the polls who had also stayed at home four years earlier. We thought we were fired up with righteous indignation - against the deceits of the propaganda campaign for the Iraq war, against the gross inequities of the tax cuts - but our fire was just hot air compared to the jihad launched by the Godlies against the infamy of a tax rollback, of merely presuming to diss the Dear Leader in a time of war. And the battalions of Christian soldiers made the telling difference in the few critical places where Godly and Worldly America do actually rub shoulders (or at least share a state), Ohio above all.

By the lights of the psephology manuals, Ohio ought to have been a natural for the Democrats: ageing industrial cities such as Akron and Dayton, with big concentrations of minorities, suffering prolonged economic pain from out sourced industries. Cleveland and Cincinnati are classic cities of the Worldly plain: half-decayed, incompletely revived; great art museums, a rock'n'roll hall of fame, a terrific symphony orchestra. But drive a bit and you're in deep Zion, where the Holsteins graze by billboards urging the sinful to return to the bosom of the Almighty, the church of Friday night high school football shouts its hosannas at the touchdowns, and Support Our Troops signs grow as thick as the rutabaga. At first sight there's not much distance between this world and western Pennsylvania, but were the state line to be marked in 20ft-high electrified fences the frontier between the two Americas couldn't be sharper. The voters of the "Buckeye State" cities did care about their jobs; they did listen when Kerry told them the rich had done disproportionately nicely from Bush's tax cut. But they were also listening when their preachers (both black and white) fulminated against the uncleanliness of Sodom and the murder of the unborn. In the end, those whose most serious anxieties were the state of the economy and the Mess-o-potamia were outvoted by those who told exit pollers their greatest concern in 2004 was "moral values".

Faith-driven politics may even have had a hand in delivering Florida to Bush by a surprising margin, since it seems possible that Jewish voters there who voted for "my son the vice-president" Joe Lieberman (not to mention Hadassah, oy what nachas) in 2000, actually switched sides as a result of the president's support for Ariel Sharon. It wasn't that the Kerry campaign didn't notice the confessional effect. It was just that they didn't know what to do about it. Making the candidate over as some sort of altar boy (notwithstanding directives from Rome instructing the faithful on the abhorrence of his position on abortion) would have been about as persuasive as kitting him out with gun, camouflage and dead Canada geese; a laboriously transparent exercise in damning insincerity.

In Godly America the politics of impassioned conviction inevitably trumped the politics of logical argument. On CNN a fuming James Carville wondered out loud how a candidate declared by the voting public to have decisively won at least two of the three televised debates could have still been defeated. But the "victory" in those debates was one of body language rather than reasoned discourse. It registered more deeply with the public that the president looked hunched and peevish than that he had been called by Kerry on the irrelevance of the war in Iraq to the threat of terror. And since the insight was one of appearance not essence, it could just as easily be replaced by countless photo-ops of the president restored to soundbite affability. The charge that Bush and his second war had actually made America less, not more safe, and had created, not flushed out, nests of terror, simply failed to register with the majority of those who put that issue at the top of their concerns.

Why? Because, the president had "acted", meaning he had killed at least some Middle Eastern bad dudes in response to 9/11. That they might be the wrong ones, in the wrong place - as Kerry said over and over - was simply too complicated a truth to master. Forget the quiz in political geography, the electorate was saying (for the popular commitment to altruistic democratic reconstruction on the Tigris is, whatever the White House orthodoxy, less than Wolfowitzian), it's all sand and towelheads anyway, right? Just smash "them" (as one ardent Bush supporter put it on talk radio the other morning) "like a ripe cantaloupe". Who them? Who gives a shit? Just make the testosterone tingle all the way to the polls. Thus it was that the war veteran found himself demonised as vacillating compromiser, the Osama Candidate, while a pair of draft-dodgers who had sacrificed more than eleven hundred young men and women to a quixotic levantine makeover, and one which I prophesy will be ignominiously wound up by next summer (the isolationists in the administration having routed the neocons), got off scot free, lionised as the Fathers of Our Troops.

Well, the autumn leaves have, just this week, fallen from the trees up here in the Hudson Valley and the scales from the eyes of us deluded worldlies. If there is to be any sort of serious political future for the Democrats, they have to do far more than merely trade on the shortcomings of the incumbents - and there will be opportunities galore in the witching years ahead (a military mire, a fiscal China syndrome and, hullo, right before inauguration, a visit from al-Qaida). The real challenge is to voice an alternative social gospel to the political liturgy of the Godlies; one that redefines patriotism as an American community, not just a collection of wealth-seeking individuals; one that refuses to play a zero-sum game between freedom and justice; one in which, as the last populist president put it just a week ago, thought and hope are not mutually exclusive. You want moral values? So do we, but let them come from the street, not the pulpit. And if a fresh beginning must be made - and it must - let it not begin with a healing, but with a fight.

" 51% who are middle-class who don't worry so much about the DMA, but much more about terrorism"

If they do, why did they vote for the man who dangerously upped the ante by invading a country which didn't have much to do with the problem (as opposed to Bush's friends the Saudis) and managed to piss off many of the U.S.' now former allies, thus making it a hell of a lot more difficult to get help when the time comes. And, make no mistake, the U.S. is NOT all-powerful and it WILL need help in the long run, be it from the foreign intelligence community, or in support of its overstretched military. But Bush's ill-advised actions have pretty much put paid to that on a lot of fronts.
"Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture, and right now, the majority of society says that gay marriage is not right, and shouldn't be."

And society used to say blacks were subhumans who didn't merit any of the rights and priviledges of the rest of us. Does it make it right? News flash: there are an awful lot of ill-informed, or just flat-out ignorant or stupid people out there. Just because Democracy has us putting equivalent weight on their vote as on everyone else's doesn't mean they're going to make the correct choice.
"My friends from Canada, some of whom live here now, all prefer American health care ..."

That's because you only know people who can afford the steep rates in the U.S.. You forget, the U.S. spends MORE per capita than Canada on health care, but still has millions who are not covered. What's wrong with this picture?

"There is evidence that children of gays are more likely to turn out gay themselves, or to experiment more, and if that doesn't demonstrate that upbringing has some effect over sexual orientation, i don't know what would."

Does the word "genetics" exist in your dictionary? If it did, the fact that they are "children of gays" just might be a hint as to how wrong you are as to 'cause-and-effect'.

Mark L posted up there a ways that Bush was the guy who looked more willing to take terrorism "head on."

And darn it, the Starwolf beat me to a response...

But, yeah, if Bush is so willing and able to take terrorism (and I'm guessing that means terrorists, as well) then why did he get our military bogged down in an occupation/rebuilding of a state that, hey, it turns out really DIDN'T have any proven connection to those terrorists we WERE chasing over in Afghanistan. And while Hussein sure was a terror to people in his own country, I don't think he really fit the classic picture of a terrorist.

So, while Bush continues to allow a good portion of our military to be bogged down in Iraq because he won't take the time to re-forge good relations with those allies who could help us, and by the way continue to place our trained, experienced military in harm's way as militant Iraqis continue to resist our efforts to help them help themselves, actual terrorists are more free than ever, because the US war machine that would normally be hunting them down is stuck in Iraq.

So, sure, I can see how voting for Bush on the idea that he's going to make us safer from terrorism makes perfect sense.

Oh, wait, no, actually, I don't.

But I sure do see a GOP, for all their safety and "no terror" stance, legislating morality. Not everyone who aligns with the GOP fits that bill, of course, just as not everyone who voted for Kerry believes in the unfettered right to an abortion. But don't deceive yourself into thinking that supporting the GOP is anything other than supporting a religiously and culturally intolerant group of bigots.

If gay marraige bans become the norm, it's only a matter of time before public hand-holding becomes taboo, and then outlaw. And heavan (literally) help you if you actually KISS in public....

**I've always been a Democrat and just this past election I have noticed how far to the left they have gone. Democrats had certain Liberal views and principles , but now they are the same exact thing and I think that is what's hurting us. **

The Democrats? Liberal?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA..
Oh, wait.
You were serious.

When they turn liberal, let me know.

Travis (who is registered Democrat, but secretly a liberal)

A while back, I attended a meeting of the League of Pissed-Off voters.Being a severely annoyed voter, I was wondering if this was a group for me.

I answered that with a question. "We're talking about how to deal with idiot conservatives. Has anyone thought about how to deal with conservatives who aren't idiots?"

The response I got was that "idiot conservative" was a redundancy.

Pfui on that sort of thinking. I run left of center, but McCain was the only guy I liked heading to 2000. I feel more secure with an intelligent leader I disagree with than with someone who runs based on pleasing the larger crowd.

From The Guardian:
"Faith-driven politics may even have had a hand in delivering Florida to Bush by a surprising margin, since it seems possible that Jewish voters there who voted for "my son the vice-president" Joe Lieberman (not to mention Hadassah, oy what nachas) in 2000, actually switched sides as a result of the president's support for Ariel Sharon."

Wow, thinly veiled anti-semitism from Europe. Knock me over with a feather.

The fact that Jewish support of Bush only went up by 5% or so (depending, of course, on whether or not you can trust ANYTHING the exit polls say) is ignored. Why waste time with facts if it means you can't get in another gratuitous slap at them Jewfolks?

Not everyone who aligns with the GOP fits that bill, of course, just as not everyone who voted for Kerry believes in the unfettered right to an abortion. But don't deceive yourself into thinking that supporting the GOP is anything other than supporting a religiously and culturally intolerant group of bigots.

Not all Democrats are arrogant elitists who want to force political correctness down everyone's throat, nor are they all supportive of abortion-on-demand. However, that's what the national party supports. Almost no one gets a political party that has 100% of their personal views. You pick what's more important and hold your nose at the rest.

The Democrats should adopt the Republican Policies and force their beliefs on others rather than just wishing everyone could live in peace as they wish.

1. Propose a "Sanctity of Marriage" amendment to the constitution. Making Marriage illegal. If you want to marry your first girlfriend at 18 and have 9 kids, good luck with that. You're never getting divorced.

2. "An end to subsidies." End Welfare and Farm Subsidies. The Republicans believe in the "Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality lets hold them too it. No more welfare for the Midwest or south, no more corporate welfare, no more farm subsidies.

3. "Creationism in School." This is a great idea. Teach Evolution, Creationism, Teach from Ymir's flesh, Odin and his brothers made the earth, and from his shattered bones and teeth, they made the rocks and stones. From Ymir's blood, they made the rivers and lakes, and they circled the earth with an ocean of blood. Teach that the Earth consists of flat disc (complete with edge-of-the-world drop-off and consequent waterfall) resting on the backs of four huge elephants (Great T'phon, Tubul, Berilia, and Jerakeen) which are in turn standing on the back of an enormous turtle (Great A'Tuin) as it slowly swims through space.

Teach it all. Because really, how can one be more valid than the other?

4) "Prayer in School" Lets make this issue our own. Every day from 10-10:30 every school has forced prayer. Pray to God, Face east and pray to wards the Mecca. Pray to Odin. Pray to Satan if you wish, just make sure to PRAY PRAY PRAY! Hallelujah!

5. "Make War Not Love!" Support your president and back him on every war. Hell, push him to invade more countries. With no divorce and no welfare the red states kids won't have anywhere to go but to the Middle East. Send your young to die for an unjust war and still vote for the President. Hallelujah!

Democrats need to start finding some Terrorist Ties in Iran. We MUST win the war on Terror by attacking other countries.

"And it's the red states they call ignorant, bigoted and intolerant. Go figure."

You might want to add "Unable to appreciate irony" to the list.

PAD

Somebody wrote:

""Page 3"'s from Rupert Murdoch's The Sun, actually."

The Mirror had Page 3 pin-up girls as well, at least they did in the early 1980s.

From Andrew Sullivan:
Say this about Clinton: he always understood how to triangulate. The president who doubled the number of gay discharges form the military, signed the ban on HIV-positive immigrants, and jumped energetically on the Defense of Marriage Act, told Kerry to back marriage and civil union bans for gays in the campaign. Kerry, to his enormous credit, didn't go there. But then Kerry never presided over the execution of a retarded man for his own political purposes either.

Since most people believe that Kerry, in his heart, is FOR gay marriage, he should have come out and said so. Would have gotten credit for having some guts. (Although once he was on record as being opposed it was too late--he would have looked like a flip-flopper. That reputation was a masterstroke of the Bush campaign, effectively hamstringing him from allowing the polls to drive his convictions, as I suspect is his preference).

PAD,

Re: Unable to appriciate irony

I live in Mass, I'm, as stated before, a supporter of neither party, and yet I've heard at least a dozen people over the last few days make comments on some variation of the succession piece. It is a very popular meme, and it is both intolerant and ignorant.

One stat just to illustrate how stupid the simplistic red/blue state view is.

Kerry voters in ME, VT, NH, MA = 2.56 Million

Kerry voters in TX = 2.82 Million

"I have no problem with colored people. I don't care what they do in their own place, as long as they leave me and my friends alone and understand that they had better stay away from me and mine.

Oh.

Wait.

You were talking about *Gay* people.

Okay. Just change the word 'colored' to 'gay'. Same argument, just a different word.

So many people in this country try to use words to cover up the fact that they are bigots."

Many say the same thing with changing the word 'colored' to 'Christian' or 'religious'.

"Same argument, just a different word."

Sometimes I think people staunchly Dem were listening too long to the people who were demonizing the right in order to get the vote.

There are too many 'conservatives' who will not allow Bush to establish a “Church State” or a “Theocracy”.

Believe it or not Many "Christians" are pacifists and don't believe in war. ( I know of at least 3 significant ( or influencing ) voices on the "religious right" who said to invade Iraq was not the right thing to do.)

Many Christian's believe you should "Hurt not the earth" instead of raping it.

Many DO NOT want our beliefs thrust upon you.

Yes they may let you know why they feel or believe the way they do, but they won't burn at the stake you if you do not.

Thay are not gonna want you arrested for or for not wearing a veil or some other article of clothing.

Get it? They are not like the 'Islamic extremist'. And many are getting tired of being to made feel like they are. (Demonizing again!)

Obviously the Democratic Party is out of touch with some ( if not most ) of the US. Too many of them are in their own little bubble not realizing there are alot of people out there who don't feel the same way the they do, at least on the platforms the Democratic Party is now running on.

"Too many Democrats are not fighting for the seperation of church and State, they are fighting for the seperation of church and society" ~ (quote by someone on CSPAN whose name alludes me)

This 'divide' showing up at the elctions was not the Christians vs. 'the Godless', it was more about character and leadership.

THAT's why many on "the right" went to the polls.

> From The Guardian:
"Faith-driven politics may even have had a hand in delivering Florida to Bush by a surprising margin, since it seems possible that Jewish voters there who voted for "my son the vice-president" Joe Lieberman (not to mention Hadassah, oy what nachas) in 2000, actually switched sides as a result of the president's support for Ariel Sharon."

Bill Mulligan: Wow, thinly veiled anti-semitism from Europe. Knock me over with a feather.

Ummm... you realise that the guy who wrote that piece IS JEWISH don't you?!

>"And it's the red states they call ignorant, bigoted and intolerant. Go figure."

>You might want to add "Unable to appreciate irony" to the list.
>PAD

Thanks, Peter.

You'd think a collection of comicbook fans would recognize satire and irony. But i guess, as Steve Martin observed in ROXANNE about his small town, "Irony? Oh, we don't get that here."

To the uncomprehending amongst you, i was NOT actually calling for secession. i was NOT saying everybody in a "blue state" felt this way, and everybody in a "red state" felt that way.

I was NOT suggesting national health care was good or bad, or that tolerance is the private preserve of liberals (the intolerance suggested by the whole piece should have tipped somebody off).

I'm not even suggesting that religion in the public sphere is necessarily bad per se, as Americans of faith have a long history of fighting FOR civil rights and social justice (not merely opposing them), and AGAINST wars (not merely supporting them).

What i DID do was send out a private e-mail to a few friends about my post-election blues (and then mistakenly allow PAD to post here). I was simply reacting to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Bush supporters said "moral values" was the biggest factor in their vote... as if Kerry is somehow deficient in moral values. But, of course, they weren't really talking about "moral values". They were talking about THEIR values.

What my essay reflects is my own personal sense of alienation from my own country... that I'm apparently a barely tolerated visitor here, despite the accident of my birth in NYC. And that my brand of secular humanism and libertarianism is wholly unwelcome by a vast majority of this nation, despite the fact that those values are the bedrock of our republic as articulated in its founding documents.

In 2000, i could blame the election process. But this time? I can only see it as a fundamental shift in nature of the electorate.

With Bush having to bear the burdens of an unpopular war into which we were led by lies and which is managed with incompetence, with a record loss of jobs, a sluggish economy, dreadful relationships with the rest of the world, out-of-control oil prices, with low "job approval" and "right track/wrong track" polling numbers, with having had the worst attack on American soil in history occur on his watch, and having done everything possible since then to increase terrorist recruitment... well, in any rational world, the incumbent would've been washed out of office in a tidal wave, regardless of the mediocrity of his opponent.

But when people show up at the polls, in light of all of these circumstances, and start talking about "moral values" as the issue of greatest importance... we are no longer dealing with a rational world.

And that makes me afraid.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Believe it or not Many "Christians" are pacifists and don't believe in war.

Yet, how is it that then that this campaign was won by "moral values", up to an including approval of the war in Iraq?

You talk about demonizing, yet all the Bush campaign did was demonize everybody else.

Deh. I'm tired.

I'm heading over to Amazon to pre-order "NF:After the Fall".

Take care All.

If we allow a very small minority, the gay community, to dictate how their deviant behavior is treated, whats to stop other groups from trying the same behavior?

This amounts to a nicer version of "so how long till someone wants to marry their dog?" and the answer is, as always, not till it comes out that somewhere between 1 and 7% of people have been in loving, peaceful, romantic relationships with their dogs since the beginning of time.

Not, mind you, that anyone has explained to me exactly what the harm would be to me if my neighbor started telling people he'd married his dog. If you don't want a dog marraige, don't have one.

Uh, I got the irony. I doubt anyone thought you actually were serious.

When I was teaching at a university in 1992, and Clinton won, I remmeber my students all walking around like they had been shot. They commented that the world was going to end. The country collapse. Many said they would move to Canada (I was never sure why, if they found Clinton too liberal, they thought Canada would be an improvement).

I knew they were simply expressing their alienation and commiserating. But after a bit it got tiresome and seemed silly and overdone.

I remembered all that as I read your message.

I'm sorry you are so down and all, but it got grating.

Here is the situation as I see it.

Bush is not a good president. Bush is not a popular president. Bush is not a smart president.

And the Democratic party, full of bright, morally superior people, pretty much can't figure out how to beat a stupid, unpopular, ineffective president. (Note, there is some real life irony).

Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn't sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn't happen again? I wanted Bush out of office, and I watched Kerry's campaign with great frustration.

The response I got was that "idiot conservative" was a redundancy. Pfui on that sort of thinking. I run left of center, but McCain was the only guy I liked heading to 2000

Amen, Mitch. I registered as an independent in 88 despite my parents' observation that I'd never get to vote in a primary and I haven't regretted it once. I've screamed at both parties on the television but fall on average left of center only because I decided I'd rather pay my government toll financially to be left alone personally rather than the other way around.

I think there's a market for a party for a lot of us who feel like we'd like to keep government out of our affairs (as many pubs claim they want to do right before they squabble over gender preference rights) and make social decisions based on economic utility (like offering civil unions rather than get in protracted legal fights over hospital visitation rights, locking people up forever rather than spending 3x as much to execute them, etc).

And the Democratic party, full of bright, morally superior people, pretty much can't figure out how to beat a stupid, unpopular, ineffective president. (Note, there is some real life irony).

Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn't sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn't happen again? I wanted Bush out of office, and I watched Kerry's campaign with great frustration.

I never figured out why they didn't make competency a more core issue. Would have made a great place to come back from when the "Kerry had the same intelligence about Iraq" statement was going around: the intelligence agencies answer to the President and brief him a lot more often than they do Congress.

In the business world the question to a CEO would be "why are your direct reports not doing the job right?" When Bush said "my generals told me they had enough people" where was the follow-up "then why are people who lack competency working for you at that level?"

Ok, I'll come right out and say it, " I'm old enough to vote and I didn't." And I hang my head in shame. Really. *sigh*

You see, I would have had to renew all my forms of I.D. Nothing is current (I'm not a driver, so don't worry). So basically, I didn't vote cause I was lazy. lol.

And I'll also say that I'm one of the people who wanted Bush to lose.

Yes, I wanted to vote. I was thinking of voting for KERRY. Not because I like him alot, but because he wasn't Bush. I could have vote for an independent, but let's be honest: the only guys that had a chance of winning were Bush and Kerry. And really, I guess Kerry didn't have much of a chance...(and I also should say that I was pretty disappointed in how Kerry gave up so easy. A day after the electon and he gives up. Guess he wouldn't have been that good a President..)

I knew though, like PAD knew, that Bush was going to win. Hoping against Hope I was. I knew Bush was going to win...but...I just hoped...and wished..that I'd be suprised. That people would realize what was going on and vote for the other guy. Even if the other guy wasn't great, at least it would be a change from Bush. Maybe Kerry could have done something..maybe not. Giving Bush four more years, though, is like saying to Bush, " Hey! Your doing great man! Keep doing what your doing! " *sigh*

Anyway, I'm stupid. I should have got out there and voted. Mark my words, I'm going to vote next time (gotta get all those I.Ds up to date!) !!! Four more years of Bush though..*sigh*

You know, imo, what America really needs is a President who is not in a party, who is not a conservative or a liberal. We need a guy who thinks about the people of America first (poor, rich, middle class. everyone considered). And a guy who would focus on getting America's problems fixed first, before we run off to play police men of the world....

Ya..I know. That person doesn't exist.

And if he did, its doubtful anybody would vote for him...

DF2506
*hangs head in shame and walks away*

> SCOTT J: "Uh, I got the irony. I doubt anyone thought you actually were serious."

If you got the irony, then i wasn't talking about you. but you might want to re-read some of the other responses to my note posted above, wherein the political and logistical difficulties of secession were discussed, where running away was deemed cowardly, and my lack of tolerance was discussed seriously.

> SCOTT J: "I knew they were simply expressing their alienation and commiserating. But after a bit it got tiresome and seemed silly and overdone. I remembered all that as I read your message. I'm sorry you are so down and all, but it got grating."

sorry you found it tiresome and grating. I was trying to be funny, to avoid that problem. but i guess i failed, in your estimation.

>SCOTT J: ..."And the Democratic party, full of bright, morally superior people, pretty much can't figure out how to beat a stupid, unpopular, ineffective president. (Note, there is some real life irony). Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn't sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn't happen again? I wanted Bush out of office, and I watched Kerry's campaign with great frustration."

Except for your satirical(?) reference to the Dems as being "morally superior", i couldn't agree more.

> From The Guardian:
"Faith-driven politics may even have had a hand in delivering Florida to Bush by a surprising margin, since it seems possible that Jewish voters there who voted for "my son the vice-president" Joe Lieberman (not to mention Hadassah, oy what nachas) in 2000, actually switched sides as a result of the president's support for Ariel Sharon."
Bill Mulligan: Wow, thinly veiled anti-semitism from Europe. Knock me over with a feather.

Ummm... you realise that the guy who wrote that piece IS JEWISH don't you?!

No but that doesn't surprise me overly much. I'm sure that anti-Israeli Jews are much loved in Europe. At any rate, playing to the tendency among Europeans to believe that some Jewish Cabal pulls the strings of American politicians, getting them to do only what Israel wants simply feeds the hate. I'm sure it helps him keep his job though.

"out-of-control oil prices"

Really? I've read that, adjusted for inflation, oil is still cheap. Which is surprising considering that we are dealing with a finite, limited resource. Sure, I'd love to have 75 cent a gallon gas again, along with 10 cent comics and being able to get change for a dollar after buying a Happy Meal. Then again, back in those days my salary would have been a good deal less as well.

And what, pray tell, is the solution to high oil prices? Drilling in Alaska? Invading Iran? Bombing Israel in return for a guarantee of $20 a barrel for the next 50 years? We could all switch to hybrid cars and keep our thermostat at temperatures that will freeze babies in their cribs but it won't matter--China is becoming industrialized. Millions now riding bikes will soon be driving cars, sucking down oil like nothing we've seen.

$2 for gas? Enjoy it. Savor it. Clone FDR and re-elect him. It won't matter.

Scott J. wrote...
Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn't sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn't happen again?

That's the key, isn't it? It's going to be difficult for a while after the pain everyone went through with this election, but both sides are going to have to do some soul-searching and reaching out now.

Democrats: Why weren't you able to make your voices clear? How is it that you weren't able to win this election, despite the coveted voter turnout that was supposed to clinch it for you? What can be done in the future to appeal to a wider voter base?

Republicans: Yes, I know, you won this one and can pretty much have your way with the country for the next four years. But isn't it worthwhile to examine just what it is about the administration's policies that make some people so angry? Shouldn't you be looking to extend an olive branch to those you've alienated, just as they should be doing the same to you? After a campaign in which foreign policy played such a pivotal role, is it not worth asking why the majority of foreign countries think that America is headed in the wrong direction?

The effect of the past four years has been to polarize your country to an extreme degree. The two parties have found themselves taking extreme opposite positions, and neither is willing to budge. And even though you never hear about them, I have to believe that the majority of your population is caught in the middle, not wishing to play too close to either extreme.

Things aren't going to improve down there until each side is willing to understand the other.

I've gotta say that I'm fairly conservative, not rich, attend church regularly and still try to be open minded enough to look at an issue from all sides (hard to do that, but I try). I voted for Bush, because he and the Republican party represented more of what I believe than what the Dems were showing. And no, I voted a mixed ticket, not straight, sense the local and state level candidates don't follow some of the hogwash that is on a national level.

The main problem I saw with Kerry, other than my disagreeing with most of his apparent stances on issues (apparent because we all know that the political machine makes some things look different than they are in privacy), was the fact that he never gave air to his "plans."

We heard "I have a plan..." in all of his stump speeches, from Iraq to welfare to space to the budget, but never got any specifics. If he had given some specifics, or at least a plausable outline, it may have done some good. His "plans" were the same as the Repubs turning off Bob Dole's humor for his campain, the lack of them didn't make sense why they weren't there.

Anyway, just remember that you do live in a country that allows forums like this, that allows differing views to be aired and discussed in public. Keep that in mind.

jeff

Considering that we were speaking of Nazi Germany on another thread, I thought you folks might be interested in the words of Herman Goring at the Nuremberg Trials:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a facist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. The is easy. All you havea to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Always remember, kids--there's no present and no future. Just a past being endlessly repeated.

Hmmmmm, all I know, everything that's been said, to even consider wanting to stop being a proud American enjoying our country's unique freedoms 'cause an election didn't go "the right way".......... welp, that means you didn't see yourself as a proud American living in freedoms our ancestors shed rivers of blood for and the country would be better off without you. Funny thing though, I loved seeing a report saying that countries were not going to just take Americans carte blanche, they had to have a *reason* for immigration. Too damned funny. If my side could suffer 8 humilating years with that assclown Clinton and the Chinese Ho Algore, then you can stand 4 more of GWB, suck it up you whiney li'l bitches. Apologies for the language but man, I would been pissed if Kerry had won but I sure wouldn't be running away like a toddler with a full Pamper, I would be starting the champaign for 2008 and sure as hell not fielding one of the most loathed women in America as the "great white hope". Welp, guess that's enough for now, now, can we get back to comics? Oh yeah, I bought more Excaliber books and Madrox #2 last week, haven't read them yet. Cuss me, curse me, call me a basteche, but I will never give up PAD's works. Thank you and be well...

If my side could suffer 8 humilating years with that assclown Clinton and the Chinese Ho Algore, then you can stand 4 more of GWB,

You know, that latter comment was pretty damn insulting. Can you guess why?

Talk about humiliating....

Democrats: Why weren't you able to make your voices clear?

Maybe the problem is that they were clear, but that we live in a moderate-to-conservative nation that didn't like what it heard?

I don't think Carl really gets it. People are talking about leaving the country because of people like him. The dreaded feeling of these potential expatriates is that all of the Bush voters are like Carl and if that is so, then this country is not worth fighting for any longer.

David Bjorlin wrote...
Maybe the problem is that they were clear, but that we live in a moderate-to-conservative nation that didn't like what it heard?

Of course that's a possibility. But I'm thinking about basic factual errors, such as the polls showing upwards of 70% of Americans believing that Iraq was involved in Sept. 11. And if the majority of the population really didn't like what it heard, then the Democrats need to figure out what needs to be done to re-brand themselves without betraying what they stand for. I fine line for any group to walk, but it has to be done.

> > > Bill Mulligan: Wow, thinly veiled anti-semitism from Europe. Knock me over with a feather.

> > Ummm... you realise that the guy who wrote that piece IS JEWISH don't you?!

> No but that doesn't surprise me overly much. I'm sure that anti-Israeli Jews are much loved in Europe.

So basically, the whole of Europe is anti-semitic, and all jews have to play along. Okay...

> At any rate, playing to the tendency among Europeans to believe that some Jewish Cabal pulls the strings of American politicians, getting them to do only what Israel wants simply feeds the hate. I'm sure it helps him keep his job though.

It's an op/ed piece. His "day job" is a historian, and he does regular series for the BBC in that role.

" If my side could suffer 8 humilating years with that assclown Clinton and the Chinese Ho Algore, then you can stand 4 more of GWB,"

Over three thousand people didn't make it through the first year of GWB...a year in which he ignored warnings about bin Laden and refused to start up a Department of Homeland Security simply because it was put forward by reps of "that assclown Clinton. Of course, once it was too late and over three thousand people died, then he flip flopped, embraced the idea, and took credit for it.

Over eleven hundred people didn't make it through the last two years of Bush, and there will be more deaths and more deaths, including a massacre coming up in Fallujah.

Plus there will likely be another major terrorist attack in the U.S. And why not? Iraq, after all, has served as a virtual recruiting drive for terrorists.

"Stand four more years?" I'm not entirely sure we'll even survive it.

PAD

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked

I guess I just imagined the Cole attack, embassy bombings and the Twin Towers falling.

Peter David wrote...
Iraq, after all, has served as a virtual recruiting drive for terrorists.

The administration does deserve credit for its wildy successful terrorist creation program. The sheer number of countries that have turned against you guys over the last few years boggles the mind.

Mark L wrote...
I guess I just imagined the Cole attack, embassy bombings and the Twin Towers falling.

It can't be denied that the U.S. has been attacked. It's probably true, though, that the actions taken by the Bush government have been gross overreactions to those attacks, paving the way for blatant disregard for that "freedom" Americans seem to value so highly, and probably making your country a more dangerous place to live, rather than safer.

If you got the irony, then i wasn't talking about you. but you might want to re-read some of the other responses to my note posted above, wherein the political and logistical difficulties of secession were discussed, where running away was deemed cowardly, and my lack of tolerance was discussed seriously.

The irony is noted, but I stand by my accusation. We don't know you, so we had no way to guage your use of hyperbole. As Lou posted earlier, in the last few days I've heard several people talk about leaving the country, and they were only half kidding. If you were more than half kidding, then perhaps you weren't the best one for me to vent about, but it does sound as though you were engaging in quite similar daydreams; I say this because you end your essay, "But when I wake up, I'll still be here. Shit."

And yes, I do perceive that entire line of thought, whether jest, daydream, or serious travel plans, as chickenshit. You lost an election. So damned what? You ran an experienced Senator, a war hero no less, who was intelligent and articulate about a heartfelt ideology, and he lost to a populist demogogue's reelection bid in a campaign where your Senator could only complain "Where's the outrage?" Welcome to my world, circa 1996. Get over it. I did. Don't just take my word for it, take Molly Ivins's: "So, fellow progressives, stop thinking about suicide or moving abroad. Want to feel better? Eat a sour grape, then figure out what you can do to help rescue the country - join something, send a little money to some group, call somewhere and offer to volunteer, find a politician you like at the local level and start helping him or her to move up. Don't mourn, organize."

I have now quoted Molly Ivins and John Edwards in the same thread. If TWL is still reading this blog he will plotz.

And with regard to a perceived lack of tolerance, anyone who wrote the following screed SHOULD be called on it. (Although I don't think anyone really believed you really think this is a nation of incestuous bestialists.)

belligerent, imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip
the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first
cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death;

And what the hell is a crypto-Fascist anyway? A fascist who likes to communicate through codes? (I know, the crypto- prefix should mean "covert" or "secret" but I don't think anyone could accuse the Republican party of keeping its agenda hidden.)

"So basically, the whole of Europe is anti-semitic, and all jews have to play along. Okay..."

Starw man argument, as I said no such thing.

It's hard to deny, however, that blatant anti-semites are tolerated in Europe to a degree unimaginable here. In the USA it is not considered a viable political position (except among a small number of inner city race baiters). Europe has political parties that actually get people elected on the agenda.

A condemnation of Europeans as a whole? No, but I'd rather be a Jew here than there.

"Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture"

Nope, that's why we have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. We elect leaders who lead through wisdom. We choose the wisest and they make moral decisions, at least that's the way its supposed to work.

It doesn't matter whether the majority wants slavery or Jim Crow. They're wrong whether 99% of the population or 50% of the population wants it.

"eventually it'll be fine to sleep with little boys, animals"

You don't understand the simplest, and most intrinsic value in american culture.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."

All men, all human beings. We are constituted such that we have rights, by the nature of our being. Animals have no rights, none at all. Animals can never get married, can never vote, and can never exercise any rights afforded to humans, period.

So animals can never marry, nor can humans marry animals. You only have the right to such things insofar as it applies to other creatures with the same rights. Period.

As far as children go, again, you don't understand a single thing about the culture you live in. We have, already built into our intellectual framework, the notion of age of reason/age of consent. All of us have the right to vote, but not until we come into the age of reason. All of us have the right to marry, but not until we come to the age of consent. Its simple a part of our conceptual framework. Children cannot marry because they have not yet reached the age of consent. Period.

So these arguments are just so much reactionary hysteria, which have nothing at all to do with the actual philosophical underpinnings of our society.

Period.

Peter said "Over three thousand people didn't make it through the first year of GWB...a year in which he ignored warnings about bin Laden and refused to start up a Department of Homeland Security simply because it was put forward by reps of "that assclown Clinton. Of course, once it was too late and over three thousand people died, then he flip flopped, embraced the idea, and took credit for it."

So now you blame Bush for the attack on 9/11. Give me a freaking break. It wasn't his fault we were attacked then.

Start singing a new tune why don't ya? Btw, I seriously doubt this will be your last politcal blog entry in a while. You can't help but attack George any chance you get.

Good grief.

PAD,

Blaming Bush for 9/11 as you did with your comment about 3,000 dead is unfathomable to me. Are you not aware that Sandy Berger four times vetoed proposals to go after Bin Laden? Read the 9/11 report. One has to be extremely partisan to think that Bush is to blame for not achieving in 8 months what Clinton blew off (no pun intended, but apropos nonetheless) for 8 years. Come on. There are a lot of things that Bush has messed up and can be deservedly blamed for, but 9/11 is Clinton's stigma.

Dennis

but 9/11 is Clinton's stigma.

I'm not a Clinton fan, but let's hold OBL accountable for 9/11. We spent many, many years ignoring the build-up of Islamic extremism. If we want to lay blame on politicians, then let's look at the many generations of politicians too afraid to rock the boat.

What's good (and potentially bad) about Bush is that he's not willing to accept the status quo anymore.

However, OBL is who needs to be taken to task, not Clinton.

Regarding Mark's comment about holding OBL responsible, yes he is quite correct. I overreacted to PAD putting 3,000 deaths as Bush's responsibility. That is nonsense. No American president is responsible for this atrocity - despite the blame being laid on Bush. You can't blame the victim, namely our country. However, if there is blame for not being prepared - that is at the feet of Clinton rather than Bush.

How did we get into this discussion anyway?

Regards,

Dennis

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this so far--hard to keep up with the multiple threads going on here--but Elizabeth Edwards was just diagnosed with breast cancer. To have this on top of the natural depression that comes with a failed campaign seems just too cruel. I would hope that everyone, regardless of political affiliation, would wish her a speedy recovery.

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked"

"I guess I just imagined the Cole attack, embassy bombings and the Twin Towers falling."

Is it my imagination, or is the quality of conservative responses here just spiralling into the toilet?

The Goring quote is relevant to Iraq. Bush and Company mentioned Saddam, threats, and 9/11 so often and so frequently together that they managed to falsely convince 71% of Americans that Saddam was behind, or connected to, 9/11. He wasn't. Doesn't matter. Americans became convinced that America was attacked by Saddam, and thus gave him his war. When historians look for examples of "the Big Lie," they will have Bush's picture right up there with other spewers of big lies.

PAD

"There are a lot of things that Bush has messed up and can be deservedly blamed for, but 9/11 is Clinton's stigma."

Now that you and Novafan are busy attacking what I didn't say, howzabout you take a whack at what I did say.

I didn't say 9/11 is Bush's fault. It's the fault of bin Laden (you know, the guy Bush said he would catch dead or alive except now he doesn't think about him all that much.) But everything I said was true. Three thousand people did die in the first nine months of Bush's watch. He did ignore calls for a Department of Homeland Security. And he did ignore voiced concerns about bin Laden. Do I know he could have stopped it? No. But three thousand people died and Bush didn't do shit TO stop it. Now you can mischaracterize it all you want, but it's all true.

And while we're at it, when speaking of songs getting tired: I absolutely cannot wait to see how Conservatives are going to spin the upcoming horror show on Clinton. GOP Congress, Senate, President, Supreme Court vacancies to be filled by GOP...and yet, somehow, everything that's going to go wrong will mysteriously be Clinton's fault. Just watch.

PAD

Peter said "The Goring quote is relevant to Iraq. Bush and Company mentioned Saddam, threats, and 9/11 so often and so frequently together that they managed to falsely convince 71% of Americans that Saddam was behind, or connected to, 9/11. He wasn't. Doesn't matter. Americans became convinced that America was attacked by Saddam, and thus gave him his war. When historians look for examples of "the Big Lie," they will have Bush's picture right up there with other spewers of big lies."

Yes, us stupid, ignorant Right wing Conservative nuts are convinced that Saddam and 9/11 are connected. You sure got the nail on the head that time Peter. You better be careful about saying who people will remember as spewing lies. Your comment there is a lie since you have no way of proving it. Back your statement up with facts. You can't do it can you? I didn't think so.

"With Bush having to bear the burdens of an unpopular war into which we were led by lies and which is managed with incompetence, with a record loss of jobs, a sluggish economy, dreadful relationships with the rest of the world, out-of-control oil prices, with low "job approval" and "right track/wrong track" polling numbers, with having had the worst attack on American soil in history occur on his watch, and having done everything possible since then to increase terrorist recruitment... well, in any rational world, the incumbent would've been washed out of office in a tidal wave, regardless of the mediocrity of his opponent."

The REAL irony I suspect is that, should things pan out as many here expect, the voters who supported the President in the "red states" will suddenly become a very rare commodity indeed. You might have a hard time finding one. It's like here in Manitoba this year we re-elected the New Democrats, a socialist party. No one likes their high-tax, high-spend and don't worry about paying for it today philosophy, but you go find ONE person who will admit they voted for the NDP. But somehow the NDP won.

More fun to come.....

Peter,you've said everything is Bush's fault. I bet if it rained tomorrow to ruin your picnic, you'd blame Bush for not having the Weather channel predictions be more accurate. This is an overgeneralization, but it rings true doesn't it?

Why don't you stop trying to find faults with people, especially our Commander in Chief, and start being more optimistic. My guess on your response to this, "I don't have to find faults with Bush, he does that all on his own". Good grief.

"start singing a new tune why don't ya? Btw, I seriously doubt this will be your last politcal blog entry in a while. You can't help but attack George any chance you get."

Well, first of all, thanks for calling me a liar, to which I can only reply, Go to hell.

Second, "any chance" I get? This is my blog, I talk about what I'm thinking about, and the chances I have to attack Bush are when I'm sitting at a keyboard. That I write about politics such a staggeringly small percentage of the time underscores the falsity of your snot-faced response. Furthermore, no one is forcing you to read it, no one is forcing you to post, and nothing save your own intolerant need to get in my face about it prompts you to post.

Third...go see first.

PAD

Peter, you can call our Commander in Chief a liar, but I point out what you said is lieing, and then you tell me to go to hell. What a hypocrit. What part of your post I pointed out was factual? Prove it to me.

"Yes, us stupid, ignorant Right wing Conservative nuts are convinced that Saddam and 9/11 are connected. You sure got the nail on the head that time Peter. You better be careful about saying who people will remember as spewing lies. Your comment there is a lie since you have no way of proving it. Back your statement up with facts. You can't do it can you? I didn't think so."

This is the second time you've called me a liar. Read the following and write an apology for both insults, with your real name attached, if you're man enough to. Otherwise you're shrouded. I will ignore all further posts from you, and will suggest that others do likewise.

"Polls Find Americans Believe Hussein Linked to 9/11, Support War in Iraq
By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
September 8, 2003

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Most Americans believe Saddam Hussein, the ousted president of Iraq, was connected to the attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, according to a new poll released on Saturday.

The Washington Post found that 69 percent of all Americans believe that Hussein worked with al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden to carry out terrorist plans nearly two years ago. In fact, the poll found that even a majority Democrats and independents believe Hussein was a key player.

Poll analysts conclude that this belief by a large majority of Americans is why the Bush administration has been able to withstand criticism coming from the Democrats regarding the progress in the rebuilding efforts in Iraq."

And again, from USA today:

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country.

The president frequently has called the Iraq war an important centerpiece in the United States' war on terror. But some members of the administration have said recently they don't believe there is a direct link.

The Post poll of 1,003 adults was taken Aug. 7-11 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Or...hey! How about this, of more recent vintage:

IPA POLL: Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Lies
by Paul Rosenberg

It's not just Bush who's living in a bubble, according to a report released Thursday. A majority of those who support him are fundamentally misinformed about key justifications for going to war against Iraq, and other important factors in his foreign policy. A new report from PIPA (the Project on Policy Alternatives) titled, Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program,Supported al Qaeda, has the following lead findings:

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

The report is based on polls conducted in September and October.

PAD,

I think this thread is getting heated but you said:
"No. But three thousand people died and Bush didn't do shit TO stop it. Now you can mischaracterize it all you want, but it's all true."

My point, which I thought was awfully clear, was that Clinton had 8 years to do something - and had repeated terrorist attacks to prod him - and he didn't do anything. Bush had 8 months. Your heated rejoinders completely ignored what I said. Hey, Bush is a dud, but let's accurately remember history. To use your phraseology, Clinton didn't do SHIT over 8 years. Simple fact.

Sheesh

Dennis

Posted by: Novafan at November 5, 2004 09:20 PM

'Peter said "Over three thousand people didn't make it through the first year of GWB...a year in which he ignored warnings about bin Laden and refused to start up a Department of Homeland Security simply because it was put forward by reps of "that assclown Clinton. Of course, once it was too late and over three thousand people died, then he flip flopped, embraced the idea, and took credit for it."

"So now you blame Bush for the attack on 9/11. Give me a freaking break. It wasn't his fault we were attacked then."

As outgoing President, Clinton told Bush that one of the biggest problems facing him was Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda. Bush's response -- a dull, blank look. Bush's action -- nothing
When given an intelligence summary indicating that Osama bin Laden was planning attacks on the US, George II's response -- go golfing.
When finally pressured into doing something, Bush announced a new Terrorism task Force, to be headed up by Vice President Cheney. Who else was on the task force? No one. They never met. Contrast this to the weekly meetings the Clinton-Gore administration had with representatives of the NSA, CIA, and FBI to coordinate intelligence about Al Queda. Such methods, which Bush was so disdainful of, did work, which is why we don't talk about the Millennium Bomb Plot in the same way we do 9/11. If the Bushies had had the same level of determination, the available information could have been coordinated and the plan stopped. Bush decided, DECIDED, that doing nothing but lip service was a much better plan, because he didn't want to do anything the way Clinton did, even if it worked. (say, Contrast Bosnia-Kosovo with Iraq, but that's another thread)

'Start singing a new tune why don't ya? Btw, I seriously doubt this will be your last politcal blog entry in a while. You can't help but attack George any chance you get.'

Unfortunately, will be getting far too many chances, as the man makes far too many mistakes.

Good grief

You're basing your facts on polls that were taken by a news organization? What did the exit polls from the election tell Kerry and Edwards? They thought they were winning by a landslide didn't they? How accurate were the exit polls?

I appoligize for calling you a liar, eventhough you told me to go to hell, two times. ("Third...go see first.")

"That still doesn't make it right. You can look at where they're coming from, the reasons for why they believe what they believe, and accept for them it makes perfect sense. It doesn't mean they were right, or they should have believed. It was wrong for people to believe it was okay to enslave blacks. It was wrong for men to treat women like they were second class citizens. It is wrong to believe that the differences between someone else and you makes them less of a human being than you. it is wrong to believe that the love between two men or two women is less than the love between a man and a woman.."

These are all value judgements which you are making. There is no fundamental right or wrong, just what you believe it to be. And if a vast majority in a society share your beliefs, than that will be practiced. Under our current, ever evolving beliefs, all those things you named are wrong, and i'd agree that they are, but societies evolve and change, and though you may oppose these changes, they have precedent and are not wrong just because you say they are.

Cannibalism wasn't evil in the societies it was practiced in, it was the norm. In America, cannibalism isn't the norm, and indeed, anyone who practices it is shunned and the law protects against cannibalism. And a non-violent, non destructive example, polygamy, is prohibited, because a vast majority of lawmakers and the population are against it.

It isn't a greater step to prohibit gay marriage if thats what our culture and society sees fit.

And yes, fine, animals and children have reasons why having sex with them is not viewed as legitimate, but the point that once a minority group, even a very small one, like gays, forces its position on the majority, then others could do the same thing in time. I'd rather stop this process before worse, destructive things happen down the road.

"Nope, that's why we have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. We elect leaders who lead through wisdom. We choose the wisest and they make moral decisions, at least that's the way its supposed to work."

The very fact that there is limited direct democracy, mainly these initiatives, proves we have a mixed system. And there are many leaders we have elected who support these initiatives. And they are enforcing the will of their constituients.

What many of the pro-gay marriage people seem to say is that their voice and vote is more important than the majorities, and we don't have an oligarchy, and i don't want one. Despite your feelings on teh issues, the majority has a different view than you, and if democracy works how it is supposed to, the majorities opinion and voice should be heard and acted upon. And my main point is that legislating "morality" (which isn't the best term, since i'm not a christian, and i don't think gays are immoral) has precedent, and i bet that most of those who support gay marriage would not want to do away with other "moral" controls, like against polygamy, age of consent and such, and drugs. And if the majority passes such a proposal, it is law, and the system worked how it was supposed to. They aren't evil or stupid people, they just have a different view of the world than you, and they seem to be in the majority.

I don't think I'll get into the whole "gay marriage" debate right now. I don't want to be shrouded, whatever the heck that means.

Is that like being black-balled?

The great thing about this country novafan, is that you can stand up on your soapbox and yell about all the things that are wrong in the country. In fact, you can even protest the president if you think he's wrong. Oh wait. Never mind. When W. got into office he forced protestors miles and miles away from any site he was going to be at, something that, I believe, the "evil" Mr. Clinton never did even as the right-wing hammerheads dumped on him every single day.

When Bush decided to do that, I knew we were in for trouble.

"Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn't sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn't happen again?"

This is the part that I don't get. It's not the message that was rejected by the majority of voters, but the delivery??? But then, while trying to clear up the message delivery, you decide it's just easier to call people stupid that don't agree with you??? Yeah, that's a good way to try to persuade someone.

Posted by: hulkeye:
"The great thing about this country novafan, is that you can stand up on your soapbox and yell about all the things that are wrong in the country. In fact, you can even protest the president if you think he's wrong. Oh wait. Never mind. When W. got into office he forced protestors miles and miles away from any site he was going to be at, something that, I believe, the "evil" Mr. Clinton never did even as the right-wing hammerheads dumped on him every single day."

And I don't remember anytime protestors were stopped from protesting. They might have been told not to protest in an area near the President, but they were still allowed to move down the block and protest. News organizations still covered the protest. Crowd control is a nightmare wherever (and whomever) the president is, so asking an unruly mob to move down the street just makes sense. At least the Democrats didn't do something similar at their convention. Oh wait...

hulkeye (kewl name btw) said "The great thing about this country novafan, is that you can stand up on your soapbox and yell about all the things that are wrong in the country."

I'm all for that. If somethings proven wrong to me, then I'll jump up there and yell too. I don't believe in Flag burning though. That really bothers me.

Btw, I didn't think Clinton was bad at all, until he had that little incident with his friend behind closed doors. I actually didn't vote in 2000, since I was fine with Gore (bet I'll hear insults about this one) or Bush as President back then. I am glad that Bush was President when we are attacked though.

Novafaon spewed, "Yes, us stupid, ignorant Right wing Conservative nuts are convinced that Saddam and 9/11 are connected. You sure got the nail on the head that time Peter. You better be careful about saying who people will remember as spewing lies. Your comment there is a lie since you have no way of proving it. Back your statement up with facts. You can't do it can you? I didn't think so."

A quick google using the terms "no connection Saddam and 9/11" yielded

9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida
Commission opens final hearing before release of report
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

Published on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 by the Associated Press
9/11 Commission: No Link Between Al-Qaida and Saddam
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm

Clarke's Take On Terror

March 21, 2004
Clarke's Take On Terror
Richard Clarke says the White House dropped the ball against terrorism before Sept. 11.  (Photo: CBS)
"I find it outrageous that the President is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it."
Richard Clarke
Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism adviser, talks to Lesley Stahl about September 11.  (Photo: CBS/60 Minutes)
(CBS) In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes.

The administration maintains that it cannot find any evidence that the conversation about an Iraq-9/11 tie-in ever took place.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

White House 'delayed 9-11 report'

By Shaun Waterman

UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
Published 7/25/2003 8:11 PM
(Editor's note: What follows is a corrected and updated version of a story originally published by UPI on July 23, 2003, under the headline "9/11 report: No Iraq link to al-Qaida.")
WASHINGTON, July 25 (UPI) -- A member of the independent commission set up to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has accused the Bush administration of deliberately delaying publication of an earlier congressional inquiry into the attacks.

Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., told United Press International that the White House did not want the report made public before launching military action in Iraq. He said the administration feared publication might undermine the administration's case for war, which was based in part on the allegation that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had supported Osama bin Laden -- and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030723-064812-9491r

Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link
Bush maintains Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are connected

US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

For factual, biased reporting, try the Al Franken Show at
http://www.airamericaradio.com/

For factual reporting on media biases, try
http://mediamatters.org/
Note: Media Matters for America was founded by David Brock to highlight the right-wing manipulation of the American Media. He is an expert in this field, because he is a former right-wing media manipulator.

"My point, which I thought was awfully clear, was that Clinton had 8 years to do something - and had repeated terrorist attacks to prod him - and he didn't do anything. Bush had 8 months. Your heated rejoinders completely ignored what I said. Hey, Bush is a dud, but let's accurately remember history. To use your phraseology, Clinton didn't do SHIT over 8 years. Simple fact."

Simple fact? Really. Hunh. Okay.

I mean, I could have sworn that the US Navy, on Clinton's orders, fired cruise missiles at Al Qaeda encampments in Afghanistan, blowing them up, killing a number of Al Qaeda operatives, and also blew up a Sudanese chemical plant that was producing nerve gas. Even the GOP in Congress applauded the move. He also instituted economic sanctions against bin Laden and the Taliban.

For that matter, according to Clinton's bio, the CIA rolled up a score of al Qaeda cells, captured terrorist operatives, broke up plots against the US, found and broke up terrorist cells in the Northeast and one in Canada, thwarted planned attacks in Jordan, and intercepted a man crossing the Canadian border into Washington state with bomb making materials that he was going to use to bomb LAX.

True, he didn't catch bin Laden. But neither has Bush. So if you define that as not doing shit, so be it. But Bush's not doing shit has a way higher body count with far more to come, has fostered increased Muslim hatred for the US (which I wouldn't have thought possible) and has been a bin Laden wet dreams in terms of providing incentive for new recruits.

Simple fact.

PAD

Peter, you said "I mean, I could have sworn that the US Navy, on Clinton's orders, fired cruise missiles at Al Qaeda encampments in Afghanistan, blowing them up, killing a number of Al Qaeda operatives"

So, Al Qaeda attacking us on 9/11 could have been a retaliation for the attack on their encampments? What does everyone think on this?

About the Iraq Al-Queda connection...

the polls said 70% of Americans, not just right wing conservatives believed the connection, and without knowing the poll question, this could be misleading. And fine, i agree that many have a mistaken impression, i'll even agree that many Americans are not nearly as well informed as they ought to be, but that doesn't mean that all, or even most, conservatives and Bush supporters are ignorant and radical, and too many here have insinuated that.

And also, polls are polls. They aren't always right, they aren't always wrong, and i'll agree that while this poll shows a depressing trend, its still just a poll, and its easy for such numbers to be misinterpreted or skewed.

And about the fact that Americans still believe in a WMD program, not everyone follows the news like they should, and not everyone reads every government report. And even those that read the news get skewed reports and views there, so judging the intelligence of the public on polls on info garnered from news articles is never really going to be fair.

But not only did Clinton fail to catch bin Laden. He also rebuffed the Sudanese government's offers to capture him, decided that non-retaliation was the best response to the Cole attacks, and hampered in numerous ways FBI and CIA efforts to meet the terrorist challenge.

He even gave away the element of surprise for his 1998 missile attack on Afghanistan by giving advance notice to the Pakistani government... a hotbed of jihadists and bin Laden sympathizers.

Worst of all was the cumulative effect of his failure to act..in a real sense, Bill Clinton created Osama bin Laden(gasp!). Every time the Muslim radical would strike at the U.S. and meet with a weak response, Osama's prestige in the Islamic world would grow.

Strange thing about them polls.

When I agree with the outcome of the polls, they are more accurate than when I disagree.

Unless they have phrased the question wrong.

Denial, anyone?

You may very well be right about the DEMs convention. And if they are putting protestors blocks away from the event, then they should get a slap on the wrist, too.

Maybe its normal proceedure for a political campaign, but for someone that has worked in the media, it just feels like suppression, which irks me 10x more than when the other side is crowing about something I don't like.

To wit (and I didn't have time to investigate this a lot):

Dave Lindorff, investigative reporter, journalist, said, "White House advance teams and the Secret Service have routinely instructed local police at cities where the president or vice president plan to visit to remove demonstrators—particularly those carrying signs which might mar the TV imagery of a triumphant presidential motorcade or rally—and pen them in, often in fenced-in enclosures, well away from the event and the media. The result is news coverage that has seemed to suggest a universally adored administration."

ALSO, Dan Eggen writes in The Washington Post: "As Bush has traveled the United States during this political campaign, the Secret Service and local police have often handled public protest by quickly arresting or removing demonstrators, free-speech advocates say. In addition, access to Bush's events has been unusually tightly controlled and people who do not support Bush's reelection have been removed.

"Tickets to Bush events, distributed by the Republican Party, go only to those who volunteer or donate to the party or, in some cases, sign an endorsement of the GOP ticket and provide names and addresses. Party workers police the crowds for signs of Kerry supporters, who are frequently evicted."

I'm sure Kerry didn't want a whole lot of dittoheads shouting "four more years" at every tour stop, as well. It just seems like this government does its best to withhold everything it can from the public and keep anything that might be seen as weakness (like admitting a mistake) far, far from the eye of the camera.

It just gives me the same sick feeling about government I get when I watch "JFK."

My 2 cents.

I think if that was the case novafan then Osama's tape would have said so.

These are all value judgements which you are making. There is no fundamental right or wrong, just what you believe it to be. And if a vast majority in a society share your beliefs, than that will be practiced. Under our current, ever evolving beliefs, all those things you named are wrong, and i'd agree that they are, but societies evolve and change, and though you may oppose these changes, they have precedent and are not wrong just because you say they are.

Wow. You're actuially saying there is no such thing as fundamental human rights? When they wrote we believe these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, That's not true?

How is I'm opposing change when it's you who want prevent a new definition of Marriage. i'm for change you're not.

Change what your saying to interacial marriages and that you want to stop it befoire something worse imposes their will. It's better to stop blacks and whites frrom marrying because if we allow that then it means other group will want marriage too. Should we have stopped interacial marriage from being legalised so the homosexuals wouldn't have a leg to stand on?

You have not give one single reason why Gay marriage in and of itself is wrong. You say if we allow it then it could or will lead to the end of age of consent etc etc. (btw Age of consent laws aren't legislating morality it's protecting children from sexual abuse.) Assume that Gay marriage was to be allowed under the condition that if they allow it. then marriage can only be between TWO people OVER the age of 18, and there can be no challenges on this definition ever again. Would you still oppose Gay marriage?

And despite what you say about having no problem with hoomosexuals you'e connected it far too often to pedophilia for me to believe that you are being honest about that.

The Majority believe something. That in and of itself doesn't make it right. All beliefs need to be challenged it's the only to ensure that these beliefs are worthy. People didn't wake up one day and say you know I think women do deserve to have the same rights as men. That had to be fought for the old system had to be challenged.

Do you believe that it was a bad thing that a minorty of African Americans 'forced' their belief that they are every bit of deserving to have an equal place in society?

In regards to Clinton and how he handled terrorists, I offer the following from the Washington Post:

"In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

". . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy — potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia — was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism."

PAD

"About the Iraq Al-Queda connection...

the polls said 70% of Americans, not just right wing conservatives believed the connection, and without knowing the poll question, this could be misleading."

Well, hell, dude, you've got me cold, it seems. If only I had said "70% of Americans" instead of "70% of conservatives."

Wait...just give me a minute to scroll up so I can reproduce my shamefully misleading posting. Okay, yeah: Here it is. My false and vicious mischaracterizing of conservatives:

"Bush and Company mentioned Saddam, threats, and 9/11 so often and so frequently together that they managed to falsely convince 71% of Americans that Saddam was behind, or connected to, 9/11."

Oh dear. Why...it appears I did NOT single out conservatives. It appears I did, in fact, state exactly what the article said. Could it be that conservatives on this board are trying to twist what I said and make it sound like I'm bashing those in the right wing? No. Never. I refuse to believe it.

PAD

PAD,
Really, PAD. If you're going to cite cases to support Clinton's case, don't you think you can find a more informative source...than the man's biography?
On that same point, you stood in line for Clinton's book to be one of the first to get it and were proud to do so, right?
Didn't Clinton sign the Defense of Marriage Act? In your opinion, why wasn't that "legislating bigotry"?
Honestly, as you would say with Bush, he had two years with a Congress controlled by his own party to achieve things, and the only significant part of what he was able to accomplish in those two years that could be remotely described as liberal was the 1993 budget that raised taxes ( and did, to be fair, lead to a balanced budget).
Yet he blew a chance to improve health care. Even Dole was on board, and he blew a historic opportunity. He subsequently signed Welfare Reform, NAFTA, supported the death penalty, and weakened the Kyoto Treaty before Bush had a chance to reject it.
If he had an R after his name and had done these things, I rather doubt you would be standing in line waiting for his book.
But you defend him tooth and nail, while calling Bush a bigot.
Why?
Seriously, especially in his first two years, what did Clinton do to reduce or end the War on Drugs, an absolute joke that has infringed more on civil liberties than the Patriot Act has? Why don't you ever bring these things up? Why doesn't Clinton inspire your ire a fraction as much for doing these things and failing to do more when he had the political capital to do so?
Why?

"Maybe its normal proceedure for a political campaign, but for someone that has worked in the media, it just feels like suppression, which irks me 10x more than when the other side is crowing about something I don't like."

But, the big difference is that the protestors weren't being told they couldn't protest, just where they could protest. Protesting on site might make the protesors feel better, but does it really change anyone's mind about a particular issue? I think back to some speech Dick Cheney was giving, and some protestor jumped up in the balcony and started screaming things at Cheney during his speech. She was promptly "escorted" out of the room, and became a little side note in the coverage of the speech. What was she protesting or what did she say? I have no idea. It was just a disruption that didn't affect Cheney's speech, and put a poor light on the the woman.

This is a widespread problem. The sad fact is that protest has been rendered nearly completely pointless in the last ten years. Protesters are forced miles away from their targets (and by "targets" I mean the people the protestors are trying to deliver their message to), and the media doesn't cover the content of the protests. Rather than focus on why they're protesting, and perhaps get off their asses and do some actual journalism, they're content to find the fraction of the group who chooses violent or otherwise inappropriate means of expression.

Unless things change in the future, protest is dead.

From the Washington Post:

...The Clinton administration had defined its enemy as narrowly as its military instruments. Bin Laden and his aides were targets, but not the Talbian regime that gave them sanctuary.

..... For the next two years, Clinton pursued a policy of economic sanctions against the Taliban and sent numerous messages to the de facto government of Afghanistan requesting bin Laden's delivery for trial. Frustrated by the Taliban's lack of cooperation, Clinton's emissaries took on a more menacing tone in the spring of 2000. But though the administration deliberately raised the specter of military confrontation, it chose in the end to step back.

..... In Washington, however, Clinton's national security cabinet stopped short. "There were verbal scoldings, but that was about it," Shelton said. "There never was any consideration of going after the Taliban.

www.cnn.com
Bob Kerry pretty much hits the nail on the head here. I will say, however, that I think the Bush administration should have come in and cracked down on Al Qaeda when they came into power.

Those attacks included the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993; the bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military housing complex in Saudi Arabia, in 1996; the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.

Commission member Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, said he thought it was a "big mistake" that despite repeated provocations, only one military strike was launched against al Qaeda before September 11: a cruise missile attack on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998.

"I don't understand, if we're attacked and attacked and attacked, why we continue to send the FBI over, like the Khobar Towers was a crime scene or the East African embassy bombings was a crime scene," said Kerrey, who had called for a declaration of war against al Qaeda before September 11.

"I keep hearing the excuse that we didn't have actionable intelligence. Well, what the hell does that say to al Qaeda?"

James Tichy wrote...

"But not only did Clinton fail to catch bin Laden. He also rebuffed the Sudanese government's offers to capture him."

I direct you to Al Frankens "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" page 113...

***************************************
Reliable Sources

In "Let Freedom Ring" (Sean) Hannity outlines a charge that he frequently makes both on television and on the radio: that Clinton let bin Laden slip from his grasp. He writes,

"It is truly astonishing. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and their liberal allies on Capitol hill were offered Osama bin Laden by the Sudanese government, and they were turned down. They could have taken him into custody and begun unraveling his terrorist network almost six years ago. But they didn't. And now more than three thosand innocent Americans have paid with their blood."

That IS astonishing. Hard to think of a more serious charge. You want to be damned sure you have that one locked own pretty tight before you put it into print.

But knowing what we already know about Sean Hannity and the standards to which he holds himself, what arethe chances that this whole thing is baloney?

His entire case comes from a guy named Mansoor Ijaz, a pakistani-American who claims to have transmitted the offer as a middleman between the U.S. and the Sudan. I got the story on Ijaz from former National Security Advisor Sandy Bergman and from Daniel Benjamin, past director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council and now senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Berger only had to meet once with Ijaz to determine that he was an unreliable freelancer, pursuing his own financial interests. Ijaz was an investment banker with a huge stake in Sudanese oil.

Ijaz had urged Berger to lift santions against Sudan. Why the sanctions? Because Sudan was and remains a notorious sponser of terrorism, harboring Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. Also, the Sudanese regime is the leading state sponser of slavery and is considered by many to be untrustworthy. Ijaz, however, was arguing their case. As Benjamin said of Ijaz, "Either he allowed himself to be manipulated, or he's in bed with a bunch of genocidal terrorists."

Ijaz said that Sudan was ready to hand over bin Laden. The U.S. does not conduct diplomacy through self-appointed private individuals. When the U.S. talked to Sudan, there was no such offer. The U.S. pursued every lead and tried to negotiate. Nothing.

The story does have a happy ending. Ijaz now has a job as foreign affairs analyst for the Fox News Channel.

************************************

^^^

Typos above are my own.

Peter David provided:
"The Washington Post found that 69 percent of all Americans believe that Hussein worked with al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden to carry out terrorist plans nearly two years ago. In fact, the poll found that even a majority Democrats and independents believe Hussein was a key player."

Has anyone actually examined this particular poll in question? What was the sample size? Who was asked this question? How was the question worded? Sorry, but after all this time, I still find it hard to believe that 69% (or 70%) of ALL AMERICANS felt this way... I don't belive I know anyone who thought Saddam worked with OBL in the attacks on America on 9/11. Anyone here think that or was anyone here actually polled about it? Hmm... didn't think so.

The Goring quote is relevant to Iraq. Bush and Company mentioned Saddam, threats, and 9/11 so often and so frequently together...

The main difference between supporters of the Iraq war and the opposition is that those who support it see it as part of the war on global terrorism and state sponsors, those who oppose it see it as a separate event. Those who support it think that enabling the spread of freedom over dictatorship in the Islamic world is a good thing in the long run, even though it's painful in the short run. Those who oppose it apparently have no problem with the Saddams and Iranian mullahs keeping millions of people under their thumbs - all in the name of maintaining the status quo.

The West tried the ignore/appease route in the Middle East for decades. We figured if we ignored fundamentalist Islam, it would go away before it got serious. Saudi Arabia is still the best example of this. How many people are dying in Saudi Arabia because we are allied with the regime there? Next, you might say something like in Iraq they are dying as a direct result of our actions rather than indirect. How many people are dying in Iraq because we are an occupying force? How many were dying there because of sanctions? In every scenario: ally, sanctions or war, the US has received criticism that people die as a result of our foreign policy.

In the gay marriage thread, you've talked a lot about how conservatives want to keep the status quo, and how liberals want to move forward. Isn't it ironic that a conservative president is the one who is not accepting the status quo in response to Islamic terrorism in the Middle East?

Anyway, it's clear that we disagree on the most basic underpinnings in this discussion, so I doubt we'll ever be able to get past that into the finer points.

It's fascinating to see incredibly interesting news about the candidates coming out now--when it's way too late to do anything about it.

Case in point-- Newsweek has an amazing issue full of stuff they promised not to divulge until after the election, such as the unbelievable story of Kerry's attempts to get John McCain to be his vice president, even going so far as to offer him Secretary of Defense and put McCain in charghe of national security...a job that the, you know, CONSTITUTION gives to the president.

McCain, knowing that the wto of them would probably have won in a landslide, offerred the opportunity to be the second (or arguably, MOST) most powerful man on Earth, turned it down, telling Kerry he was crazy.

We should have known about this.

A man this nuts came within a few hundred thousand votes of getting into office.

Promises shmaises. When you have a story like that you ought to run with it. Shameful.

I wonder what would have happened if CBS 60 Minutes would have been able to wait until the last Sunday of the election to run the news report of the missing weapons in Iraq.

Thank goodness someone put a stop to that. They should be given a medal.

Here's a question for you. Why didn't Kerry through his medals away along with everyone else? He saved his medals and threw away his ribbons. Didn't he wear his medals to the Congressional hearing? Hmmmm.

ugghh, it shold have been 'throw', not 'through' in the above post.

Novafan

Bill, you said "We should have known about this."

I agree. However, most of the press and tv stations are biased towards liberals and would not report a story like that until they thought they would get some gain out of it.

I think it's amazing how everytime I turned on the tv, there was a story blasting Bush and nothing on Kerry except for praises, etc. He never had to answer for anything.

I think we owe a lot to Bloggers who quickly jumped on any false reports that the biased media reported.

Thank goodness for the internet, which was developed by Gore, right? :0)

One of my biggest concerns about the next four years is that it will, in many people's minds, become completely acceptable to accuse anyone who dares to disagree with the President of treason. This is rather chilling, especially in view of the fact that this country wouldn't exist if not for dissenting political speech.
It's also pretty goddamn hypocritical, in view of the mudslinging that went on during the Clinton administration. I don't recall anyone yelling "Traitor! Traitor!" at Linda Tripp or Paula Jones or the mopes accusing the Clintons of murder and drug-trafficking.
It bugs me that I can't, in good conscience, display anything that says "Support Our Troops," even though I do, because so many people think you can't support the people fighting the war and still be against the war itself.
It bugs me that "liberal" is being used as a pejorative term by those who call themselves "conservative." Yeah, I'm a liberal. As in "Liberty." You know, the word we have on all our money? That was there before "In God we trust?" "Liberty," as in "Freedom?" The thing the American Revolution was all about?
Four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded George W. Bush the White House, a co-worker of mine who had supported Bush asked me what I thought about the decision. I said, more or less:
"Well, I'm not too happy about it, but the decision is made. He's the man until at least 2005. I had reasons for not voting for him, and I think they were valid reasons. That said, I'm not wishing him ill. I hope he's a great success, for all our sakes. He's going to be the leader of the free world for at least four years, so how can I say I hope he fails? That would be terrible! Nothing would make me happier than to be able to look back in Novemeber 2004 and say, 'I was wrong about him. He's done a fine job. He's been a good President.'"
Now, contrast that with these actual quotes from another Bush-supporting co-worker, which I heard over the course of the day Tuesday:
To a longtime friend and former co-worker, who was a Kerry supporter: "You are no longer welcome in my home." To another co-worker: "If Kerry wins, I'm flying my flag in distress [upside-down]." During several loud phone conversations with friends and family members: "If [Kerry] wins, there'll be a big terrorist attack." "Bin Laden wants Kerry to win." "We'll all have to work three jobs just to live." "He'll take orders from the French." And my personal favorite: "He'll open up the borders and let in all them Mexicans."
So you'll have to excuse me if my first thought on seeing the results on Wednesday was, "Jesus Christ, they all swallowed that crap." My apologies to all conservatives and Republicans who weren't [i]that[/i] panicked about the possible consequences of a Kerry win.
Bush says he wants to be a uniter for real this time, that he wants a bipartisan effort to solve a lot of problems at home and abroad. I hope to God he means it this time--or at least, that someone explains to him that "being a uniter" and "bipartisan effort" doesn't mean telling everyone who disagrees to shut up and do as they're told.

Paul

Paul1963 wrote...
One of my biggest concerns about the next four years is that it will, in many people's minds, become completely acceptable to accuse anyone who dares to disagree with the President of treason.

It seems that to a lot of people, that's already the case. It's this sort of brainlessness that makes it tempting to write off Bush supporters as a bunch of zealots. It's simply astounding that people would say such things.

Paul1963 wrote...
It bugs me that "liberal" is being used as a pejorative term by those who call themselves "conservative."

That's got to be the only place in the world where "liberal" has somehow become a 4-letter word. Hell, in Canada it's the name of our ruling party.

As for who Osama would have wanted to be elected, one could make a case for either candidate. He could have wanted Bush to win, since his foreign policies are likely creating terrorists at a highly increased rate. Or, he could have wanted Kerry, if he somehow believed that Kerry would be "soft" on terrorism.

Isn't it more likely, though, that he just doesn't care? He's going to hate the U.S. either way, and I'm sure he was quite satisfied seeing the extensive damage he's done by dividing the country so effectively.

One of my biggest concerns about the next four years is that it will, in many people's minds, become completely acceptable to accuse anyone who dares to disagree with the President of treason.

Do you not remember the Gore rant?

They betrayed this country!

It's apparently already acceptable to accuse the President OF treason.

However, I think it's pretty crass to accuse the opposition party as treasonous. I've not heard it done in my part of the country - and I'm in Texas :)

I guess I'd be bitter too if my candidate lost by almost 4 MILLION votes, and my Party lost 3 seats in the senate, including minority leader Tom Daschel, lost about 16 in the House. Yeah. I'd be bitter too.

So instead of saying, maybe the Democratic party needs to change and do a better job of bringing our message out to the people, what are you guys doing? Getting angrier & going further to the left. You guys keep that up and you'll loose again in '08.

Kerry lost despite the fact that he had the support from VOTE FOR CHANGE concert tour. he had Springstein, Peral Jam, Mellencamp, REM, James Taylor, Dixie Chicks, Bonnie Rait, Stevie Wonder, Dave Matthews Band, etc. He had Move On.org, Hollywood actors like Streisand, Affleck, Dicapprio, He had the support of CBS & NBC News, and he lost by almost 4 MILLION votes.

Kerry lost despite promising every american health care, promising to lower taxes on the middle class & raising taxes on the rich. Hell, he promised just about everything under the sky and he lost. The DNP threw the best they had to offer and lost by almost 4 MILLION votes.

Notice, Senator Clinton is doing it very smart, Her voting record this year is very moderate & she will put herself more in the middle. She just saw that the far left doesn't win the presidency in this country. If she keeps that up she will have a good chance in '08.

"Oh dear. Why...it appears I did NOT single out conservatives. It appears I did, in fact, state exactly what the article said. Could it be that conservatives on this board are trying to twist what I said and make it sound like I'm bashing those in the right wing? No. Never. I refuse to believe it."

Sorry, i messed up in my post. I mixed things up in my head. Mistakes happen, and i didn't try to twist what you said. But you did say one of the reasons that the Republicans won the election was because Americans are stupid, and i think thats a really poor thing to say. You can't judge intelligence from one poll. And regardless of the intelligence of Americans, in our system, a mainly representative democracy, a stupid persons vote matters just as much as an intelligent persons. And by complaining about idiots putting our pres in office, it sounds sometimes like you are almost advocating an oligarchy, where just the liberals, who are obviously much smarter than the conservatives and Americans who voted for Bush because of that false connection, should rule.

Thats not how our system works, and i'm insulted by talk like this. Its a little condecending (sp.), saying that the Republicans won because their supporters are idiots. And i'm sure that some of them are, and i'm sure that some liberals are too, but that doesn't mean their votes don't count, and their ideas shouldn't be respected.

And about what i've said about gays and relating it to pedophilia. I don't think gays are immoral or wrong, i was using it as an example of something that in our society is determined to be wrong. Perhaps pedophilia was a bad example, but necrophilia or polygamy are better ones. These are determined to be wrong in our society, even though they don't really hurt anybody, (cept perhaps disrespecting a body). Just as these are determined to be wrong, by an overwhelming majority, and they are outlawed, an overwhelming majority could outlaw gay marriage. America discriminates against groups all the time, like polygamists, and necrophiliacs, and drug abusers, and NAMBLA members, there doesn't have to be a reason better than protection of the status quo, it happens. And though you may disagree, unless you are prepared to be rid of all social and moral legislation which exists, which i highly doubt even most gay marriage advocates are prepared to do.

Paul,

I could give you almost an exact word for word example of a KERRY supporter who was just as big a dick at my wife's job the day after the election. So let's just agree that both sides have their share of tools. Whatcha gonna do?

People keep bringing up polygamy. As a person who supports gay marriage I don't really know what to say to someone who says that if we allow it we will soon be allowing polygamy as well. It's not an entirely specious argument. I mean, who is hurt by it? You can argue that most polygamous marriages are pretty creepy these days but that could well be due to it being illegal.

Other than purely religious reasons, why should polygamy be illegal? If anyone has a good argument, let me know. I'm not in favor of making it legal but maybe, for consistancy's sake, I should be.

From Media Matters for America

TOP TEN REASONS WHY MEDIA MATTERED IN THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL RACE:

1. FOX News Channel
2. MSNBC
3. CNN
4. The Washington Times
5. The Washington Post
6. The Wall Street Journal
7. The New York Times
8. NBC
9. ABC
10. CBS
BONUS: The Rush Limbaugh Show

URL http://mediamatters.org/items/200411030002

See above for details on how the media did not provide fair and balanced coverage of the candidates, and how the right wing slander machine works.

The founder of the organization is David Brock, a reformed right-wing slander master. Due to his experience, he is very familiar with right wing smear tactics and media manipulation

Bill Mulligan wrote...
As a person who supports gay marriage I don't really know what to say to someone who says that if we allow it we will soon be allowing polygamy as well.
*snip*
Other than purely religious reasons, why should polygamy be illegal? If anyone has a good argument, let me know. I'm not in favor of making it legal but maybe, for consistancy's sake, I should be.

Well, from a completely objective, liberal, non-religious point of view, there should be nothing wrong with polygamy. As long as everyone participating in the marriage(s) is a consenting adult, there's no real reason to outlaw it...

except that it clashes with other rights. For example, if a man has 12 wives, and each wife has 2 kids, there's no way that this guy is going to be able to support 24 children. I think that would be the basic argument against polygamy (particularly polygyny, which is by far more common that polyandry). If someone could come up with a system to get around that issue, and if all participants in the polygamy were consenting individuals, I guess there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to go ahead and get married.

ECK wrote...
URL ">http://mediamatters.org/items/200411030002

I like the size-adjusted electoral map.

You've got to be kidding me ECK. 9 out of 10 of those media that you listed are slanted towards liberals, not conservatives.

Imagine CBS and/or the New York times saying anything positive about Bush. Egads.

And like that site you showed isn't biased at all. What the heck is a conservative agenda anways?

Novafan said...
And like that site you showed isn't biased at all. What the heck is a conservative agenda anways?

You're right, but at least the site is up-front about its bias.

"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

I'm sure the "conservative agenda" can be loosely defined as the determination to get conservatives/Republicans elected at any cost, and a willingness to distort the truth or fabricate outright lies to accomplish that goal.

Are there people with a similar "liberal agenda?" Undoubtedly.

The fact that this site is biased doesn't necessarily mean it's inaccurate. And if it does have some inaccuracies, that doesn't mean that everything it prints is bullshit.

It's up to the reader to sift through the material.

"I have no problem with people. I don't care what they do in their own place, as long as they leave me and my friends alone and understand that they had better stay away from me and mine."

Am I a bigot? Or just an unfriendly person?

If I get more specific about who I don't want near me, or more specific about who I do want near me... what business is that of yours?

Then what business is it of yours to saddle me with your "bigot" label?

"The righties spent the Clinton years listening to Flush Limbaugh demonize liberals, and now they wonder why the other side does the same to them."

if the reason why we are demonized is THIS... then those doing the demonized are goshdamn CHILDREN.

"There is no fundamental right or wrong, just what you believe it to be. And if a vast majority in a society share your beliefs, than that will be practiced. Under our current, ever evolving beliefs, all those things you named are wrong, and i'd agree that they are, but societies evolve and change, and though you may oppose these changes, they have precedent and are not wrong just because you say they are."

Sorry, I don't buy moral relativism. Try to sell it somewhere else.

"I'm not entirely sure we'll even survive it."

I'll bet you ten dollars that we do!

"A man this nuts came within a few hundred thousand votes of getting into office.

Promises shmaises. When you have a story like that you ought to run with it. Shameful."

My God! You mean John Kerry actually envisioned a bi-partisan presidency, working hand in glove with a man he likes and respects and he felt could serve this country...a man demonized by his own party even though he was a POW in Vietnam while the man the party preferred had his daddy pull strings to keep him out of the war?

Shame! Shame, I say!

PAD

My God! You mean John Kerry actually envisioned a bi-partisan presidency, working hand in glove with a man he likes and respects and he felt could serve this country...a man demonized by his own party even though he was a POW in Vietnam while the man the party preferred had his daddy pull strings to keep him out of the war?

Shame! Shame, I say!

PAD

Ahem. Back in reality-based world (as opposed to the emotion-based one), here's some of what Newsweek reports:

"To show just how sincere he was, he made an outlandish offer. If McCain said yes, he would expand the role of vice president to include secretary of Defense and the overall control of foreign policy."

McCain's response? "You're out of your mind. I don't even know if it's constitutional, and it certainly wouldn't sell."

I'm with McCain on this one. Unconstitutional and indicative of someone who is out of his mind. Had this come out before the election Kerry would have lost by an even wider margin.

I wonder if all of the "plans" Kerry had were as nutty as this one.

If McCain does run for president in 2008 it might be tough for Democrats to argue that he isn't fit to lead...after all, THEIR guy was willing to cede him control of foreign policy!

I wonder what the Democrat spin would have been had McCain made all this public?

Novafan wrote:
"You've got to be kidding me ECK. 9 out of 10 of those media that you listed are slanted towards liberals, not conservatives.
Imagine CBS and/or the New York times saying anything positive about Bush. Egads."

Obviously, you didn't follow the URL. For each of the 10 media outlets listed, there are several examples of conservative bias. Now, in the fact-based ones you listed, such as the NY Times and CBS (and yes, they do sometimes get things wrong) the repeating of the conservative talking points in a misguided attempt to be even-handed. Or just lazy reporting.

9 out of 10 are liberal? I'd like to see your list. That just isn't true. Let's take a look at a few

Fox. Pretty self-evident, very conservative bias. See Media Matters, outfoxed, watch it for an hour.

Washington Times: Owned by Rev. Moon, who was recently proclaimed King of the World and living Messiah by some Repubs.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/21/moon/index_np.html
http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2004_05_01_barchive.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38947
http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2004/05/im-and-i-approve-this-messiah.html

The Wall Street Journal: Although neutral to slightly conservative on the news pages, but on its editorial page, facts are out the window

There you go, three with strong conservative (or neo-conservative) bias. Just enough to show your 9 out of 10 figure as totally baseless. And as for the rest, I recommend you go check out the URL for media matters that I posted before

As for David Brock, who runs the biased but FACT BASED website, you can hear him on the Al Franken Show on Air America Radio (airamericaradio.com/listen.asp, another biased but FACT BASED source)
And some interviews that you can read
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/03/David_Brock_031802.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/06/int04029.html

And the next time you make a flat assertion "Like 9 out of 10 are liberal," please be knid enough to include some sources.

Bill Mulligan said...
If McCain does run for president in 2008 it might be tough for Democrats to argue that he isn't fit to lead

That's true, and while the Democrats would obviously try to defeat him, they wouldn't be nearly as upset if they lost than they are now.

It's not the fact that Republicans are in the White House per se that has many Democrats so upset...it's the current administration's extremism.

I'm sure many Democrats would be perfectly comfortable with a moderate Republican like McCain in charge.

Novafan wrote:
"You've got to be kidding me ECK. 9 out of 10 of those media that you listed are slanted towards liberals, not conservatives.
Imagine CBS and/or the New York times saying anything positive about Bush. Egads."

Obviously, you didn't follow the URL. For each of the 10 media outlets listed, there are several examples of conservative bias. Now, in the fact-based ones you listed, such as the NY Times and CBS (and yes, they do sometimes get things wrong) the repeating of the conservative talking points in a misguided attempt to be even-handed. Or just lazy reporting.

9 out of 10 are liberal? I'd like to see your list. That just isn't true. Let's take a look at a few

Fox. Pretty self-evident, very conservative bias. See Media Matters, outfoxed, watch it for an hour.

Washington Times: Owned by Rev. Moon, who was recently proclaimed King of the World and living Messiah by some Repubs.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/21/moon/index_np.html
http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2004_05_01_barchive.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38947
http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2004/05/im-and-i-approve-this-messiah.html

The Wall Street Journal: Although neutral to slightly conservative on the news pages, but on its editorial page, facts are out the window

There you go, three with strong conservative (or neo-conservative) bias. Just enough to show your 9 out of 10 figure as totally baseless. And as for the rest, I recommend you go check out the URL for media matters that I posted before

As for David Brock, who runs the biased but FACT BASED website, you can hear him on the Al Franken Show on Air America Radio (airamericaradio.com/listen.asp, another biased but FACT BASED source)
And some interviews that you can read
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/03/David_Brock_031802.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/06/int04029.html

And the next time you make a flat assertion "Like 9 out of 10 are liberal," please be knid enough to include some sources.

and put McCain in charghe of national security...a job that the, you know, CONSTITUTION gives to the president.

The way I read things, it would be the positions of Secretary of Defense and National Security Adviser.

But hey, Bush is allowed to create offices and departments in the government...

I'm with McCain on this one. Unconstitutional and indicative of someone who is out of his mind.

I don't see why it's so insane of an idea. I think the insane part is that McCain is willing to bend over backwards for his party, rather than caring about the country as a whole.

"It's up to the reader to sift through the material."

Oh, that's just great. I already have a hard enough time sifting through the information put out by CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, etc.

Now, I have to sift through the material on a site that leans so far to the left it isn't even funny. Good grief. I think I'll pass on that one. I'll stick with the liberal media sifting from proposed reputable sources.

Oh, good grief. So 7 out of 10 makes such a big difference as opposed to 9 out of 10. That's still more than half of the list that you said were slanted to the conservative side when the opposite is true. Am I right?

Novafan wrote...
Now, I have to sift through the material on a site that leans so far to the left it isn't even funny. Good grief. I think I'll pass on that one. I'll stick with the liberal media sifting from proposed reputable sources.

I was referring to all media, not this one site in particular.

If you'd truly rather take all information that you don't agree with and dismiss it outright, without even investigating it, then we have nothing further to discuss. I wouldn't imagine you're going to win over anybody with that attitude.

Posted by: Jeff Lawson at November 6, 2004 09:04 PM

Bill Mulligan said...
If McCain does run for president in 2008 it might be tough for Democrats to argue that he isn't fit to lead

That's true, and while the Democrats would obviously try to defeat him, they wouldn't be nearly as upset if they lost than they are now.
It's not the fact that Republicans are in the White House per se that has many Democrats so upset...it's the current administration's extremism.
I'm sure many Democrats would be perfectly comfortable with a moderate Republican like McCain in charge.

I agree. I could live with a McCain presidency. I could possibly even vote for him, say if the Democratic Nominee was Al Sharpton.

Posted by Novafan at November 6, 2004 09:24 PM

"It's up to the reader to sift through the material."

Oh, that's just great. I already have a hard enough time sifting through the information put out by CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, etc.

Now, I have to sift through the material on a site that leans so far to the left it isn't even funny. Good grief. I think I'll pass on that one. I'll stick with the liberal media sifting from proposed reputable sources.

Actually, if you had looked at the site, you would see that all it contains are quotes and transcripts from various shows (often with accompanying links to audio and visual clips). So what it is doing, essentially, is sifting through all the media for you.

By the way, there is no liberal media (outside of Air America, that is). Sorry. That's just one of those nice little Republican distortions.

ECK wrote...
By the way, there is no liberal media (outside of Air America, that is). Sorry. That's just one of those nice little Republican distortions.

I believe that's mostly true, but I was under the impression that a few media outlets, like the New York Times and possibly CBS, were more left-leaning than, say, FOX.

I get my news exclusively from Canadian outlets and The Daily Show, so I'm not too familiar with the American media.

"I think the insane part is that McCain is willing to bend over backwards for his party, rather than caring about the country as a whole."

You assume that McCain agrees with you that Kerry was better for the country than Bush. Obviously he disagrees, to the point where he gave up a great deal of power rather than ensure that kerry became president.

And I agree with those who think that McCaine would be acceptable to many Democrats...so there's a good chance we may have at least 8 years of republican administrations ahead of us. (He'd be 76 when he would have to run for a second term...possibly too old?)

Jeff Lawson wrote:
[b]That's got to be the only place in the world where "liberal" has somehow become a 4-letter word. Hell, in Canada it's the name of our ruling party.[/b]

Speaking as a fellow Canadian, I'd say that's [i]why[/i] it's a 4-letter word.

- Z

^ Sorry. If every board would be as sensible as this one and allow HTML, posts like that wouldn't happen.

- Z

Zeke, use > instead of [] for the html tags.

Zeke wrote...
Speaking as a fellow Canadian, I'd say that's why it's a 4-letter word.

Haha, a good point!

To clarify, the Liberal party has fallen out of favour as of late, particularly in certain areas of the country. My point, of course, was that the word liberal (small "L") hasn't been demonized here in the same way as it has in the States.

Jerome, is there, like, a conservative playbook or something that you guys are all working from? 'Cause it's the same crap over and over again.

I quote statistics, I'm asked for a source. I give the source, and the response is basically, "Well, it's the liberal media, can't trust it." People claim Clinton did such and such, I say, "Well, according to Clinton he actually did so-and-so," and the response is, "Well, you can't trust Clinton."

But ohhhhh, question any of the demonstrable lies that Bush and Co. have foisted upon the American public, and for shame! For shame! Criticize Bush and the playbook response is, "How dare you criticize Bush because, hey, you supported Clinton and Clinton did stupid stuff too!"

As if that's relevant. As if that has anything to do with anything. Yeah, I hated that Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act. Which means...what? That Bush should get a free pass in supporting a constitutional amendment to disenfranchise one American out of ten?

Open your eyes.

PAD

Ok, Peter, you say "But ohhhhh, question any of the demonstrable lies that Bush and Co. have foisted upon the American public"

Can you provide examples of where Bush has lied to the stupid hicks that voted him back into office?

I'm not aware of any lies and I watch CBS, NBC, ABC, and visit CNN regularly. All of them have more of a liberal slant than conservative. I don't remember seeing any reports of these lies you mention. Can you direct me to the lies?

"Can you provide examples of where Bush has lied to the stupid hicks that voted him back into office? I'm not aware of any lies and I watch CBS, NBC, ABC, and visit CNN regularly. All of them have more of a liberal slant than conservative. I don't remember seeing any reports of these lies you mention. Can you direct me to the lies?"

You need to start reading more. It is nothing less than horrifying that TV is the main source for news when it doesn't even begin to address stories that can't be photogenic or summarized in ten second sound bytes.

In any event, beyond the obvious lies of "I'm a uniter, not a divider" and "I don't believe in nation building" and "We'll get Osama bin Laden dead or alive" and the whole thing about major operations being ended in Iraq (so the 1100+ and counting who have died since are just minor deaths, I guess) the following link should give you a nice intro into Bush's lies:

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

PAD

Just wondering if any of you have seen "Voices of Iraq"? It is a powerful documentary. They gave 150 digital video cameras to Iraqis and the Iraqis made comments on the video from roughly January through September of this year.

This documentary exposes the story that some of you seem to ignore: What Iraq was really like before we invaded. For those of you who say about the holocaust in WW2, "never again," you seem to ignore that it indeed did happen in the last 20 years in Iraq where, by conservative estimates, at least 1 million (and some say 5 million) Iraqi's died under Saddam's cruel regime.

This documentary shows the true prison abuse that happened in Iraqi prisons, abuse that is far worse than anything we did there.

This documentary has people who are mad at America, who want us to leave, but it also has people who understand why we are there. It has very little commentary about what is being shown. Many of you will come out still feeling the war was a mistake. But you will at least see the truth of another side that is being widely ignored: we ARE doing some very good things in Iraq.

Obviously the directors had a choice in what footage they used. And they chose to use a lot of footage that had Iraqi's looking at the future with hope. But that does not lessen the impact of the documentary. You will hear and see a side of Iraq that you do not see on any of the mainstream media.

Jim in Iowa

"This documentary exposes the story that some of you seem to ignore: What Iraq was really like before we invaded."

Really. Does it show Saddam making WMDs?

Seriously. Because if it shows citizens being hurt, tortured, killed...well, not to sound cold, but there's lots of documentaries that can be made about lots of countries that's happened in. Now if you want to make the argument that America should be (with deference to Parker and Stone) the world police, storming in and taking over countries on a humanitarian basis, feel free. It's an interesting position to take.

But Bush never took it. If that had been his position, Congress would never have supported it. (And, let's face it, if 9/11 had never happened, Bush would never have gotten the authorization to invade in the first place). Bush's position was that we should invade Iraq specifically because Saddam was cultivating WMDs and had links to Al Qaeda. That's the bill of goods he sold, that's the reason we went to war, that's the reason 1100 and more young Americans have died, that's the reason we're stuck there, and absolutely every other position he's taken since then is post-invasion rationalizing.

PAD

Peter, you say "You need to start reading more. It is nothing less than horrifying that TV is the main source for news when it doesn't even begin to address stories that can't be photogenic or summarized in ten second sound bytes. In any event, beyond the obvious lies of "I'm a uniter, not a divider" and "I don't believe in nation building" and "We'll get Osama bin Laden dead or alive" and the whole thing about major operations being ended in Iraq (so the 1100+ and counting who have died since are just minor deaths, I guess) the following link should give you a nice intro into Bush's lies:"

I read things all the time from newspapers, to magazines, to comics, to great literature. How can you tell someone they need to read more when you have no idea if they do or don't? Don't you think this was a little bit presumptious on your part.

You might think that those statements are lies, but I don't. What proof do you have that his statements are lies besides your personal beliefs?

Do you agree that every politician goes for their party the majority of the time? If so, then don't tell me that the Democrats are more uniters than Republicans. It doesn't work that way. Bush has had several Democrats support him throughout the last 4 years. So, you could actually argue that he is a uniter by reaching across party lines succesfully.

So you're saying we are nation building in Iraq? I'm not sure if that's what you meant or not.

Osama will be found eventually. Bush saying he would get him dead or alive was not a lie. Or maybe you're saying when Bush said he wasn't really worried about Osama as much anymore. That still didn't make it a lie. He was telling the truth since most of Osama's network had been disrupted at that point in time.

Major operations did end in Iraq. The country was overrun and Saddam was removed from power and in hiding. This has been argued before by other people and you still consider this a lie?

In regards to the defense of marriage act, one of the main authors (REP. BOB BARR (R-GA)), came out and refused to support Bush for re-election (or 1st election, depending on your point of view) has criticized the current administration for the Patriot Act abuses and has come out against the marriage ammendment

Peter said "This documentary exposes the story that some of you seem to ignore: What Iraq was really like before we invaded." Really. Does it show Saddam making WMDs?

I guess you would say that Bush lied about the WMD's too. Didn't Kerry see the exact same intelligence that Bush saw? That wasn't a lie either. It was faulty intelligence. Want to know what happens when you receive faulty intelligence? see this:

"Clinton authorized the launching of missile in to both Sudan and Afghanistan based on intelligence that Osama was at the camp in Afghanistan and that the target in Sudan was a Chemical weapons factory. It turned out that neither was the case. Osama was long gone before the launch commenced and the chemical weapons factory was in fact an asprin factory. Both sites were selected based on intelligence gathered that was wrong"

So, how can you call someone a liar if they make a decision on faulty intelligence? Heck, most of the world believed Saddam had WMDs. The questions that should be asked are if he did have them, where did he put them. Or if he didn't have them, how could all of the intelligence sources have been so wrong.

I am a devout Christian living in a so-called "red state" and I did not vote for Bush (while I'm no Kerry fan and he ran a poor campaign he got my vote; I had to do whatever I could to get Bush out of office). I know many other Christians who didn't vote for W either.

This is not to discount the huge impact of conservative Christian voters on the election but to clarify that this is not solely a "religious vs. non-religious" vote issue.

Many of the same Christians who reduced the election to a Bush (good) vs. Kerry (evil) choice based on a few perceived "key" issues would also demonize me for the particulars of my individual views, regardless of how fervently I believe in Christ or attempt to follow his teachings.

Thus, regardless of how un-"Christlike" starting a war based on falsehoods and half-truths (and then doing little to nothing about yet another African genocide) is, because Bush says the "right" thing at the "right" time on, say, gay marriage, he is the "right" candidate for many. Given the general lack of knowledge, education and unwillingless to learn about the world among many Americans (see international rankings on such subjects as geography), it is much easier to zero in on hyped perceived right/wrong "issues" than to face the challenging prospect of intense study of complex matters with complex world-reaching implications.

Thus, if I talked of the notion that maybe Bush shouldn't get our vote because the administration has not been doing that great a job on the "War on Terror," which has implications for the welfare of the entire earth, it would be like a foreign language for many because their minds had already drawn lines between the candidates based on what they perceived as clear-cut "yes/no" issues, even when such labels were not as clear as they thought.

This struggle extends within the state of Christian religion itself. In many circles, it's depressingly more "say the right thing" over anything else (so much for freedom in Christ). If I don't think gay marriage should be illegal (personally, I think it's an infringement upon rights), it's unlikely I'll get a ministry position in a conservative church, regardless of the sincerity of my belief or the content of my character.

(This is not to say all religious people who voted for Bush are simple-minded or those that voted for Kerry aren't, nor am I saying that I am necessarily right... I'm just making trying to make sense of things based on my own many troubled observations.)

While I am distraught and discouraged that some of those of my faith had such a big role of re-electing Bush, I will maintain that it's not such a clear-cut issue as red religious vs. blue non-religious, as I and many others I know would have no place in such a framework. What place I do have is a frustrating question, but I am here and I am an American Christian.

ECK said or 1st election, depending on your point of view

And your point of view would be that Bush didn't win the 2000 election I take it. If that was the case, then why didn't Gore run against him again in 2004. If the election was stolen from him, why didn't he prove it this year? How exactly did Bush not win the first election again? Is it the 'popular vote' argument? Or do you think Gore was robbed in Florida? That the recount was not corect?

I've said before that I didn't care who won the 2000 election because both candidates were acceptable to me. But for someone to say he didn't win the 1st election really bothers me since it isn't true.

Action Speedo, you said If I don't think gay marriage should be illegal (personally, I think it's an infringement upon rights), it's unlikely I'll get a ministry position in a conservative church, regardless of the sincerity of my belief or the content of my character.

I'm curious. How can a Christian believe in gay marriage? Doesn't the Bible say it's an abomination? Can you let me know how you came to this conclusion? Maybe you can change my mind.

Did you know that the person you voted for voted against the ban on partial birth abortion 6 times? Have you ever seen this procedure done?

Well, before we all go zonky here, let's all calm down and get to the crux of the problem:

The crux of the problem as far as terrorism and more specifically OBL is concerned is that the government has been crisis-respondent instead of crisis-avoidant. That's why North America is a sitting duck for those guys.

BOTH the Clinton and Bush administrations had intelligence that indicated the potential for the 9/11 attack. Witness the FBI memos which advised of the presence of foreign flight students, which were ignored largely because they did not get to the right people.

OK. So both administrations can share blame, but in fact it's really irrelevant to point fingers now because that's all past. We have to deal with the present and focus on preventing another calamity of ewual or worse magnitude.

The problem is that Al Queda goes about its business and everyone scrambles to figure out what their true intent is. Well, here's a flash for you: their true intent is to destroy the Western way of life as we know it. Plain and simple. And they'll do it by any means possible because they put no value on human life and in fact encourage folks to go sacrifice themselves for a mythical heroism that they sell to these idiots.

Meantime at our end there is no coordination whatsoever as far as intelligence is concerned, and as long as this situation persists, OBL and his gang get to sit back and laugh while they watch everyone scurrying around like ants as they pull whatever strings they want to pull.

So forget all the stuff about who's to blame for this and who's to blame for that. What the government (Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter) and any allies they can convince to join in the cause, needs to do is get their collective s--t together and formulate a plan to:

1.) locate and isolate OBL and either take him out or capture him
2.) cut off the source of funding for terrorist activities, even if it means sanctioning Saudi Arabia. Now that's harsh, but it's also reality.
3.) determine the chain of command in AQ and eliminate all or part of it
4.) Eradicate the insurgents currently in Iraq to allow for some modicum of stabization of the country and subsequent downsizing of US forces

Surely with the resources that Western Civilization has at its disposal, someone (and I don't care of its President Bush or someone else in the administration or even someone in another country altogether) can take a strong leadership role to focus on these goals one at a time and achieve each one in a logical, progressive manner.

THEN we can start to worry about other matters in terms of social policies and the great societal chasm that needs to be healed.

But Bush never took it. If that had been his position, Congress would never have supported it. (And, let's face it, if 9/11 had never happened, Bush would never have gotten the authorization to invade in the first place). Bush's position was that we should invade Iraq specifically because Saddam was cultivating WMDs and had links to Al Qaeda. That's the bill of goods he sold, that's the reason we went to war, that's the reason 1100 and more young Americans have died, that's the reason we're stuck there, and absolutely every other position he's taken since then is post-invasion rationalizing.

Bush and Powell and others DID talk about the human rights abuses. I agree that WMD's were at the top of the list, but the human rights issues were very clearly a part. The issue of the Kurd's and the no fly zone, all factored into what was presented. Saddam shot daily at our planes that were doing what? Preventing Saddam from attacking and murdering the Kurds and others. The torture and mass executions were all talked about before we ever invaded. If that had been his only reason, I agree, he may not have been given the authorization. But that doesn't mean it was not said.

Let me point out, though, that I never said this film would give justification for WMD's or even for why Bush decided to go to war. I specifically said that this film documents a part of this story that has not been show on the news. Perhaps it is because of bias, or perhaps it is because it is too dangerous to get in there to do the work. Either way, this film shows a wide range of people and their lives in the war torn country.

I was told by many on this site that I needed to see F-911 by M. Moore before I judged it. I am suggesting the same standard be used here. I believe this movie is an extremely well made documentary that will show you a side of Iraq that you are not seeing anywhere else. It gives voices to the people of Iraq in a way that has not occurred since before Saddam took power.

Your point, also, seems to be secondary to the truth. Why does it matter if Bush never mentioned this? If it is the truth, then it should matter. Not to go back and "justify" the war, but to avoid a repeat of past mistakes. Isn't that why we say "never again" about WW2? And then, "never again" about the atrocities that happened in Rwanda, yet are repeating themselves in the Sudan?

Imagine, for a moment, that before Hitler invaded Poland, he turned on his own people and began executing all of the Jews in his country. I don't know if there were 6 million in Germany, but it really doesn't matter, the fact was that he was slaughtering them. The rest of Europe decided to "contain" him, but did not go in and remove him from power. He then tried invading Poland, but was beaten back. He then tried invading France, but was beaten back. During this time, he continued to be a brutal dictator over his own people.

How should the world have reacted? Should they have invaded to have stopped the first massacre? What if nothing was done then and it was 15 years later, and Hitler was still executing people (although the Jews were now somewhat protected by a no fly zone)?

That is what happened in Iraq. Saddam massacred over 150,000 Kurds. He murdered at least 1 million in his own country during his 24 year reign of terror. Whether it was Reagan, Bush H., or Clinton who should have done more, nothing was done. Whether for good reasons or bad, George W. chose to do something about it. The question remains, why was Saddam allowed to kill over 1 million people? Why does this not seem to matter?

Even if Bush was wrong to invade, why is there an unwillingness to be honest about the brutality of Saddam Hussein? This film is not a propoganda film giving Bush excuses for why he invaded. This is a documentary that puts faces to those who were tortured, had hands cut off, and who were put in mass graves. One Iraqi said it well in the film. There are French activists who fight for animal rights. Why are they not willing to fight for his rights as a human?

The documentary does not touch on WMDs. As I said, it is almost entirely what Iraqi's said into the camera, sometimes on their own, sometimes in response to a question (by another Iraqi).

It does touch on Al Qaeda (sp? I never remember and don't care to look it up). One person specifically says that Saddam welcomed and supported members of Al Qaeda in Baghdad. He gives some very specific stories about it. If true (since I understand that one person's comments do not prove it conclusively), it would show what Bush and Cheney actually said, that there are ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda (NOT that Saddam knew or was invovled with 9-11), is true.

For any of you who are daring enough to go and see the truth (and some of it is very brutal and graphic), then I encourage you to go and see this film. I don't care if you agree with Bush and why he went to war or not. If you can't face the facts of what Iraq was like then, and yes, the mess it is in now, it really will turn into the pit some of you already think it is.

Jim in Iowa

To avoid any confusion, let me clarify the following:

"One Iraqi said it well in the film. There are French activists who fight for animal rights. Why are they not willing to fight for his rights as a human? "

The Iraqi was referring to the 24 years Saddam was in power and nothing was done to stop him. He was not saying that he was now being abused and needed his rights protected.

Jim in Iowa

Some of Bush's old lies can be seen here, in this rare Bush vs. Bush debate
http://www.thedailyshow.com/mp/play.jhtml?reposid=/multimedia/tds/stewart/jon_7131.html&setplayer=real_media

Posted by Novafan at November 7, 2004 01:22 AM
>i I guess you would say that Bush lied about the WMD's too. Didn't Kerry see the exact same intelligence that Bush saw? >/i

No, Kerry did NOT see the same intelligence that the President saw. No Senator gets too see all of the same intelligence that the President sees. The Senate gets to see what the President allows them to see. The Senate was presented with all the dubious info, labeled as fact, without getting to see all contradicting info (e.g., yellowcake uranium, T-6 aluminum tubing)

"And your point of view would be that Bush didn't win the 2000 election I take it. If that was the case, then why didn't Gore run against him again in 2004. If the election was stolen from him, why didn't he prove it this year? How exactly did Bush not win the first election again? Is it the 'popular vote' argument? Or do you think Gore was robbed in Florida? That the recount was not corect?
"I've said before that I didn't care who won the 2000 election because both candidates were acceptable to me. But for someone to say he didn't win the 1st election really bothers me since it isn't true."
Posted by Novafan at November 7, 2004 01:30 AM

Alright, the recount wasn't done until well after Bush was in office. Immediate after the election in 2000, Gore asked for a recount of three counties in Florida. The Florida Supreme court stepped in and stopped the recount. A few days later, it was restarted for the entire state. At this point, the US supreme court stepped in and put a stop to the recount, declaring Bush the winner, 5-4, along party lines (I have knowingly skipped some of the steps involved for the sake of brevity).

Later, under a Freedom of Information Act inquiry (I believe, I'm too tired to google it right now) several new organizations got together and conducted a recount. The results:

If the recount had been limited to the three counties Gore had initially asked to be recounted, he still would have lost, by two hundred something votes instead of the 573

If the entire state had been recounted, Gore would have won,
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm -- notice, not a liberal source at all. you can google and find some others

Now keep in mind, that this is in addition to the tens of thousands of people erroneously removed from the voter registration rolls, under the guise of being felons, but for the actual crime of being black. This includes about 8000 people who committed misdemeanors -- not felonies -- in Texas.

And you said "But for someone to say he didn't win the 1st election really bothers me since it isn't true." Well, it really bothers me that such blatant election fraud could be perpetrated in my country. It really bothers me that when widespread disenfranchisement was occurring, all we heard about were dimpled chads and hanging chads. It really bothers me that the country that I grew up in has been stolen and turned into some kind of banana republic where it's OK to commit torture and ignore the Geneva conventions, where it is OK to arrest US citizens in a US city and to declare them an enemy combatant in order to whisk them away to another country to deprive them of the right of due process. And I am ever so slightly peeved that 51% of the former citizens of this country so obliviously unaware, or think that hating gays is more important that civil liberties or competent government, that they want to continue with the degradation of America.

"I read things all the time from newspapers, to magazines, to comics, to great literature. How can you tell someone they need to read more when you have no idea if they do or don't? Don't you think this was a little bit presumptious on your part."

Well, number one, I wasn't talking to you, and number two, since the poster listed nothing but TV news sources, my response was perfectly reasonable in saying he was representative of a sizable percentage of people who get their news only from TV, and I thought that was unfortunate.

Geez, why did I even bother to respond to you? No point. No point at all.

Won't make that mistake again.

PAD

"While I am distraught and discouraged that some of those of my faith had such a big role of re-electing Bush, I will maintain that it's not such a clear-cut issue as red religious vs. blue non-religious, as I and many others I know would have no place in such a framework. What place I do have is a frustrating question, but I am here and I am an American Christian."

I can understand your frustration. It's the same frustration I feel when, as a liberal, I'm lumped in with the most extreme proponents of liberalism. It's the frustration a moderate feminist feels when she's lumped in with women who believe that all men are potential rapists and thus should not be trusted. Or that Muslims feel when they're lumped in with people who distort the Koran so they can kill innocent people.

I mean, my wife is Catholic, for heaven's sake, so obviously I know that simply saying "Christian values" or somesuch is not one sweeping statement that means the same thing for all. To some, Christian values means Christian charity, to be forgiving and accepting of all. To others, it means to despise as hellbound sinners all those who do not share their exact views, and to treat them with accordant scorn.

PAD

"And you said "But for someone to say he didn't win the 1st election really bothers me since it isn't true." Well, it really bothers me that such blatant election fraud could be perpetrated in my country."

Yeah, well, hold on, it gets better. Remember how there was this exit polling that indicated Kerry was winning...and then, lo and behold, the machines said, no, Bush won, and people shrugged and said, Oh, well, the exit polling was wrong.

Not necessarily. Consider the interesting voting result in one precinct in Ohio:

Franklin County, OH: Gahanna 1-B Precinct
638 TOTAL BALLOTS CAST

US Senator:
Fingerhut (D) - 167 votes
Voinovich (R) - 300 votes

US President:
Kerry (D) - 260 votes
Bush (R) - 4,258 votes

No, that's not typos on my part. There were 658 ballots cast...and Bush got 4,258 votes. Look at that discrepency. Now think of an error such as that multiplied by twenty, maybe thirty districts, think of what Bush won Ohio by, and fear for your country just a little more.

PAD

You know, Jim, I'm getting kinda sick and tired of people comparing Iraq to the Holocaust. Especially when you're presenting the argument to someone who had relatives that died in German concentration camps. So it's pretty damned offensive to me that you're implying the situations are analagous when they're not. As if to be critical of Bush's war is to endorse the deaths of German Jews, because unless one supports Bush, then one is supporting the notion of allowing Jews to have been gassed. Yeah. Pretty damned offensive.

One million lives over 24 years? A tragedy. And compared to Hitler's annihilation of six million Jews in a fraction of the time (to say nothing of the millions more of other races)? Not even in the ballpark.

Furthermore, other countries didn't attack Hitler because he was killing Jews. They did it because he was trying to conquer them. And consider this: Sixty years ago, Europe told America that we should attack, and we ignored them. Three years ago, Europe told America we should NOT attack...and we ignored them.

If George Bush wanted a world wide coalition to go in and get Saddam on humanitarian grounds, then that's what he should have come forward with. He should have assembled a genuine gathering of nations and convinced them to do it. Instead he made half-assed claims based upon incomplete and false information, was dead wrong, damaged our credibility with the world, put us out on a limb and sawed it off behind us.

Yes, Saddam was a bad man. A very bad man, who belonged in the cornfield. And I believe he killed one million Iraqis in twenty four years. That's 41,666 Iraqis per year. So just out of curiosity, in the past eighteen months, how many Iraqis have we killed? Estimates range from 30,000 to as high as 100,000, what with our cluster bombs killing in one throw hundreds of Iraqi men, women and children who apparently were unaware that we're improving their lives. And we're just getting warmed up. The world is safer without Saddam in charge? My God, *Iraq* isn't safer without Saddam in charge.

Has anyone considered the possibility that they're trying to kill us because, to them, the only difference between us and Saddam is that, under Saddam, they had electricity and water?

As for people being killed, let's not forget to factor in that we've transformed Iraq, a country with no ties to Al Qaeda, into an Al Qaeda recruitment machine. Muslims who now believe everything bin Laden ever told them are hurrying to join the fight against the Great Satan. How many thousands, millions of lives will THEY be taking?

It's not as simple as you're making it. It never is. But one thing is simple, and that is that if Conservatives get to claim that, noooo, Iraq isn't the same as Vietnam because the body count can't compare, then I'm saying that Iraq isn't the same as the Holocaust because the body count can't compare. Of course, the difference is, we're the ones involved in the pile up now, with no end in sight. Pogo was right: We've met the enemy, and he is us.

PAD

"You know, Jim, I'm getting kinda sick and tired of people comparing Iraq to the Holocaust."

And some of us are getting sick and tired of people comparing the United States to Nazi Germany. But what can you do?

I was wondering how long before we'd see this:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-suic1107,0,2157220,print.story?coll=ny-nynews-headlines

"Distraught over the re-election of President George W. Bush, a Georgia man traveled to New York City, went to Ground Zero and killed himself with a shotgun blast, police said yesterday."

My favorite quote:"...Frank Franca, an East Village artist and registered Democrat, suggested the suicide was symbolic.

"I'm very moved by it," he said. "Obviously, this person was devastated. I can see why he would come here."

Can a little of sanity's light break through the darkness here? EVERY election is seen as Armageddon by the folks who lose. I had friends in college who were convinced that Ronald Reagan was going to launch World War 3 the day he took office. (those with a grasp of history may remember that this failed to take place). Get on with your lives! Democrats should talk to friends who are depressed and lift them up, before we see more of this madness (or the lesser but still crazy stuff, like the recent vanadalizing of the republican offices in Raleigh). Republicans should avoid gloating-karma can be a bitch.

PAD:
>>"You know, Jim, I'm getting kinda sick and tired of people comparing Iraq to the Holocaust."

Bill:
>And some of us are getting sick and tired of people comparing the United States to Nazi Germany. But what can you do?

I'd think that the most reasonable thing to do would be to carefully examine the similarities and distinctions, before casting the analogy aside or accepting it as valid. If dismissed completey, one can move on knowing that it doesn't fit. If central aspects hold true, initiate action, dialogue, etc to further ensure that history doesn't repeat itself.

To compare Iraq to the Holocaust isn't a fair comparison, to be sure. But then, we really didn't attack Germany to end the Holocaust (the news of the Holocaust was largely surpressed in this country by isolationists). We attacked Germany because Germany was invading a, as Stan Lee put it, "gobbling up countries" ... many of which were friends of the US. We also attacked Germany because they had chosen to associate with the nation which attacked Pearl Harbor. In comparison, we are now in Iraq as part of the War On Terror, establishing a more democratic government there. Saddam associated with Al Qaida, but did not have a direct hand in 9-11 (as the Commission concluded)... similarly to Hitler having associated with Imperial Japan, but not having a direct hand in the Pearl Harbor attack. There is the similarity. But to compare the Iraq front of the War On Terror specifically to the Holocaust isn't accurate.

Darin:

>We also attacked Germany because they had chosen to associate with the nation which attacked Pearl Harbor. In comparison, we are now in Iraq as part of the War On Terror, establishing a more democratic government there.

Hussein may have been a scumbag, but he doesn't fit with "the War on Terror".... well, he didn't until the definition of said war became so convoluted that it is impossible to define.

Also, consdering the fighting of a "War on Terror" and establishing democracy worldwide should never been viewed as synonomous. The first serves the entire world, while the latter is not only self-serving, but very egocentric.

>Saddam associated with Al Qaida, but did not have a direct hand in 9-11 (as the Commission concluded)... similarly to Hitler having associated with Imperial Japan, but not having a direct hand in the Pearl Harbor attack.

Nothing similar about it. Germany and Japan were allies, while bin Laden and Hussein had no use for each other and bin Laden had spoken out against the Iraqi leader on numerous occassions.

Fred

"Hussein may have been a scumbag, but he doesn't fit with "the War on Terror".... well, he didn't until the definition of said war became so convoluted that it is impossible to define."

Well, he sent big bucks to the families of people who murdered jews in Israel by blowing themselves up...if that's not supporting terrorism what is?

Fred, Saddam was a terrorist and a terrorist support ever since he gained political power in that region. That fact is indisputable.

"Also, consdering the fighting of a "War on Terror" and establishing democracy worldwide should never been viewed as synonomous."

When did I say anything about establishing democracy WORLDWIDE?

"Germany and Japan were allies, while bin Laden and Hussein had no use for each other and bin Laden had spoken out against the Iraqi leader on numerous occassions."

Bin Laden and Saddam would probably never have broken bread with each other, but their respective organizations were associating with each other throughout the 1990's. Al Qaida and Saddam's own terror network aided each other in that time. Again, the Commission verified this.

DW

Darin:

>>"Also, consdering the fighting of a "War on Terror" and establishing democracy worldwide should never been viewed as synonomous."

>When did I say anything about establishing democracy WORLDWIDE?

Sorry, I'll clarify and correct. Considering the fighting of a "War on Terror" and establishing a democracy in countries that do not currently run under one should not be viewed as synonomous.

>>"Germany and Japan were allies, while bin Laden and Hussein had no use for each other and bin Laden had spoken out against the Iraqi leader on numerous occassions."

>Bin Laden and Saddam would probably never have broken bread with each other, but their respective organizations were associating with each other throughout the 1990's. Al Qaida and Saddam's own terror network aided each other in that time. Again, the Commission verified this.

The U.S. had legal slavery, profited from young children working in mines, didn't give women the right to vote and until very recently had segregated schools and blatant bigotry in public places. All of these things, while atrocities, are in the past and would be sketchy at best in another nation's decision to invade us.

It was well known that bin Laden and Hussein were not allies. Bin Laden had regularly released statements about fighting against Hussein up until days before the U.S. invaded Iraq, placing Hussein in league with the U.S. as enemies.

Peter said Well, number one, I wasn't talking to you, and number two, since the poster listed nothing but TV news sources, my response was perfectly reasonable in saying he was representative of a sizable percentage of people who get their news only from TV, and I thought that was unfortunate. Geez, why did I even bother to respond to you? No point. No point at all.Won't make that mistake again.PAD

I'm just curious here Peter. Just who do you think you were responding to if you weren't talking to me? The poster you quoted was me so if you weren't talking to me, who were you talking to? You reposnded directly to the post you quoted didn't you? That poster was me wasn't it? Hmmm, in my book, 1 + 1 still equals 2.

You did to me exactly what Kerry did when the New York times article came out. You jumped to conclusions based on what was posted or printed out without researching the facts.

Did I forget to mention that you were responding to my post that you quoted again? Just wanted to make sure we were clear on that.

Novafan who needs to read more.

"Sorry, I'll clarify and correct. Considering the fighting of a "War on Terror" and establishing a democracy in countries that do not currently run under one should not be viewed as synonomous."

Okaaayyy... now when did I ever say or imply that they were synonymous?

"It was well known that bin Laden and Hussein were not allies."

They were allies, but they didn't particularly like each other. Their relationship is analgous to Hitler's with the Japanese Empiror. Hitler hated all races except his Aryan master race, yet he had working relationships with the Italians and the Japanese.

"The U.S. had legal slavery, profited from young children working in mines, didn't give women the right to vote and until very recently had segregated schools and blatant bigotry in public places. All of these things, while atrocities, are in the past and would be sketchy at best in another nation's decision to invade us."

I point out that Saddam's terror network and Al Qaida worked with each other throughout the 1990s and this is what you respond with? Let's keep this discussion reasonably timely.

Peter said No, that's not typos on my part. There were 658 ballots cast...and Bush got 4,258 votes.

Could you direct us to the news source that printed that information? I can't find it. If it's true, then I hope it's investigated.

Darin:

>>"Sorry, I'll clarify and correct. Considering the fighting of a "War on Terror" and establishing a democracy in countries that do not currently run under one should not be viewed as synonomous."

>Okaaayyy... now when did I ever say or imply that they were synonymous?

It appeared to be implied by your statement of "In comparison, we are now in Iraq as part of the War On Terror, establishing a more democratic government there." Cause and effect. If I misinterpreted, I apologize. Your meaning wasn't clear.

>>"It was well known that bin Laden and Hussein were not allies."

>They were allies, but they didn't particularly like each other. Their relationship is analgous to Hitler's with the Japanese Empiror. Hitler hated all races except his Aryan master race, yet he had working relationships with the Italians and the Japanese.

They were not allies when the U.S. used it as a basis for their invasion and hadn't been for some time.

>>"The U.S. had legal slavery, profited from young children working in mines, didn't give women the right to vote and until very recently had segregated schools and blatant bigotry in public places. All of these things, while atrocities, are in the past and would be sketchy at best in another nation's decision to invade us."

>I point out that Saddam's terror network and Al Qaida worked with each other throughout the 1990s and this is what you respond with? Let's keep this discussion reasonably timely.

Darin, you neglected to post my final statement, which tied my point to yours...."It was well known that bin Laden and Hussein were not allies. Bin Laden had regularly released statements about fighting against Hussein up until days before the U.S. invaded Iraq, placing Hussein in league with the U.S. as enemies."

Fred

Sorry, missed a point. The U.S.'s actions with the Contras, its previous support of Hussein, its self-serving actions in the Middle East are more recent examples in a long list. There are no white hats involved.

"It appeared to be implied by your statement of "In comparison, we are now in Iraq as part of the War On Terror, establishing a more democratic government there." Cause and effect. If I misinterpreted, I apologize. Your meaning wasn't clear."

You're right, you did misinterpret it. My meaning was clear.

"They were not allies when the U.S. used it as a basis for their invasion and hadn't been for some time."

That was one basis of a few for the invasion, in fact. Bush even said that any country which harbors terrorists (which, again, Iraq did) would be counted as an enemy. When Bush said that, every Democrat in the room sat up and applauded in agreement. Again, this basis was confirmed by the 9-11 Commission's findings.

"It was well known that bin Laden and Hussein were not allies."

It is NOW well known that they, in fact, were allies. Again, it's been established despite whatever rhetoric Bin Laden and Saddam spouted. They shared assets. And there is a historical precedent for this in that Hitler, who hated all races but his own, had allies in Russia, Japan and Italy.

DW

Nevermind, I found the following article which admits there was a problem, but also says the problem was found and corrected:

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/election/election-president.php?story=dispatch/2004/11/05/20041105-A6-01.html

Peter said No, that's not typos on my part. There were 658 ballots cast...and Bush got 4,258 votes. Look at that discrepency. Now think of an error such as that multiplied by twenty, maybe thirty districts, think of what Bush won Ohio by, and fear for your country just a little more.

I fear that there's actually people in this country that believe people rigged the election. That's what your getting at aren't you? Like it's not common for machines to fail sometimes. Did you watch Gates showing of his new operating system that worked with plug and plag to have the blue screen of death appear when he plugged in a scanner?

The problem was found and corrected. You're assuming that since Kerry lost, that it was due to fraud? Hmmm.

"Sorry, missed a point. The U.S.'s actions with the Contras, its previous support of Hussein, its self-serving actions in the Middle East are more recent examples in a long list. There are no white hats involved."

And by establishing a democratic republic in Iraq, instead of simply installing another dictator, we are not committing the same errors all over again in that region as we, as a nation, have in the past. I'd call that progress. You're right in that there are no white hats involved, but that doesn't really matter. We're doing a good thing over there. A strong, free and democratic Iraq will deliver a crippling blow to terrorism in that region. It's really the best weapon against terrorism.

DW

Btw Peter, eventhough Bush actually received 365 votes in the precinct after the error was found and corrected, it still beat Kerry's 260 votes. That's an important fact to point out.

"I fear that there's actually people in this country that believe people rigged the election."

Don't worry, Novafan. Had that actually happened, CBS would be all over it. CBS would also probably have fabricated a story if it looked as though they could make the arguement. But they can't because the Bush victory was too sound. Now, they might try something after a few months, in order to fuel the liberal base, but really, had Bush really stole the election, the liberally-controlled factions of the media would have screamed bloody murder by now.

DW

Darin said We're doing a good thing over there. A strong, free and democratic Iraq will deliver a crippling blow to terrorism in that region. It's really the best weapon against terrorism.

Bravo. Exactly correct. And it helps protect Israel, which is important also.

Okay, folks! Gotta go. It's been fun! :)

Novafan writes:
Could you direct us to the news source that printed that information? I can't find it. If it's true, then I hope it's investigated.

How 'bout CNN, for starters:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html

There are more problems listed in the article. And everybody should be concerned about electronic voting, regardless of party.

E-voting has potential, but it is currently being implemented in an thoroughly incompetent manner. Disclaimer: I have worked on point-of-sale software/machines, very similar to voting machines in design and function.

Two briefs by Johns Hopkins computer science professor Avi Rubin can be read here:

http://www.avirubin.com/judge1.html
http://www.avirubin.com/judge2.html

They are quite eye-opening. His views on the state of e-voting machines are essentially unanimous both in the computer industry and among academics.

Neil, while there are problems with every election, I don't see that as a reason to "fear for our country". Do you? Do you believe the errors were caused by Republicans trying to steal a vote?

PAD,

This whole discussion misses my point. Whether you agree or disagree with the war, go see this movie to hear firsthand what the Iraqi's themselves are saying. As I said before, you are not an idiot. I think you can filter through it to determine if it is accurate or slanted. I suggest that this film shows all sides, but that it particularly shows a side we are not hearing in the media today. It is a documentary that is worth seeing if you want to know the reality of the history of Iraq, past and present.

As I said before, this movie is not propoganda to change someone's mind about why we went to war. That is not why I suggested in the first place to see it. This movie is about seeing a reality that is completely missing from the media, a reality that we must understand if we are going to move forward from the place we are currently at in Iraq.

Here are a few responses to your comments.

You know, Jim, I'm getting kinda sick and tired of people comparing Iraq to the Holocaust. Especially when you're presenting the argument to someone who had relatives that died in German concentration camps. So it's pretty damned offensive to me that you're implying the situations are analagous when they're not. As if to be critical of Bush's war is to endorse the deaths of German Jews, because unless one supports Bush, then one is supporting the notion of allowing Jews to have been gassed. Yeah. Pretty damned offensive.

PAD, what part of my post was not clear? You are reading into it something I did not say, that unless you support Bush you are supporting Saddam killing people. The world is far more complicated than that. Stalin also slaughtered millions of people. I am not sure an invasion was feasible. BUT I do think it is far easier to look away for it happening than to face it head on. The situation may not compare in scope, but to say it is not analagous is to ignore what Saddam attempted to do.

One million lives over 24 years? A tragedy. And compared to Hitler's annihilation of six million Jews in a fraction of the time (to say nothing of the millions more of other races)? Not even in the ballpark.

Only because this time, a new hitler was denied the power he sought. This time he was thrown back when he tried to attack Iran and later Kuwait (and yes, I know Reagan supported him against Iran). But your response bothers me a lot. It seems to be a tragedy, yet you then go on to say we would still be better off with Saddam in power. See my next response.

Yes, Saddam was a bad man. A very bad man, who belonged in the cornfield. And I believe he killed one million Iraqis in twenty four years. That's 41,666 Iraqis per year. So just out of curiosity, in the past eighteen months, how many Iraqis have we killed? Estimates range from 30,000 to as high as 100,000, what with our cluster bombs killing in one throw hundreds of Iraqi men, women and children who apparently were unaware that we're improving their lives. And we're just getting warmed up. The world is safer without Saddam in charge? My God, *Iraq* isn't safer without Saddam in charge.

You are now comparing apples to oranges. Saddam did not kill one million in an act of war, he killed them to keep his power and simply because of their ethnicity. Yes, dead is dead. But we are not systematically and deliberately herding people together and shooting them. To speak of American "atrocities" is far more absurd than to compare Saddam to Hitler. Unless you include the death count from the car bombs and other attacks by the insurgents, the deaths from American actions is quite low for a time of war. Go watch the film. There are some Iraqi's who believe as you do, but many who do not.

Has anyone considered the possibility that they're trying to kill us because, to them, the only difference between us and Saddam is that, under Saddam, they had electricity and water?

That is one statement that is categorically false. First, both have been restored in virtually all of the country. The only places they have not is due to current acts by insurgents. Second, the difference between us and Saddam is NOT that they had electricity and water, it is because now they have democracy, which threatens 3 groups of people. It threatens the surrounding nations (such as Iran and Saudi Arabia) because of the hope it might give to their people, so they will support terrorism to destablize Iraq. It threatens some muslim factions in the country because it brings freedom to women, and it breaks the link between "church" and state in their country. It threatens and angers those from Saddam's regime who used to have power and who want it back.

As for people being killed, let's not forget to factor in that we've transformed Iraq, a country with no ties to Al Qaeda, into an Al Qaeda recruitment machine. Muslims who now believe everything bin Laden ever told them are hurrying to join the fight against the Great Satan. How many thousands, millions of lives will THEY be taking?

Again, go listen to what the people of Iraq actually say about this. This country did have ties to Iraq according to some who were there and would know firsthand. And your second suggestion is ludicrous. Muslims do not believe everything Bin Laden is telling them.

It's not as simple as you're making it. It never is. But one thing is simple, and that is that if Conservatives get to claim that, noooo, Iraq isn't the same as Vietnam because the body count can't compare, then I'm saying that Iraq isn't the same as the Holocaust because the body count can't compare. Of course, the difference is, we're the ones involved in the pile up now, with no end in sight. Pogo was right: We've met the enemy, and he is us.

The body count does not compare, but I would love to find the numbers and see how the percentages compare.

OK, time for me to lose my temper.

PAD: One million lives over 24 years? A tragedy. And compared to Hitler's annihilation of six million Jews in a fraction of the time (to say nothing of the millions more of other races)? Not even in the ballpark.

Dear God, man. How many millions would Saddam have needed to kill to get into the ballpark? Or is admission to the ballpark governed by the efficiency in which one slaughters civilians? You're discussing A MILLION DEAD HUMAN BEINGS and you're saying Saddam is less bad than Hitler because he wasn't as GOOD at slaughtering civilians? This is every bit as stupid as an argument over "who's worse, Hitler or Stalin?" Your argument is what? That there are degrees of genocide? "Hitler was humanity's greatest monster. Saddam is at most humanity's third greatest monster. How dare you compare him to #1?" Hitler is in fact worse; he made an entire nation into his accomplices and murdered countless (literally, we don't know how many) civilians in the most dehumanizing way imaginable; it's the worst crime in history. But the fact that you can be offended when someone compares one fascist tyrant who is responsible for millions of deaths (don't forget the Iran-Iraq war, 2,000,000+ dead) to another fascist tyrant who's responsible for millions of deaths makes me seriously question your judgment.

I'm frankly offended by the tradition of attacking non-Jews who try to make historical arguments about Nazi Germany. What happened there is part of the common history of humanity. It is the responsibility of every one of the six billion people on this planet to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. And your response of feeling insulted when someone claims it was happening again right there in front of us is exactly the worst thing you or anyone else can do. Hitler wasn't an alien from another dimension; he was an anti-Semite, very much like thousands of others in Germany and Austria, who rose to political power and tried to exterminate a civilization. Unless we understand how he did that, we guarantee it's going to happen again, this time in Armenia, or Rwanda, or the Sudan, or... Kurdistan. "Saddam Hussein's attacks on his own citizens mark the only time since the Holocaust that poison gas has been used to exterminate women and children." http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1 If you want to honor your family, be vigilant, not possessive.

You're right about the arguments Bush made for the war; it was primarily premised on the WMD theory which we now know was based on faulty information, instead of on humanitarian grounds, an argument which would have been unassailable. I was opposed to the war because I didn't think it was worth the cost, but that doesn't mean I was right; that may just mean that Edmund Burke was talking specifically about people like me. Again with apologies to Parker and Stone, maybe we should be the world police, if the alternative is global inaction.

Neil, while there are problems with every election, I don't see that as a reason to "fear for our country". Do you? Do you believe the errors were caused by Republicans trying to steal a vote?

Ok, I'm glad you don't see a reason to "fear for our country". I don't think I said anything about that either.

Yes, it's true that there are problems with every election. But it's always been possible to investigate/perform a recount. The newer systems do not lend themselves to any kind of auditing. A recount simply means making sure that the machine still spits out the same numbers, but there's no way to even begin to verify where these came from.

I personally doubt there were any deliberate manipulations this time around. But problems happen. And now there's no way to go over the paper trail 'cause there isn't one. It should be obvious why this is a concern for everyone.

Consider when you have, say, a local levy or initiative. Maybe most people in the area didn't want property taxes to go up to pay for that new modern art museum. Suppose the machine correctly counts the number of votes, but internally interchanges the "Yes" and the "No". The totals will look right, but there's no way to verify things, certainly not after the fact.

Too bad, you'll be paying those taxes anyway. All it takes is a rich artsy type and a single dishonest official. Farfetched? Not really, it's pretty trivial. Considering how often fraud has been attempted in the past, even the recent past (by all sides), then the fact that fraud is moving fast from "very difficult" to "trivial" means it's not an idle concern.

There are a number of simple and inexpensive ways to mitigate the problem. They are not being implemented. Chalk it up to lack of awareness, but it's still a problem.

Neil,

I think the "fear for our country" bit was ins response to PADS line "Now think of an error such as that multiplied by twenty, maybe thirty districts, think of what Bush won Ohio by, and fear for your country just a little more."

Not that it's easy to keep up with a thread that's gotten this big!

The problem was found and corrected. You're assuming that since Kerry lost, that it was due to fraud? Hmmm.

Are you aware that the CEO of Diebold, a Republican, the company that, iirc, provided the machines to that precinct in Ohio, said that he was going to "deliver" Ohio to Bush?

Just imagine that if such a mistake was made in one precinct, how easy it would be for such a mistake to occur in hundreds of precincts around the state, and how easily the results could be skewed.

But no, it's just more liberal paranoia bullshit.
This planet should be paraoid right now.

Dear God, man. How many millions would Saddam have needed to kill to get into the ballpark?

When you can give a rational explanation, that doesn't involve oil or non-existant WMD, as to why we haven't gone to any number of nations in Africa to deal with the genocide there, then maybe you can disprove PAD's point.

Until then, you just don't get it.

Btw, somebody, in one of these threads, mentioned about how 'major operations' are over.

How many people constitutes a "major" operation these days? More than 10,000 troops? I mean, that's how many we've got to sack... err... liberate Fallujah.

Apparently it's more than 10,000 though.

Could the election results be due to fraud? Part of me likes to think that the majority of this country are not stupid and/or cruel enough to vote for Bush and I have to also acknowledge that with all the lying and refusing to take responsibility of this administration, committing fraud would not be much of a leap.

It's funny...when we elect a new government in Canada, we're handed a piece of paper with the names of the candidates on it, we mark an "X" next to the candidate of our choice, and we hand the piece of paper back. Then all the pieces of paper are counted.

Is there a reason even the simple American ballots seem to be so much more complicated?

When you can give a rational explanation, that doesn't involve oil or non-existant WMD, as to why we haven't gone to any number of nations in Africa to deal with the genocide there, then maybe you can disprove PAD's point.

Quoted and emphasized, because I want to hear the answer too.

"I'm just curious here Peter. Just who do you think you were responding to if you weren't talking to me? The poster you quoted was me so if you weren't talking to me, who were you talking to?"

Yeah, you're right. I don't know why I thought that was from someone else; probably because I posted it in the middle of the night and getting tired. So sorry about that.

That said, if you don't want people to think you don't read, then don't list solely television as your source of news.

PAD

"The problem was found and corrected."

Yes, and I seem to recall the first reports were that Watergate was a third rate burglary that had nothing to do with the White House. Those first, tidy reports are always the ones you want to believe.

"You're assuming that since Kerry lost, that it was due to fraud? Hmmm."

Nooo, I'm the one assuming nothing. You're the one assuming that since Bush won, it's the will of the people. Hmmm.

PAD

What I heard as I flicked through the channels today and found myself on FOX News...

"...As the push towards Fallujah continues, in what most people believe will bring an end to terrorism in Iraq..."

Just a quick question. HOW out of touch?

John

"Btw Peter, eventhough Bush actually received 365 votes in the precinct after the error was found and corrected, it still beat Kerry's 260 votes. That's an important fact to point out."

I didn't bother to point that out because, frankly, it makes Bush look even worse. Because if all the tallied totals are that close instead of artificially, ludicrously inflated, then it makes the case for a recount even more compelling.

PAD

"Dear God, man. How many millions would Saddam have needed to kill to get into the ballpark?"

Noooo, no no. Conservatives don't get to change the dance card. I said months ago that Iraq was the new Vietnam, and was told that it was incredibly inaccurate and unfair to say that. And the ONLY reason I was given was that the relative handful of dead soldiers couldn't begin to compare to the, what--50,000?--killed in the 'Nam.

So now I'm being told that, hey, Bush prevented another Holocaust because he stopped a guy who killed one million people over two decades, so my response is to throw the conservative excuse right back in their face. If I can't compare Iraq to Vietnam based on insufficient body count, conservatives don't get to compare Iraq to the Holocaust if they don't have the numbers. Especially when genocide is happening just as fast in other countries that we can't be bothered with. Especially when the reason we went to Iraq was because of WMDs that didn't exist. Especially when there are dictators in this world far more dangerous to US interests whom we're not going after. Especially when Iraqis are dying at a faster rate after Saddam than before.

The third rail of this argument is the apparently unassailable position that the world is safer and better off without Saddam in place. So let's step on that third rail, shall we? Don't just say it. Prove it. And I don't mean by quoting conservative rhetoric from the usual suspects. I mean prove it. Prove that Iraqis are NOT dying faster than they were before. Prove it won't slide into full blown civil war and we won't be there for years and years and years. Considering the war has already cost us more than the entirety of Vietnam and has helped plunge us into record debt and helped recruit more terrorists for Al Qaeda who haate us with renewed fervor, and that U.S. casualties are piling up like cordwood, soldiers are being pushed into virtual indentured servitude through extended tours, and citizens live in fear of a renewed draft, prove that this country is better off and safer. Prove that the people of Iraq might never have thrown off Saddam themselves, as the Romanians did with their own homegrown dictator.

Prove that the flat statement conservatives so embrace as the fall back excuse to support an operation based on everything except humanitarian interests stems from something other than sheer optimism and ignoring of the facts

PAD

Shana just told me this great joke she heard on "Prairie Home Companion."

"What's the difference between the Iraqi war and the Vietnam war?"

"George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam war."

Just found this article, which I think is pretty interesting:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

Is this proof the vote was rigged, the "smoking gun" some have been looking for? No, of course not. But, it certainly doesn't look good, and it raises some interesting questions.

(We'll see how much attention this story receives in the mainstream "liberal" media.)

When you can give a rational explanation, that doesn't involve oil or non-existant WMD, as to why we haven't gone to any number of nations in Africa to deal with the genocide there, then maybe you can disprove PAD's point.

What do you think his point was? I thought PAD's point is that you can't draw a comparison between atrocities that have different casualty figures without offending him. I'm not disproving his point, I'm saying his assertion was ludicrous. If at any point I claimed that we invaded Iraq because it was the only atrocity going on, you would have an excellent counterargument. Since I actually listed three other sets of atrocities in the last decade, I have to confess that I don't see why your post isn't a large non sequitur. Maybe we should have intervened in other occurrences of genocide-- which we are obliged by treaty to do, incidentally. That doesn't mean that the one genocide we did stop didn't happen.

Until then, you just don't get it

One of us doesn't. You picked the wrong one.

What do you think his point was?

You made the claim that just because people have died, we need to go there and do something about it.

Well, since the only other thing that Iraq has that other countries don't is oil, Bush must have gone to Iraq for the oil, because the WMD didn't exist.

But then, Bush will try and claim we went to Iraq because Saddam is "a bad man". Well, there are lots of bad men in the world. He just picked the one that he had a personal vendetta against.

Bush should look in the mirror some time. His ugly mug belongs up there with the rest of those "bad men" he doesn't want to do anything about.

Well then if the true reason for invasion was for humanitarian reasons, why didn't your government stand up and say so from the beginning? Why bother with all the rhetoric about WMD if the Administration simply wanted to stop the horrible things going on there?

Why hasn't your government suggested intervention in any of the other countries in which far worse acts are being committed?

Nobody's really denying that one could come up with humanitarian reasons for the Iraq invasion (whether those reasons are sufficient to justify the invasion would be another matter). What PAD (in my interpretation) is denying is that this was the primary motivation for going to Iraq. Which it wasn't.

Using WMDs as a reason to invade was defensible before hand...but the fact that no heads rolled when we found out how lousy the intelligence was not. And the constantly shifting emphasis on the reasons for invasion sure as hell looked dishonest (and if you think that won't have repercussions down the line, then you're being naive).

I'd have a whole lot less problems with this administration if they were at least competent at their jobs....

Craig said, Bush should look in the mirror some time. His ugly mug belongs up there with the rest of those "bad men" he doesn't want to do anything about.

You know what. I volunteered to defend my country. I would have given my life to ensure civilians could have the rights that they enjoy today. However, it saddens me very deeply that someone can say bad things about our Commander in Chief and nobody does anything about it. Is that was a democracy is all about? Even if, God forbid, Kerry would have been elected President, I would have swallowed my pride and supported him 100% as long as he was in office. To do any less would be futile and conter productive to the welfare of our nation.

I don't understand how anyone could do any less for any President we have. I just can't fathom it.

Novafan wrote...
it saddens me very deeply that someone can say bad things about our Commander in Chief and nobody does anything about it.
*snip*
I don't understand how anyone could do any less for any President we have. I just can't fathom it.

Really. You "can't fathom" why it's a good thing to question the government. To speak out against perceived injustices.

Funny, I was under the impression that that is one of your country's founding principles.

Are you aware that the CEO of Diebold, a Republican, the company that, iirc, provided the machines to that precinct in Ohio, said that he was going to "deliver" Ohio to Bush?

Please show a source for this with an actual quote. I find it hard to believe that someone would risk millions of dollars of business by admitting that they are rigging an election.

Roger said Using WMDs as a reason to invade was defensible before hand...but the fact that no heads rolled when we found out how lousy the intelligence was not.

I wonder if anyone has any idea the reaction Bush and Blair had when no WMD's were found. If it was me, I would say "oh s*#@" or something to that effect.

I think heads did roll. It almost cost Bush his re-election bid, especially as hard as the Democrats rammed it down his throat.

Is it possible there were no WMDs? Sure.

Is it possible there were WMDs and either hidden or given to another country or terrorists? Sure.

I hope the latter isn't the case, because if it is, we are in BIG trouble.

Jeff said Really. You "can't fathom" why it's a good thing to question the government. To speak out against perceived injustices. Funny, I was under the impression that that is one of your country's founding principles.

Maybe I missed that in print somewhere. Where does it say that is one of our countries founding principles?

There is a big difference between 'questioning the government and speaking out against perceived injustices' and constant attacking and insulting the personal character of a person and organization that you don't like.

And before anyone says anything about Clinton, I followed orders in the military under his presidency and I showed him the respect and honor of the position even though I entirely disagreed with the man.

Thanks Ken, you said I showed him the respect and honor of the position even though I entirely disagreed with the man.

Exactly what I tried to say, but you did it much better than me. :0)

Peter said I didn't bother to point that out because, frankly, it makes Bush look even worse. Because if all the tallied totals are that close instead of artificially, ludicrously inflated, then it makes the case for a recount even more compelling.

Would you be satisfied if a recount was conducted? If the recount showed Bush still won by an overwhelming majority, would you be happy? I don't think so. If he won by 1 vote or 4 million votes, you would still call foul right?

I'm all for a recount if it'll make you feel better. However, I'm sure it will show the same results.

Peter said Nooo, I'm the one assuming nothing. You're the one assuming that since Bush won, it's the will of the people. Hmmm.

I assumed nothing and don't remember saying it was the will of the people. However, it was one of the highest majority wins in history right?

Nah, that can't be the will of the people. It's all a fraud. The election must have been rigged.

Btw, extreme sarcasm in place in my last post. :0)

I want to thank you Peter for providing us a place for others to come to visit and converse with people. Even if we don't agree most of the time, it's still nice to be here.

Does anyone know why Gore didn't run in 2004, especially since some here believe Bush stole the election from him just like they believe Bush stole the election from Kerry?

"However, it was one of the highest majority wins in history right?"

nope.

bush got a three percent majority.

there have been victors in previous elections that got more a more than three percent majority.

see, its true that the most people voted for bush in this election, more than in any other election in history.

know whats also true?

the most people in any election in history also voted against bush.

the reason?

more people in the country who are registered to vote.

another thing to note?

the second-most votes in history were gotten by who? that's right, john kerry.

Craig said Well, since the only other thing that Iraq has that other countries don't is oil, Bush must have gone to Iraq for the oil, because the WMD didn't exist.

Yes, that must be exactly what happened. I'm glad the U.S. has control of Iraq's oil now. This way, we don't have to use the Oil for Food program that was being manipulated by Saddam for his benefit anymore.

I wonder why our gas prices haven't dropped since we have control of Iraq's oil now. Darn it, what an injustice. When are we going to see results from our newly acquired oil fields?

Ok, I mispoke. This highest majority wins should have read highest majority votes.

Maybe Kerry should run again in 2008. If he's that popular, he's a shoo-in for the next election right?

Wasn't Reagan vs. Mondale the biggest landslide in American history?

Great point about Kerry getting the second most vote in the history of American votes as well...

Ken wrote...
There is a big difference between 'questioning the government and speaking out against perceived injustices' and constant attacking and insulting the personal character of a person and organization that you don't like.
*snip*
I showed him [Clinton] the respect and honor of the position even though I entirely disagreed with the man.

How do you make that distinction? It can be a mighty fine line between the person and the position. Maybe even moreso with Bush, since his policies seem more "personal" for some reason (completely subjective opinion, of course).

When every single choice an individual makes is, in your estimation, the wrong choice, it's extremely difficult not to make a judgement of that person.

Now, I agree that it's unwise (and probably dangerous) to dismiss Bush as "stupid" or make some other character judgment. The problem is, particularly for someone living in another country, the man looks stupid. A lot.

Anyways, this isn't an attack on you guys so much as a question: how you do strongly question a president's policies while still showing him the "respect and honor" of the position?

"Does anyone know why Gore didn't run in 2004, especially since some here believe Bush stole the election from him just like they believe Bush stole the election from Kerry?"

The Demcrat party tends to devour those who lose. Remember Dukakis? Kerry served under him. I'm sure he could have said lots of nice things about him. Unfortunately, he is now in the democrat losing candidates protection program, living under an assumed name next to Henry Hill.

"Wasn't Reagan vs. Mondale the biggest landslide in American history?"

I'm pretty sure that Johnson vs Goldwater was way more of a blowout.

Not that it matters much. What do you call the guy who wins by 1 vote? Mr President.

PAD wrote (quoting me first): "Dear God, man. How many millions would Saddam have needed to kill to get into the ballpark?"

Noooo, no no. Conservatives don't get to change the dance card. I said months ago that Iraq was the new Vietnam, and was told that it was incredibly inaccurate and unfair to say that. And the ONLY reason I was given was that the relative handful of dead soldiers couldn't begin to compare to the, what--50,000?--killed in the 'Nam.

So now I'm being told that, hey, Bush prevented another Holocaust because he stopped a guy who killed one million people over two decades, so my response is to throw the conservative excuse right back in their face. If I can't compare Iraq to Vietnam based on insufficient body count, conservatives don't get to compare Iraq to the Holocaust if they don't have the numbers.

Since when am I bound by what other conservatives have said? I think you're right. Iraq has the potential to become another Vietnam. (Let's see: Principled deployment of force gone horribly wrong? Check. International coalition that boils down to the US backed up by a few other Anglosphere allies? Check, plus Poland. Winning every major battle but under constant guerrilla attack? Check. No clue when we get out of there? Check. Yep, there are parallels.) Even if other conservatives did make a stupid argument, that doesn't give you a free pass to make a stupid argument right back. Additionally, reading your post I didn't get the impression you were parroting a dumb argument you didn't believe. When you said you were offended when people compared Iraq to the Holocaust, I was fairly sure you meant it. And that is the exact same point that I have seen made time and again in the historical literature: the Holocaust is not susceptible to historical analysis and comparison because it is unique in human history. That point is and always has been fallacious: it is unique in scope and degree, but not in type. Crimes against humanity are as old as humanity, and if we are to stop the next one-- and there WILL be a next one-- we have to understand the ones in the past and identify the ones in the present. Writing this one off as a "tragedy" that nonetheless isn't in "the ballpark" minimizes a humanitarian disaster.

In short, if you didn't really subscribe to the flatly indefensible position you seemed to be advocating, I apologize.

The third rail of this argument is the apparently unassailable position that the world is safer and better off without Saddam in place. So let's step on that third rail, shall we? Don't just say it. Prove it.

I may have been unclear. I didn't say things were working out in Iraq. I don't think things are working out in Iraq; maybe the latest attempt to take Falluja will help. I said the invasion would have been justifiable on humanitarian grounds alone. The consequences are irrelevant to the morality of the thing: my position is that military force is justifiable to remove a genocidal tyrant from power. The justification is necessarly antecedent to the consequences. Whether the plan to win postwar Iraq was screwed up from its onset (again, given the Vietnam parallels, I've worried about that) is irrelevant to my point.

There is a big difference between 'questioning the government and speaking out against perceived injustices' and constant attacking and insulting the personal character of a person and organization that you don't like.

They go hand in hand. Why? Because Bush's character is on display every day as president, and his character stinks, just as his abilities as president have stunk.

Please show a source for this with an actual quote.

http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/news/stories/20030827/localnews/140871.html

Note, the date on this article is August 27th.

Jeff said Really. You "can't fathom" why it's a good thing to question the government. To speak out against perceived injustices. Funny, I was under the impression that that is one of your country's founding principles.

Maybe I missed that in print somewhere. Where does it say that is one of our countries founding principles?

The Declaration of Independence?

David Bjorlin wrote...
The Declaration of Independence?

That's what I was thinking, but since I'm no expert on the fine print of American political documents, I'll leave it to you guys. =)

Heres an interesting question for the forum: If John McCain runs in '08, would the Democrats be justified in bringing the same concerns about his mental stability that HIS OWN PARTY used against him in '00?

Heres an interesting question for the forum: If John McCain runs in '08, would the Democrats be justified in bringing the same concerns about his mental stability that HIS OWN PARTY used against him in '00?

I think people were trying to claim that Howard Dean was unstable (after that wonderful soundbyte in Iowa), yet he probably would've been a candidate that could actually get people moving in the right direction.

All in all, I don't recall specifically how the Republicans backstabbed McCain, so I don't think it would affect my opinion of him.

Heres an interesting question for the forum: If John McCain runs in '08, would the Democrats be justified in bringing the same concerns about his mental stability that HIS OWN PARTY used against him in '00?"

I certainly hope they don't. I think what the GOP did was despicable, and hope the Democratic party doesn't get so desperate as to do the same. Furthermore, I can only guess that the way the GOP managed to get McCain to toe the line was to ensure him he was gonna be The Guy in 2008.

PAD

Nobody's really denying that one could come up with humanitarian reasons for the Iraq invasion (whether those reasons are sufficient to justify the invasion would be another matter). What PAD (in my interpretation) is denying is that this was the primary motivation for going to Iraq. Which it wasn't

There's no question that the WMD issue was the primary justification for the invasion. There's also no question that we haven't found anything close to what we were expecting to find (no WMDs, trivial WMD development programs). The government has subsequently been making the argument that even with the primary argument gone, there were several other justifications advanced for the invasion, and the remaining justifications are sufficient. If PAD were merely saying "who are you trying to kid?" (and in all honesty 2/3 of the resolution endorsing the invasion was about WMDs, q.v. http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf ), then I wouldn't have thrown a hissy fit. I don't think that's what he said.

We invaded a country that has strategic value in addition to humanitarian disasters, and didn't invade countries with disasters but no strategic value. That doesn't mean this disaster isn't serious.

David Bjorlin wrote...
We invaded a country that has strategic value in addition to humanitarian disasters, and didn't invade countries with disasters but no strategic value. That doesn't mean this disaster isn't serious.

Disaster is right. And I see nothing wrong with letting your government know that it is unacceptable to invade a country, and when the initial justification for the invasion evapourates, to make up new ones on the fly until one sticks.

Except this past week, the majority of Americans apparently let the government know that that sort of behaviour is acceptable.

"Strategic value" indeed. Pretty shaky moral ground to say the least.

Craig, that quote from his letter was no different than the wording on any fund-raiser letter sent out by a party supporter. It in no way implied anything about Diebold or their machines or that he was rigging them.

His quote was in reference to financing and hard work he would supply to help Bush win.

I can see where he should have worded it better, but to feel that he would rig an election off a quote on a fund-raiser letter is just too paranoid.

"Heres an interesting question for the forum: If John McCain runs in '08, would the Democrats be justified in bringing the same concerns about his mental stability that HIS OWN PARTY used against him in '00?"

I certainly hope they don't. I think what the GOP did was despicable, and hope the Democratic party doesn't get so desperate as to do the same. Furthermore, I can only guess that the way the GOP managed to get McCain to toe the line was to ensure him he was gonna be The Guy in 2008.

PAD
***********

Oh, I agree with you. But just speaking for myself, I'll want someone on the right to explain to me why he was crazy in 2000 and the right man for the job 2008 before I'll consider voting for him.

Jeff said Really. You "can't fathom" why it's a good thing to question the government. To speak out against perceived injustices. Funny, I was under the impression that that is one of your country's founding principles. Maybe I missed that in print somewhere. Where does it say that is one of our countries founding principles? The Declaration of Independence?

Nope, just read it and I don't see any reference to this. Are you referring to the colonies accusing the King of injustices and declaring independence?

Peter said Furthermore, I can only guess that the way the GOP managed to get McCain to toe the line was to ensure him he was gonna be The Guy in 2008.

He had a chance to be the man in 2004 if he stood by his friend, John Kerry. Why would he toe the line to be the man in 2008 when he could have been an extremely powerful man now? With McCain by his side, Kerry wouldn't have lost. Why did he choose to side with Bush? Do you think he was coerced?

I hope John McCain runs as an independent in 08. He could cream the republicans and democrats on his own.

Oh, I agree with you. But just speaking for myself, I'll want someone on the right to explain to me why he was crazy in 2000 and the right man for the job 2008 before I'll consider voting for him.

Speaking for Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Inc., I don't think that we took an official position on McCain's mental health. You'll have to seek the actual people who spread that rumor, rather than typecasting everyone who counts as "someone on the right."

Jeff, I've been to Halifax, Nova Scotia before. It was incredible. I loved the bag pipe player playing in the park and I saw Tatoo when I was there, which was great also. I'm not sure where you live in Canada, just wanted to say I liked your country.

I'm curious as to why you care about American politics. From what I gathered while I was there, they didn't care one way or another that I was from America. Then they tried to put mayonaise on my burger, ughhh. :0)

Novafan wrote...
I'm curious as to why you care about American politics.

A good question. There are a couple of big reasons:

1) The U.S. and Canada are each other's biggest trade partners, and so the policies of each government are very important. As the "little guy" in the trade relationship, Canada tends to have trouble holding its own in trade disputes, and so we have an interest in who's in charge over there.

2) As the leading world superpower, the entire world has its eyes on you guys. The actions of America, especially lately, have a huge impact on politics and economies worldwide.

3) I'm interested in politics in general.

It should be noted that some Canadian trade groups feel that Bush would actually be better than Kerry when it comes to resolving trade disputes, most notably the current embargo on Canadian beef, which is killing the industry over here. The Bush administration has been stellar for our economy, since your unstable economy has led to some huge gains in the value of our currency. :)

Also, while most Canadians bear no ill will to Americans as individuals, anti-Americanism in terms of politics hasn't been higher hear in a long, long time. Were you to visit today (and I encourage you to do so), you would probably find some very strong opinions regarding the direction your country is headed in.

"Speaking for Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Inc., I don't think that we took an official position on McCain's mental health. You'll have to seek the actual people who spread that rumor, rather than typecasting everyone who counts as "someone on the right."

Which reminds me--when is VRWC inc gonna send me this weeks Talking Points? I realise you guys were probably celebrating heavily Tuesday but it's been almost a week. This is no time to fall down on the job.

All this talk about what "The Republicans" did to John McCain...remind me, what party was it that almost nominated him? Who were his supporters? It's like saying what "The Democrats" did to Ted Kennedy when he ran against Carter.

Rest assured, the same people who would have been thrilled to have McCain on the ticket with Kerry will find some reason why he should not be within 100 yards of the White House if he decides to run in 2008.

Speaking for Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Inc., I don't think that we took an official position on McCain's mental health. You'll have to seek the actual people who spread that rumor, rather than typecasting everyone who counts as "someone on the right."

Are you the same VRWCI that phoned southern voters and asked them what they thought about McCain having an illegitimate biracial daughter?

Oh yeah, that was Bush 2000 campaign.

Craig, that quote from his letter was no different than the wording on any fund-raiser letter sent out by a party supporter. It in no way implied anything about Diebold or their machines or that he was rigging them.

Yet, it is rather amusing that when a problem still occurred with the machines, it favored Bush.

Either way, it was a VERY tacky comment for that guy to make, and he should know better.

Btw, I talked a Canadian last night who was sick and tired of listening to Americans complain about the election. She doesn't care. I told her that, in the long run, she should. *shrug*

Speaking of 2008 presidential candidates, I think you can start considering Iowa governor Tom Vilsack to try and run for the Democratic nomination.

He's apparently imposed a self-limitation of 2 terms, the 2nd of which will be up in 2 years, and he was a VP finalist for VP for Kerry.

Novafan:

You wanted to where being able to criticize the government is one of our founding principles?

Here it is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I hope that's helpful.

Ralph Sevush wrote: "I was simply reacting to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Bush supporters said "moral values" was the biggest factor in their vote..."

Source?

If this is the "fact" you were reacting to then you might have to rethink your reaction (or find some other rationalization for it).

The overwhelming majority of Bush supporters did not list "moral values" as the biggest factor in their vote. In one exit poll of about 13,000 voters from both parties, 22% listed "moral values" as the number one factor. Of that 22%, 80% voted for Bush. (Source: NY Times, 11/3/04) A fraction of 22% (even a large fraction) is still less than 22%. (We can also factor in a rather wide margin of error, since we know how "accurate" this exit poll was -- but let's take it at face value for a moment.) Even if every single one of that 22% voted for Bush, that leaves at least 78% -- which is in fact an overwhelming majority -- of Bush voters naming some other issue as the most important to them in the election. (Source: New York Times, 11/3/04)

Only 5% of voters polled listed "health care" as their number one issue. 73% of those people voted for Kerry. Does that mean that the "overwhelming majority" of Kerry voters thought health care was the number one issue in the election? No. Same thing.

If the people who are so angry about this result want to make sure it doesn't happen again, it might be wise to try to learn the real reasons it did rather than twisting statistics to reinforce pre-existing stereotypes, ironic or otherwise.

Thanks Den. So we've come to the conclusion that abridging the freedom of speech allows people to say whatever they want about the Commander in Chief, regardless if it's true or not.

Is that the general consensus?

Thanks Jeff for responding to my question. I enjoy talking to people from different countries.

Wait a minute, I just found out from Craig in the Fonzie thread that I'm actually Canadian so that makes us countrymen. :0)

Peter said Shana just told me this great joke she heard on "Prairie Home Companion." "What's the difference between the Iraqi war and the Vietnam war?" "George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam war."

If you thought that was funny, this is what I heard today on the radio:

"What do you call 10,000 liberals amassing at the Canadian Border?"

"A good start."

Interesting info from left wing blog dailykos; looking at the e-mail newsletters sent out by the Bush and Kerry teams reveals the following--
Bush Kerry
Give Money 8% 57%
Get Out the Vote 38% 29%
Issues/Events 54% 14%

The Kerry folks used the web as nothing more than a way to get money--exactly the same mistake that the Dean campaign did! the Bush team used it to get out the vote. result--Kerry got and spent a great deal of money, only to lose in the only thing that maters, which is getting your voters to the polls.

Dumb move for such supposedly smart guys...

What I would like to know is how on Earth Hillary Clinton can run for President in 2008 for the Democratic Party? Isn't there a 2 term limit on the presidency now? She already had her 8 years as President, let someone else try to compete. :0)

Novafan wrote...
Thanks Den. So we've come to the conclusion that abridging the freedom of speech allows people to say whatever they want about the Commander in Chief, regardless if it's true or not.

Were I Den, I would have bolded the part that said, "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What do you call 10,000 liberals amassing at the Canadian Border?"

"A good start."

Well, if/when the draft comes, it'd be kind of nice if only conservatives were left to send their children to die in Bush's war. All the liberals in Canada could wave bye-bye to the passing troop transports.

PAD

So we've come to the conclusion that abridging the freedom of speech allows people to say whatever they want about the Commander in Chief, regardless if it's true or not.

Well, as a public figure, the burden of proof for sustaining a libel charge is much higher, so yes.

People can accuse Clinton of rape and using cocaine without a shred of proof. That's been established for years now.

Oh, and murder, too. Can't forget the whole Vince Foster conspiracy.

Tell you what, Novafan, whenever the level of accursations leveled at Bush even comes close to what was leveled at Clinton, I'll let you know.

Jeff said Were I Den, I would have bolded the part that said, "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's just it Jeff, they aren't petitioning the Government. Why don't they do this?

Den said Tell you what, Novafan, whenever the level of accursations leveled at Bush even comes close to what was leveled at Clinton, I'll let you know.

I have no idea about all of the accusations that were leveled at Clinton, nor did I care. He was our Commander in Chief, so I supported him up until the point where he let his little head do the talking for his big head. However, I still never insulted him, ran his name through the mud, called him names, or anything to that effect. Why? What he did was totally wrong and against my beliefs, so I had every right to protest and throw my arms up in disgust right?

Wrong. He was still my President until the next election. He is a man and entitled to make mistakes.

Peter said Well, if/when the draft comes, it'd be kind of nice if only conservatives were left to send their children to die in Bush's war. All the liberals in Canada could wave bye-bye to the passing troop transports.

Here we go with the draft nonsense. Another scare tactic that the Democrats used that I'm sure got a lot of younger people to vote for Kerry.

I'll believe it when I see it Peter. Btw, I bet if it were to happen, many people would protest and tear up their draft papers instead of fighting for their country in a time of need. What a bunch of wooses I say.

Novafan wrote...
That's just it Jeff, they aren't petitioning the Government. Why don't they do this?

One could argue they did, last Tuesday.

I guess they didn't get enough signatures =D

Jeff said One could argue they did, last Tuesday. I guess they didn't get enough signatures =D

Ha. You're right, but I don't think that was the intent of that article.

Here's an article analyzing the flaws in the study that established the 100,000 Iraqi war dead total.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

I have no idea about all of the accusations that were leveled at Clinton, nor did I care. He was our Commander in Chief, so I supported him up until the point where he let his little head do the talking for his big head. However, I still never insulted him, ran his name through the mud, called him names, or anything to that effect. Why? What he did was totally wrong and against my beliefs, so I had every right to protest and throw my arms up in disgust right?

Wrong. He was still my President until the next election. He is a man and entitled to make mistakes.

It's noble that you feel that way, but as long as we have a first amendment protecting people's right to freedom of speech, there will always be certain people on both sides of the aisle who will engage in personal attacks, insults, and pure mudslinging. You're just going to have to learn to live with it.

Quite frankly, I'd rather live in a country where the president has to deal with a few personal insults than one where criticizing his judgment can result in you "disappearing."

People can accuse Clinton of rape and using cocaine without a shred of proof. That's been established for years now. Oh, and murder, too. Can't forget the whole Vince Foster conspiracy.
Tell you what, Novafan, whenever the level of accursations leveled at Bush even comes close to what was leveled at Clinton, I'll let you know.

The charges against Bush and Clinton have been remarkably similar:

Clinton: Whitewater coverup
Bush: SEC investigation of Harken
-
Clinton: Drug use
Bush: Drug use
-
Clinton: Womaninzing and rape
Bush: getting woman pregnant/helping with abortion
-

So, I think the accusation levels are pretty high on both sides.

Novafan:

>I have no idea about all of the accusations that were leveled at Clinton, nor did I care. He was our Commander in Chief, so I supported him up until the point where he let his little head do the talking for his big head. However, I still never insulted him, ran his name through the mud, called him names, or anything to that effect. Why? What he did was totally wrong and against my beliefs, so I had every right to protest and throw my arms up in disgust right?

>Wrong. He was still my President until the next election. He is a man and entitled to make mistakes.

Big difference between the two main incidents being cited. One got a hummer, while the other sent thousands of them over to invade a foreign nation.

You forgot:

Clinton: Accusations that he had Vince Foster and a number of other people murdered.

Bush: ???

When somebody accuses Bush of being Michael Corleone, they will be even.

"Bush lied and people died!"
"Blood for oil!"

Sorry that's already there, too.

Hell, Howard Dean once even accussed Bush of having pre-knowledge of the 9/11 attacks in one of his primary rants. He quickly backed down, though.

Yeah, well the problem with these more extreme accusations is that they tend to bury the more credible criticisms in the dross.

For example, I certainly don't think Bush lied on Iraq. But I have a sneaking suspicion that he and his team didn't scrutinize the intelligence as thoroughly or as carefully as he should have--and criticisms of this have been forgone and ignored in favor of shrill screaming about lies.

It's been well established that Rumsfeld and Rove cherrypicked their intelligence and, despite Tenet's "slam duck" assertion, most of the CIA expressed doubt that there were WMDs still in Iraq. So, they set up their own committee in the Pentagon to select only those reportst that favored their position. What made it to the president's desk and the congressional intelligence committees were reports that were massaged and tailored to support a predetermined conclusion.

So, is it an unfair accusation if it has some documented basis in fact?

With regard to how liberals would feel about a McCain presidency:

I can't speak for all liberals, but as a general rule, this liberal would not have a problem with him. Whether I would vote for him would depend on who the other parties put up against him.

My only real problem with McCain is his horrible, atrocious record on free speech/censorship issues. But Lieberman is as bad as he is, and Gore was close to as bad, and yet I voted for that ticket over Dubya.

I did give serious pause to voting for Clinton when he chose Gore as a running mate, for the same reason -- but decided it was better than George Bush pere.

You'll note that around that time, Tipper stopped pushing the PMRC, and I don't think that was a coincidence. There was no big push to limit free speech during the Clinton administration save perhaps for the V-Chip, and that is an optional tool. If McCain would take a similar tack, then again, depending on who he was running against, I would strongly consider giving him my vote.

For those looking for suspicious evidence of voter fraud, here's something from Keith Olberman;

"remarkable results out of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. In 29 precincts there, the County’s website shows, we had the most unexpected results in years: more votes than voters. I’ll repeat that: more votes than voters. 93,000 more votes than voters.”

Keith neglects to mention that Kerry won--or did he???- Cuyahoga county by a 2 to 1 ratio.

It is well worth looking into these allegations. Might pad out Bush's margin by even more, when all is said and done.

Bill,
Kerry conceded. This is not about the election. The main issue now is, can we trust that our vote counts? It is becoming increasingly clear that without a paper trail we have no idea what these machines are doing. There were glitches all over the country, but due to the fact that some states say we can trust the machines, we have no backup to find if they recorded each voters wishes accurately. Is any computer 100%, entirely safe from software or hardware problems? A paper trail should be mandatory and my republican friends agree with me.

For those looking for suspicious evidence of voter fraud, here's something from Keith Olberman;

Either way, the problems must be found and tracked down. And the CEO's of the companies that make these devices should be told to STFU.

No, I'm not blaming voting machines for Bush winning; it's already well known here how I feel.

Either way, the problems must be found and tracked down. And the CEO's of the companies that make these devices should be told to STFU.

Hell, yeah. No matter how you voted, this should really concern you. I can accept Bush won; I can't accept that the voting machines are as bugfree as humanly (or even inhumanly) possible.

I think this is an example where liberals and conservatives should be able to come to agreement. Everyone who can legally vote should be able to do so. All illegal votes must be eliminated (since every illegal vote is essentially the same as denying a valid one).

They can sure make damn sure that we don't get tax returns sent to the wrong person so I don't see how they can't control the voter rolls. A picture ID should be madatory for voting--we require it for far far less important things. Punishment for rigging elections should be harsh way beyond measure--a few convictions on this will be all that is needed to discourage it.

(I would also suggest law enforcement arrange for "volunteers" to infiltrate the operations of your opponents with the goal of looking for fraud.)

It can be done and people of good will should fight for it. Only those who think that they can't win a fair fight would object.

"Kerry conceded. This is not about the election."

Except it could be. A concession is merely a political gesture; it is not legally binding. If the FBI launches a full scale investigation, and finds singificant evidence of tampering that the results are in doubt, the election could indeed be thrown to the courts with Kerry's concession meaning nothing.

PAD

I think this is an example where liberals and conservatives should be able to come to agreement. Everyone who can legally vote should be able to do so. All illegal votes must be eliminated (since every illegal vote is essentially the same as denying a valid one).

Hell, yeah!

"remarkable results out of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. In 29 precincts there, the County’s website shows, we had the most unexpected results in years: more votes than voters. I’ll repeat that: more votes than voters. 93,000 more votes than voters.”

Keith neglects to mention that Kerry won--or did he???- Cuyahoga county by a 2 to 1 ratio.

It is well worth looking into these allegations. Might pad out Bush's margin by even more, when all is said and done.

Or it could go the other way, and Kerry could win by a 4 to 1 ratio. We simply don't know yet.

Agreed PAD. However, I don't believe there will ever be a true, factual and valid accounting of this election because there is no way to get any kind of accurate recount. There will be charges of voter fraud in every election from this day forward if we cannot find a way to give the American people confidence that their vote counts. I also don't think they could prove significant evidence of tampering. I don't know much about the programming end of things, but even I could probably come up with halfway credible excuses as to why the software did not work properly, therefore they will be able to claim that there was no intent to fraud. And I don't see the Kerry camp asking for a new election unless there are several convictions. I hate to be realistic about this, but that's why I don't think it's about this election anymore. I doubt there will be any outcome in which this administration would be supplanted. But we should ALL fight for the future. If we don't trust the process, then the country will remain divided with half always disputing the results.

Peter said A concession is merely a political gesture.

You want to see some more serious problems in this country? Let someone say that the election was a fraud and Kerry is actually the President. Or have Kerry take Bush to court over the election after conceding. If his career isn't finished now (which I bet it is if the Democratic party is true to form), it will be after that.

Why don't you just let it be. The election is OVER. Whether or not you and others agree with the results, it's time to move on. Get over it already.

I can't believe I heard on the radio today that Bush will do anything for money, including staging of the 9/11 attacks. They even said that he planned the attack on the Pentagon, not to mention that they think Cheney's wife would eat her own young. Utterly amazing. Was that one of you guys that called today?

I'm still waiting for my gas prices to come down since we're in control of Iraq's oil now. Life is so unfair.

I've been following Olbermann's coverage of the voting irregularities, which go far beyond what was quoted here about Cuyahoga County in Ohio -- there are allegations in other Ohio counties, in Florida, in New Hampshire and other states. Even Nader is speaking up about it, and we know there's no way any recount is going to come out in HIS favor!

We must eliminate not only any improprieties but any appearance of improprieties in our electoral processes. I am in full agreement with those that say that this is a non-partisan issue -- had Kerry won under similar circumstances, I'd make just as much noise about it. We simply have to know that our votes count and count accurately.

This is the second Presidential election in a row in which there was the appearance of improprieties. I'm not saying that there were improprieties, just saying that something appeared fishy in each case. And isn't it funny that they were also the only two elections in recent memory where the outcomes didn't match the exit polls?

There is an FBI investigation pending based on evidence being provided by a Congressional candidate in Florida. There are also allegations that a test-run at fixing the Florida election happened during the 2002 Florida Democratic Primary, causing Bill McBride to get the Dem nomination for Governor over the better-known Janet Reno (supposedly a politically advantageous match-up for Jeb Bush, though I think Reno would have had a hard time beating Jeb here after the Elian Gonzalez debacle -- she alienated a lot of the South Florida Dem base).

Five Congressmen have filed an urgent request with the GAO to look into the possible problems.

My gut feeling, though -- and this is not based on any inside info, it's just a feeling -- is that nothing is going to come of this before the electoral college votes are certified in early January, meaning that Bush will still be President. I think investigations will continue after that date. Most two-term Presidents end up with some scandal in their second terms (Lewinsky, Iran-Contra, Watergate), and this has the potential to be Bush's. Whether it ends up being minor or major depends on whether any improprieties are proven and whether they can be tied directly back to his campaign. If all that happens (and I consider it doubtful), we could have another Watergate on our hands, and Olbermann just might be recognized as the next Woodward or Bernstein.

Not bad for a guy that started out as a sportscaster.

Oh, one more point: on his show tonight, Olbermann mentioned that there is word that Kerry wants to run again in '08. If any of these allegations prove true or a large percentage of the population begins to get the general feeling that something went wrong in '04, I'd say he's a lock not only to win the nomination, but the presidency as well. Kerry has made the right move here -- he's stayed out of the fray and is well positioned to reap the benefits if these allegations are found to be (or are generally believed to be) true.

"If any of these allegations prove true or a large percentage of the population begins to get the general feeling that something went wrong in '04, I'd say he's a lock not only to win the nomination, but the presidency as well."

That's a logical point but then again, how much did it help Al Gore 4 years later?

That's a logical point but then again, how much did it help Al Gore 4 years later?

I guess you could say that Gore didn't benefit by this being the second time that the election has been this close, and the results are being even more closely scrutinized this time around.

In the end, there may be nobody else for the Dems to nominate other than Kerry - Dean might take the DNC position, people are still iffy on Hilary Clinton, Vilsack will only have 2 terms as Iowa's governor under his belt (but he's putting a self-imposed 2 term limit on the job), Obama needs more experience.

I did read something too about what Julio was talking about, and possible voting irregularities in Florida.
I mean, if this report is accurate, is is VERY fishy - almost everywhere, exit polls were matching up in terms of who was voting for who. We're talking that 90% or better of each party was voting in-party for president.

Yet, you've got alot of counties in Florida where the votes are showing like 50% of people voting for the other party. And this is happening with optical scanning machines, NOT the touchscreen machines that everybody was worried about.

Oh, and when I refer to exit polls matching up - I mean that for all the stuff about how everything was being called for Kerry early, and then how it was all "wrong", why is it only happening in these past two president elections that these exit polls are all so far off, when they were not in years past?
When nothing is being done differently?

Actually looking at past elections shows that the phenomona of democrats voting for Republicans goes back a bit--many districts with majority registered Demmocrats went for Dole over Clinton.

This is mostly seen in the South and should surprise nobody, since conservative Democrats have been voting for Republicans for president for some time now.

But when all is said and done, this is an issue that should have been settled a long time ago. Jokes about dead people voting in Chicago and more votes than voters in Philadelphia really aren't all that funny. I doubt that many, if any, presidential elections would be changed but what about mayors? School board? Dogcatcher? Elections where the margin is small enough that even a little fraud can change the outcome.

I'm deeply suspicous of folks who want to bury the issue of voter irregularities, or want to delay looking into it. Dammit, it's important! Move on it quickly, or you're a problem--you're more interested in the letter of the law than the spirit.

If this lingers, it tends to disillusion the folks new to the voting process or those who were formerly cynical about the process--and you don't want that, no matter what side of the ledger you're in.

This is mostly seen in the South and should surprise nobody, since conservative Democrats have been voting for Republicans for president for some time now.

Well, I think that's why the focus is on Florida in particular, where people aren't as likely to vote in such a manner.

Although, this also means that fraud is easier to get away with in other states in the south because the results are expected to be a given. :)

Interesting artcle today from ABC--it might put to rest some of what has been reported.

"In the battleground state of Ohio, where conspiracy theories abound, a Web site for Cuyahoga County seemed to show more votes than voters in some precincts.

The county's Web site was confusing — it lumped several precincts' absentee ballots together and then counted them several times, for each precinct. But those were glitches in vote-reporting — not vote-counting. The "phantom" voters who mysteriously appeared and voted for Bush in the county — which voted overwhelmingly for Kerry — did not exist other than in the imagination of Democrats upset about Kerry's loss.

This afternoon, the Web site that first raised the questions about the Cuyahoga votes took it all back. "OK," wrote the Webmeister at "Americans 4 America," "finally had a chance to figure this out. I apologize for any anxiety that went along with these numbers. It seems that data is useless without knowing how counties arrived at the numbers and this was a particularly tricky process."

"Peter said A concession is merely a political gesture."

"Why don't you just let it be. The election is OVER. Whether or not you and others agree with the results, it's time to move on. Get over it already."

Interesting rant. Two things come to mind. First, up yours, anonymous boy. Second, you didn't say I was wrong, you just bitched about my being correct.

"I can't believe I heard on the radio today that Bush will do anything for money, including staging of the 9/11 attacks. They even said that he planned the attack on the Pentagon, not to mention that they think Cheney's wife would eat her own young. Utterly amazing?"

What's utterly amazing is your problem with short term memory, as if GOP flacks, pundits and rabble rousers didn't spend eight damned YEARS on the radio trashing both Clinton husband and wife with absolutely everything they could come up with, without regard to accuracy, fairness or simple human decency. Were you out there howling that you were shocked--SHOCKED!--that they could say such vile things? I'm thinking not.

As for Cheney's wife, that would be the one who excoriated Democrats for saying flattering things about her daughter while at the same time using her grandson in a Halloween costume to criticize John Kerry. Oh yeah, that got her major points in my book.

PAD

while at the same time using her grandson in a Halloween costume to criticize John Kerry

Oh? I didn't hear about that one.

Damn that liberal media!

As for Cheney's wife, that would be the one who excoriated Democrats for saying flattering things about her daughter while at the same time using her grandson in a Halloween costume to criticize John Kerry. Oh yeah, that got her major points in my book.

Same one who wrote a lesbian potboiler in her writing career...

COME ON, PEOPLE! That's the sort of thing that just cries our for punditry commentary!!!!

Peter, just to clarify, that was the Cheneys' granddaughter in the Halloween costume, not grandson.

Just so those who aren't into campaign minutia know what is being talked about, here's the associated press:

"At a campaign rally Sunday, Elizabeth, 7, wore a scary Halloween costume as the Grim Reaper. To howls of laughter, Lynne Cheney introduced Elizabeth as "John Kerry's health plan," highlighting one of the many contentious issues of the campaign."

The "lesbian potboiler" is called Sisters. Hard to find, if you bought it your $2.50 investment could bring you several thousand dollars. Judging from the reviews at Amazon.com I'm not sure that very many have read it (The reviewers seem more fixated on the idea that Cheney must herself be gay since, as we all know, you have to be gay to write about gay people, in much the same way that Marvel repeatedly gives the writing chore for The Hulk to noted gamma ray survivor Peter David).

"...that would be the one who excoriated Democrats for saying flattering things about her daughter..."

So flattering that people in the press room gasped when he said it. The reaction among focus groups was incredibly negative. There are reports that people within the Kerry campaign knew it was a mistake when they heard it. As others have pointed out, it's not that what he said was bad, it was just that he said it--"He claimed to know the mind of someone else's child as a way to hurt the parents." as Jonah Goldberg wrote.

Well, this a fight that's already been fought. Of more interest to me is this table at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2004-2000.html . Basically it shows that of all 50 states and Dc George Bush increased his vote percentage over his 2000 showing in all but 2 states. Wow. Money well spent by George Soros.

So, let's meet our new Attorney General, shall we?

Let's start with his biography:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/gonzales-bio.html

And we'll follow this with a couple of articles displaying how there are worse people in the world than Ashcroft:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030620.html
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/30/Columns/The_man_behind_all_th.shtml

Oh, and when I refer to exit polls matching up - I mean that for all the stuff about how everything was being called for Kerry early, and then how it was all "wrong", why is it only happening in these past two president elections that these exit polls are all so far off, when they were not in years past?
When nothing is being done differently?

Do we actually know nothing is being done differently? Exit polling requires that a sample of the people leaving the polling places be asked for whom they voted. It's not hard to suppose that the organization doing that could have some sampling error built into their selection process. It's worth noting that the pre-election polls by at least one pollster look a heck of a lot like the final results. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/State%20by%20state%20comparisons%202004.htm That's less suggestive of election fraud than of simple incompetence in the exit poll organization, which was basically a repackaged version of the organization that did oh so well four years ago.

Rereading Mr. Ries's comment that I quoted just above, I suppose my answer to his question is, "the people doing the exit polls for the last two elections appear to be incompetent."

Why on earth should anyone be surprised that some early exit polls--and the operative word here is "polls"--were off? If ANYTHING was learned this year it's that polls are to be trusted only a bit more than the guy who reads chicken bones scattered on the ground.

Polls can be accurate if done properly - sampling area, sizes, accurate representation of the population and so on. The most common reason I've heard for the inaccuracy is that the pollsters are not doing a good enough job of sampling the rural areas which skewed the results towards Kerry.

Another thing about polls...the people answering the questions must be depended on to tell the truth. It wouldn't be suprising that a large number of people simply answered what they thought the poll takers wanted to hear.

PAD posted:
"...that would be the one who excoriated Democrats for saying flattering things about her daughter..."

Bill Mulligan responded:
"So flattering that people in the press room gasped when he said it. The reaction among focus groups was incredibly negative. There are reports that people within the Kerry campaign knew it was a mistake when they heard it. As others have pointed out, it's not that what he said was bad, it was just that he said it--"He claimed to know the mind of someone else's child as a way to hurt the parents." as Jonah Goldberg wrote."

Well, Bill, the "people in the press room gasped", but WHY? Gasping doesn't really mean a whole heck of a lot without the proper context. Exactly WHO gasped? How many were in the press room at the time? 2? 20? 200? How many of those people gasped? The gasping could also reflect simple surprise as well as shock, but again the *context* of the people's reaction is needed.
The "focus groups". Um, who were these "focus groups"? Republicans? Democrats? Conservative Christians? Focus groups aren't much better than "exit polls" (or Nielsen ratings, for that matter) in determining actual numbers. You take exit polling to task in another post, but you use "focus groups" as a justification? Um, okay.
Jonah Goldberg? You quote Jonah Goldberg as some source of authority in the matter? Sorry, but it's a bit like relying on Osama bin Laden as your sole source of information on Islamic thought. The man's an admitted conservative, and has absolutely no love for anything that John Kerry would have to say (unless Kerry were to suddenly and wholeheartedly embrace conservative ideology).
What I want to know is where the effin' hell Lynne and Dick Cheney, and their other daughter, Liz, were when Alan Keyes went on record to flatly state that Mary was a "selfish hedonist". Don't you kind of think that having a fellow Republican calling your daughter a "selfish hedonist" is just a bit more repulsive than John Kerry acting under the presumption that Mr and Mrs Cheney love Mary without any regard for her sexuality? It's amazing that the Cheneys offered no sort of public outrage over Keyes' comment; of course, I suppose that it's easier to use your lesbian daughter as a political toy when the "opposition" mentions her than when your "allies" mention her.
Both Lynne and Liz Cheney owe John Kerry an apology for their overreaction to his comments while completely failing to react to Keyes' words. Of course, we know that's never going to happen. Lynne Cheney just isn't noble enough to do it.

JosephW,

Everything you say about Jonah Goldberg is true...but entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I did not, as you say, quote him as a source of authority. I thought his point was a valid one ad I made sure to give him credit for it, lest it appear that I was just swiping it as my own words. Whether or not his point is valid is unrelated to his political leanings.

I don't know how anyone could put a positive spin on people gasping at something a politician says...I suppose it could be that they were just so carried away by his rhetorical brilliance that they were unable to express it in words.

Look, you may be right. I certainly can't prove that most people thought that Kerry was being crass. The polls can be wrong; the focus groups may be skewed. But I think you'd be on safer ground claiming that those mean republicans manipulated people into thinking ill of Kerry than to claim that the negative reaction to his statement was limited only to partisans.

"Don't you kind of think that having a fellow Republican calling your daughter a "selfish hedonist" is just a bit more repulsive than John Kerry acting under the presumption that Mr and Mrs Cheney love Mary without any regard for her sexuality?"

As for Keyes, I no more expect the Cheney's to acknowledge him than I would the Queen of England to respond to Lyndon LaRouch. The fact that the Illinois Republican Party thought that wackjob would save the day shows that idiocy is most certainly not limited to the left this year.

And finally in the interest of accuracy, looking at what Kerry actually said--“We’re all God’s children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as. I think you talk to anybody, it’s not a choice.” says nothing at all about whether or not the Cheney's "love Mary without any regard to her sexuality". Perhaps conservatives did read too much into what Kerry said but it seems like you're doing the same, albeit more generously to Senator Kerry.

Peter said Interesting rant. Two things come to mind. First, up yours, anonymous boy. Second, you didn't say I was wrong, you just bitched about my being correct.

You know what, for someone who seems to be intelligent, you keep slamming me for not revealing my name. I could say it's Jack Monroe and you would have no freaking idea if it was correct or not. So what's the big deal? Why do you need to know who I am beside my screen name? Are you going to look my name up, try to figure out where I live, so you can picket my house or something? It's none of your business what my name is. What does that have to do with anything?

I still can't believe that you made me appoligize to you or you would shroud me and tell others to do the same (i.e. you threatened me) and you can't stop the Mr. Anonymous stuff or appoligize to me for telling me to go to Hell.

JosephW said Lynne Cheney just isn't noble enough to do it.

Not noble enough? Are you aware that Mrs. Cheney writes children's books? That shows high moral character and generosity doesn't it? What has Edwards wife or Kerry's wife done for the world?

Let's see. Kerry's wife gave us ketchup and tells reporters to Shove it. I have no idea who Edwards wife even is. The only thing I've ever heard about her is the fact that she has cancer now, which is tragic and I hope they found it fast enough to stop the spread.

What Kerry said in the debate was totally freaking wrong. When I was watching the debate and he said that, my jaw dropped to the floor. I am sure that millions of people watching the debate had the same reaction.

It was totally inappropriate and a political attack. Some people said Cheney didn't react when he was presented with the question in his debate with a similar question about his daughter. The difference is he was asked a question. Did anyone notice that he only thanked Edwards for his comments? He didn't say anything else. So, wouldn't that give them a hint where his family was off limits. I guess not. It was wrong and he paid for his comments.

Craig said So, let's meet our new Attorney General, shall we?

I wonder if you would put this much effort into this if he was a Democrat.

Do you find fault with everybody in office now or just people that Bush appoints?

Just how do you recommend getting information from a terrorist who tries to kill innocent people? You think they should be pampered and offered protections agaist interrogations? Hell no, I say. If some person attempted to kill innocent people, I say they should have no rights whatsoever. If they have to be tortured to find out who their contacts are, who paid them money, what the terrorist plan was, then so be it. Forget this Geneva rights BS. Anyone who thinks a terrorist deserves equal protection under the law has a screw loose.

We need to feret these people out, make them scared to death to ever mess with us, and make sure we get the information out of them to stop any and all future attacks from occurring. Plain and simple.

Forget this Geneva rights BS.

Another reason I want to get the hell away from the people in this country.

Because, if it's ok for this kind of treatment toward terrorists, it's ok toward those that speak against Bush, against gays, against minorities, and against those evil liberal bastards, right?

Craig, at least if you quote me, don't quote me out of context. I said the Geneva Convention should not apply to terrorists.

Another thing that bothers me. Saddam Hussein knows so much information that he will not, and never will tell us about weapons he had, things he had planned, etc. Because of the Geneva Convention, he is entitled to certain rights.

Don't you think that someone who is a proven terrorist should have every resource we have used against him to get whatever information we need to prevent innocent people from losing their lives? What rights should a mass murderer like Saddam be given? I say none whatsoever. What rights did he give the people he slaughtered? You have to show these people the same mercy they would show you or other innocents.

I bet you think Osama Bin Laden should have rights too once he's captured. Forget that. If he has to be tortured to find out what all of his plans were, who his lieutenants are, etc., then so be it.

rant over

I hope every Veteran here and abroad had a Great Veteran's day. All of you deserve great respect and honor for supporting and defending this country, regardless of when it occurred.

Novafan

Not noble enough? Are you aware that Mrs. Cheney writes children's books? That shows high moral character and generosity doesn't it? What has Edwards wife or Kerry's wife done for the world?

Stop being partisan and, at least, do some homework. Jeezus.

Roger said Stop being partisan and, at least, do some homework. Jeezus.

I have no reason to.

And, my name is Novafan, not Jeezus. :0)

Novafan:

>Not noble enough? Are you aware that Mrs. Cheney writes children's books? That shows high moral character and generosity doesn't it?

Yeah, Madonna has proven that.

By the way, Novafan, look up Teresa Heinz and philanthropy.
Also look up Lynne Cheney and lesbian novel.

There are some things to be debated on this issue, but what you said sure doesn't add anything.

Yeah, Madonna has proven that.

I didn't know she wrote children's books. Very interesting.

So, you're saying it's not noble to write children's books?

I don't agree with everything Madonna does, but I like her music and applaud her if she wrote Children's books.

Novafan:

>>Yeah, Madonna has proven that.

>I didn't know she wrote children's books. Very interesting.

Yep. She just did a public reading in the U.K for her 4th book.

So, you're saying it's not noble to write children's books?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that one not need to be noble to write children's books, nor do they necessarily write children's books for noble reasons.

How about you do a search on real job for her comment made to the press? Teresa's mouth gets in the way of any accomplishments she's made. Compare the search results of your request to my request.

oops.... I mentioned that they need not be noble. Your original point focused on high morals. Writing children's books doesn't show anything of one's moral character.

Just curious here:

How many of you think Arafat was a terrorist?

How many of you think Arafat was a peacemaker?

I say terrorist. What sayest thou?

I bet I can guess what some of the responses will be from certain posters without you having to respond.

I bet I can guess what some of the responses will be from certain posters without you having to respond.

How many of you think Bush is a terrorist?

How many of you think Bush is a peacemaker?

I bet the answers won't surprise anybody.

Not noble enough? Are you aware that Mrs. Cheney writes children's books? That shows high moral character and generosity doesn't it? What has Edwards wife or Kerry's wife done for the world?

Actually, to be fair I think we have to concede that Teresa Heinz Kerry has been running a charitable foundation for quite some time, and I've never heard or seen anything to indicate she's been anything but an asset to Western Pennsylvania because of that. I think she'd have been a nightmare of a First Lady, primarily because a Kerry victory would be a precondition of that, but let's not belittle her legitimate accomplishments.

Roger said Stop being partisan and, at least, do some homework. Jeezus.

I have no reason to.

Dude, we're about to kick you out of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. You're making us look bad.

I have no reason to.

And, my name is Novafan, not Jeezus.

You're apparently one of those right wingers that justifies all of Michael Moore's comments--ignorant and proud of it. You're showing that you REALLY need to be doing your homework.

But apparently you prefer someone who writes a lesbian romance to a philanthropist. Hmm....if Teresa Heinz had Lynn Cheney's writing background, I'd bet you wouldn't be quiet about that....

Let's see. Kerry's wife gave us ketchup and tells reporters to Shove it.

You do know that Teresa Heinz-Kerry has absolultely nothing to do with the operations of H. J. Heinz Company, right? Did you know that she is very active in charitable work in Western Pennsylvania?

Yes, her first husband was a member of the Heinz family, but the entire family owns less than 4% of the company's total stock. None of the living members of the family even sit on the board of directors of the company anymore.

You do know that Teresa Heinz-Kerry has absolultely nothing to do with the operations of H. J. Heinz Company, right? Did you know that she is very active in charitable work in Western Pennsylvania?

Novafan doesn't care. He doesn't need to do homework.

Hm. That's the very same thing that led to Teresa Heinz's rather stupid comment about a real job.

Obviously, it's OK when HE does it...but when a Democrat does it, it's a mortal sin....

Craig J. Ries wrote...
How many of you think Bush is a terrorist?

Okay, fine, I'll bite.

I don't think you can make a case for Bush being a terrorist, if only because he is the recognized (easy set-up for bickering if you guys are interested) leader of a nation, and has an army at his disposal.

Of course, all that really means is that instead of a terrorist, you could probably find a case for him being a war criminal...

Wow, what did I miss with Novafan? he got shrouded? I only remember one other poster getting shrouded before.

Novafan: I say. If some person attempted to kill innocent people, I say they should have no rights whatsoever...Craig, at least if you quote me, don't quote me out of context. I said the Geneva Convention should not apply to terrorists.

To be fair, I think what Novafan MEANT to say was that the GC should not apply to terrorists, but that's not what he said. He said "some person" who attempts "to kill innocent people."

Face it, terrorists are really nothing more than criminals. People who commit acts of violence with no government backing are criminals. People who commit acts of violence with a government's sanction or support are soldiers. The GC deals with the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilians during wartime.

So, in a way, Novafan is correct: the GC do not apply to terrorists. Since they usually lack a formal governmental association, they can't be the subject of a war. They are "militans civilians," which is a fancy way of saying "criminal."

I'd suggest Novafan go read some basic documents about what this country is supposed to be about, but that might be too much like assigning homework. Check out the Declaration of Independance and the Consitution of the United States of America. It's got some basic language in there about what our founders thought were some basic truths about mankind, and what rights belonged to all people, criminal, civilian, soldier, everyone.

The divestment of those right traditionally was a very challenging thing to accomplish. Novafan wants that divestment to occur whenever someone commits a terrorist act, which by his own words is when "some person attempted to kill innocent people."

Here's the thing: If you condone the use of torture (which, history has proven, doesn't usually elicit reliable information, it just gets the poor soul you're torturing to tell you what he thinks you want to know) for ANY reason, you open up the possibility that torture will in fact be used for ANY reason. I'll grant you, it must take some kind of inhuman being to plan and execute an attack that kills thousands of people. However, I do not want to see our society dragged down into that same inhuman mentality that allows us to condone the use of torture, murder, and invasion clothed in the guise of protection and safety.

If you condone the use of torture (snip) for ANY reason, you open up the possibility that torture will in fact be used for ANY reason.

Yes, and Novafan completely and utterly failed to recognize that fact in the reply I post, where he just sits there and claims I'm misquoting him.

Some people just don't get it. And they'll do anything they can to try and justify senseless violence against others.

Why should we care about that "Geneva Convention BS?" Simply put, if we don't adhere to the spirit of those accords, why should we expect any other nation to do the same with captured US soldiers?

I wouldn't shed any tears for any suffering that Osama bin Laden might endure, but how can we as a country claim to uphold high ideals when we're willing to chuck those ideals when they become inconvenient?

Not sure how many people are still reading the thread after more than 300 entries, but for whatever it’s worth, I just wanted to chip in with this.

A friend and co-worker ran for state representative (his first political campaign) this year, and lost by just shy of 900 votes. Not bad for a first campaign, I suppose. A week or so before the election, he was in the office taking care of some business and discussing the campaign. He found the lengths people would go to try to dig up dirt about their opponents amazing.

One of the truly amazing things (to me at least) were the ads circulating in his district saying both he and his party as a whole favored the importation of Canadian trash into the local community. And what was truly amazing about that allegation is that my friend’s family actually lost their farm because of said trash importation. He said that when he brought that point up at a debate and in interviews, the other party (or a 527 group, I’m not clear whether the opposition party actually paid for the ads) quickly backed down from those ads.

Yet, that doesn’t negate the fact that they tried to smear my friend, and his party as a whole, with a broad stroke of a muddy brush, obviously heedless of whether said smear was true. I guess ads stating why their guy would be the best choice for state representative (and one would assume they must have had _some_ reason to support him; if nothing else, they could have gone with his being older and thus having more “life experience”, and with his having campaigned before.) was too complicated a concept for them. Better to go with a scare the voters/smear the opposition campaign. It’s not like it’s gonna backfire, right? Who knows, maybe they couldn’t think of anything positive about their own guy in terms of why he was better qualified for the job.

In some ways, that ad campaign was laughable because they happened to pick a candidate whose family had been directly affected in a negative way by the trash importation and tried to depict him as being in favor of it. Yet, I wonder how many people took the allegation at face value without doing even a modicum of research. I wonder, for that matter, how many people bother to research any negative ad made about any candidate in any election. Probably a depressing few.

Overall, I find the nastier tone in politics in recent years somewhat depressing. I happened to catch the senior President Bush on PBS recently, talking about his father, Prescott’s observations about his time in the Senate. Prescott Bush, the former president said, believed there was more civility in reaching across the aisle and working with the opposition party in his day. Now, whether that was actually true, or whether the senior Mr. Bush had looked back through rose-colored glasses at his senate career, I don’t know. Either is possible, I suppose. There have been nasty political campaigns in the past (Adams Vs. Jefferson would rank as one, as I understand it), so maybe these things are cyclical.

If so, I’d like to see an imminent end to the nasty, attack-ad campaign cycle, and the emergence of more campaigns focused on issues, with honest, and respectful disagreement between the candidates as to whom is best to hold the office.

Maybe it'll happen before the sun goes nova.

Rick

Well, I have no hopes for it, given the sentiments expressed on this very thread.

Kingbobb said I'd suggest Novafan go read some basic documents about what this country is supposed to be about, but that might be too much like assigning homework.

Been there, done that. Thanks for the advice. Because I don't think we should turn the other cheek when it comes to dealing with the scumbags of this Earth, that means I haven't read nor understood the founding documents of this country? I beg to differ. There has to be exceptions to every rule. Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Milosevich (sp) should not even be considered human since they did and in the case of Osama, are doing so many inhumane things. How can we treat things like this as humans? They only thing they understand is force.

Craig said Some people just don't get it. And they'll do anything they can to try and justify senseless violence against others.

You've just captured Osama's second in command. You stopped him from executing his latest scheme to murder thousands of innocents. You know they have another major plan in place that will dwarf the 9/11 attacks hundred fold but you can't figure out when the attack will occur or where the target is. What do you do? Do you wave the human rights flag in this guys face or do you do whatever it takes to get the information out of him so that you save lives?

What do you do? Place your principles aside for the greater good or potentially sacrifice millions of lives because you're worried about offending this scumbags rights.

Novafan wrote...
There has to be exceptions to every rule.

Um, no.

You miss the point. By treating inhumane people humanely and with justice instead of revenge, it lifts us all up. Why go down to their level? The way we treat criminals says a lot about a society. I want to live in one that respects the law FOR EVERYONE, not where Abu Ghraib is allowed. To decide to treat people differently, as if they are not human, is easy. Thus it makes it easier to justify monstrous acts of our own. But this does not make it right.

Jeff said Um, no.

Ok, so maybe not Every Rule. I was trying to make a point where we should not apply normal rules to Terrorists. Does that sound better?

Karen said You miss the point. By treating inhumane people humanely and with justice instead of revenge, it lifts us all up. Why go down to their level? The way we treat criminals says a lot about a society. I want to live in one that respects the law FOR EVERYONE, not where Abu Ghraib is allowed. To decide to treat people differently, as if they are not human, is easy. Thus it makes it easier to justify monstrous acts of our own. But this does not make it right.

No, I don't miss the point. Sometimes you have to make decisions that are difficult but Necessary to make, even if they don't meet your standards of Right. I bet there are things that you have to do or have had to do in your lifetime that you do not agree with, but it was necessary to do for whatever reason. Do you understand what I'm saying?

You are wrong. It is easy to live your life without treating others badly. It is not difficult to ask for justice, instead of revenge. This is why there was a Geneva Convention. To spell out what is right and appropriate. Most of the nations in the world agreed. It is part of what makes us civilized. The rules are for EVERYONE or they are worth nothing.

Karen said The rules are for EVERYONE or they are worth nothing.

You undertand that these people want to destroy everything we believe in, including our way of life, and you still think they should be treated the same way as everyone else? If they kill you, they think they will be rewarded in the after life. You think they give a darned about our civilization's rules?

I have a different opinion than yours, and I believe it's a valid opinion. Would your viewpoint change if a terrorist killed someone you cared about and it was learned that he or she could have been stopped if they would have gotten the information out of someone they had captured. Think about that before you start saying that I'm wrong and you're right. Your minds already made up, why do I even bother.

Well, Novafan, since you invoked the Biblical phrase of "turn the other cheek," maybe you can find for me the scriptural passage that says that concept doesn't apply to scumbags.

Look, I get what you're saying. These folks do terrible things. They murder and terrorize their own citazens, plot or allow plots to murder and terrorize hundreds, and in some cases thousands of civlians. They're the bad guys.

The reason why we can't sink to the levels you're advocating is that, once you start to go in that direction, it's very hard to come back. And I'm not just talking about a general moral decay here. Once we start, as a society, to ignore the concepts of due process and inherant human rights, we take a few more steps toward anarchy. Handing government the ability to decide who does and does not have rights is not a good thing.

Here's a thought: take your scenario from above. The man you've captured has been raised from birth to believe that you and everything you represent is evil. He also believes that to die in the struggle against you is going to send him directly to heavan. And that the more that he suffers, the greater his reward in the afterlife is going to be. What makes you think that there's anything that you can do to him on earth that will make him divulge any useful information? Or worse, give you misinformation? So you then act, set up troops, look to defend the supposed target, and then the strike occurs somewhere else entirely? So, not only are those countless civilians now dead, but you've also violated your own belief in due process, the rule of law, and basic human rights. All for what? Nothing.

And even if you do manage to detect and thwart the plan, you've still given a whole new generation of terrorists another reason to hate us. Because for all our talk about freedom, democracy, and rights, at the end of the day, when it's American lives at stake, we're just as violent and selfish and immoral as the next guy.

And yes, the fact that you see nothing wrong with stripping anyone of their basic human rights without due process shows that you don't comprehend the meaning of the documents that form the foundation of our society. Remember, our founders where in their own fashion terrorists fighting against the English monarch. Certainly not on the scale of the people we face today, and certainly not targeting civilians to the extent they are targeted today, but still, would you condone the English torture of George Washington had they captured him?

Sometimes you have to make decisions that are difficult but Necessary to make, even if they don't meet your standards of Right.

Uh, guys, you're trying to reason with a concrete block. Look carefully at the above quote.

He's apparently oblivious to the fact that something that doesn't "meet standards of Right" is, in fact, more commonly referred to as "wrong". Given that, I don't think you'll have much luck getting through using mere logic, rationality and good sense.

Though no doubt we'll soon be treated to a dizzying rationalization of how doing something wrong is right. There might even be a tedious, yet at the same time strangely unoriginal, ad hominem attack thrown in for good measure. How exciting.

Hoo Boy. This has been one heck of a thread. Some bullets

ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES
I hate them. Precisely because they are not bug proof, and therefore may give an inaccurate account even if such was not planned. Plus, I remember an article in "Insight" magazine (a very conservative publication) that stated the possibility of suchmachines being programmed to register three votes for every vote cast for one vote cast for one candidate, for example. The possibility of such a thing happening - regardless of intent - bothers me a great deal.
A paper trail should be required. Maybe we could go back to butterfly ballots, and teach the easily confused how to follow a bloody ARROW that is pointing to the hole they have to punch for their candidate.
Having been on the losing side of a couple close elections in Philadelphia, including one where basically everyone agreed the Democratic candidate for mayor got about 10,000 fraudulent votes and won by about 3,000, I am sensitive to this topic, and do not change my opinionwhen it benefits, or has the potential to benefit, those I support.
It is essential in a democracy/ democratic republic that elections are generally thought to be won fair and square and that the true 'choice of the people" is victorious.
We lose that...

Re: TORTURE

You know, there really is a middle ground on this (despite some saying there can't be exceptions to every rule, despite the fact that this contradicts those who are constantly chittering about "nuance" and "the world is not black and white").
Of course we should do our best to uphold our ideals, but there are limits.
Actually, if "life" is one of the things guaranteed to us, are we not abandoning our ideals in a BIG way if we could possibly stop the deaths of millions of people by "getting our hands dirty".
Because, frankly, Abu Ghraib was not true torture. For true torture, ask those who know of The bataan Death March, or John McCain...or those who were mutilated and saw their wives raped in front of them by Saddam Hussein.
If you would rather see millions die than point and laugh at an enemy's penis, then you really have been blinded to all sense of perspective.

An addendum to my last point:
Would you say it is chauvinistic/wrong for a man to hit a woman who is trying to kill him, or destroy a city?
Of course, a man hitting a woman is wrong 99.999 percent of the time. But there ARE exceptions to every rule

MADONNA AND CHILDREN'S BOOKS

"Writing children's books doesn't show anything of one's moral character"

Sure it does. Not everything, mind you. But if you look at the majority of successful children's authors, they have empathy for, compassion for and yes, love for children.
In a day and age when a lot of crap from both the Right and Left is justified as being "for the children", connecting and truly caring about children is indeed, dare I say, a moral act.
Even if they are accused of being in it "for the money", well, they could make money by selling crack in the playground, too. That doesn't negate the education and enjoyment children's books bring to millions of children.
And why do people still get all up in arms about Madonna's morality, anyway?
Has she ever been threatened with having her children taken away from her?
Has she ever been "scandalized" by a drug or alcohol addiction?
Has she ever been caught being violent?
She's a successful businesswoman, has constantly adapted to the times, has now had an enduring marriage and by most accounts is a doting mother.
But she's comfortable with bothe her body and her sexuality, which drives prudes and alarmists and religious fundamentalists and rabid feminists crazy.
Pretty silly when you think about it.

Jerome Maida, Don't know that your comments were directed specifically at me, but I'll add in my $.10 (having already added about $.08)

I'd have to scroll up a ways, and that's getting to be some work now, but I don't think we were discussing any specific example of torture/abuse here. Novafan was speaking in generalities, and I think the responses to him have also been in generalities.

I see a difference between "getting your hands dirty" and torture. Some of the things that occurred, so far as we know, at Abu Gharib would approach, but not cross, the line. Some things go far beyond that line. They're prisoners: If it was supposed to be a pleasant thing, Canada and Mexico would have declared war on us long ago, with a simultaneous surrender offer.

But Novafan is talking about doing ANYthing in order to extract the information you THINK the prisoner has.

Also, here's the problem with weighing your potential losses against the torture of a few to gain information. That reasoning works, IF your prisoner actually knows something. Heck, you could even chalk it up as an even deal if your prisoner is at least guilty if something. BUt what if your guy's innocent? What if you make a mistake? How do you measure the torture/murder of an innocent life, even whe your goal is t protect many, many more lives? Who makes that decision?

If I may borrow from Star Trek, the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the one. Logic would dictate otherwise. But you tell that to the innocent guy who has his rights, freedom, and perhaps his very life sacrificed in the name of safety. If we had a foolproof way of determining who, exactly, the bad guys are, we'd not be having this discussion. But that's exactly what due process and the protection of basic human rights is all about.

Kingbobb said But that's exactly what due process and the protection of basic human rights is all about.

Are you telling me that if you were in the same room as Osama Bin Laden that you would care about basic human rights? It would take every ounce of energy I have to prevent myself from killing him with my bare hands. I probably would cross the line if faced with that situation.

What would you do if someone opens their jacket laced with dynamite and is about to light it? Would you stop and think about their basic human rights or would you act to try and stop them?

What would you do if you were a witness to a girl being kidnapped? Would you act to stop them or stand there and do nothing because you might infringe upon their rights. This happened a few days ago. A girl was kidnapped in front of other people and the bystanders did nothing to stop it. Did they do the right thing? Would they have violated his human rights if they had to hurt him to stop him?

There are 3 types of people in this world. Those that watch things happen (see above), those that make things happen, and those that wonder what the heck just happened (see above).

The only way we know what happened is it was captured on tape. I would have yelled at someone to get their license plate number, yell at another one to call the police, and then do what I could to prevent him from getting the girl in the car. Even if I had to hurt him to stop him, I would do so. As far as I'm concerned, his basic human rights stopped the minute he crossed the line and attempted to kidnap that girl. He trampled over her human rights didn't he? Who's the victim here, the kidnapped girl or the kidnapper?

David said Dude, we're about to kick you out of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. You're making us look bad.

I appoligize for my comments about Teresa. It was uncalled for since I didn't do the research on her background. I was really upset when someone questioned Mrs. Cheney's nobility, and I lashed out in response, which doesn't make it right.

Novafan (man enough to admit he made a mistake)

"Writing children's books doesn't show anything of one's moral character"

Sure it does. Not everything, mind you. But if you look at the majority of successful children's authors, they have empathy for, compassion for and yes, love for children.

Interestingly enough, so do most child molesters.... for entirely different reasons, of course.

I appoligize for my comments about Teresa. It was uncalled for since I didn't do the research on her background. I was really upset when someone questioned Mrs. Cheney's nobility, and I lashed out in response, which doesn't make it right.

Novafan (man enough to admit he made a mistake)

Yeah, that is a sign of a man; heaven knows I made my share of mistakes. (And if you prefer Mrs. Cheney to Teresa Heinz as a person, that's fine...I can admit there are grounds to do so...)(and personally, writing a racy novel in the past is a plus in my book....Heh).

I probably would cross the line if faced with that situation.

I wonder how many Iraqis would do the same thing if they were in the room with an unarmed George W Bush.

Ahh, but that would be terrorism to kill Bush.

To kill Osama in the same situation? Well, I'm sure Bush would be willing to try and get you off from murder.

But then, there's a difference between an unarmed enemy combant who has been captured or given up (like Saddam), and one who's pointing a gun at your head.

Or do you advocate wonderful events like Tianamen Square, where the army would rather just run over the unarmed civilians in tanks? Yeah, that's humane.

Craig said Ahh, but that would be terrorism to kill Bush.

You've got this fixation with Bush don't you. Did he do something personal to you that you can't stop bashing him or can you not stand the fact that people actually like him as Commander in Chief. Which is it?

Can you make one counter post to mine that doesn't involve you trying to slam Bush? I ask a question about Arafat, you turn it around and ask the same question about Bush. I state something that could occur with me in the room with Osama, and you put a spin on it to include Bush. I can't wait to hear what you're going to come up with next.

Is there anything else you would like to say about Bush? I'm sure everyone would like to hear everything you have to say on the matter.

For this statement "Writing children's books doesn't show anything of one's moral character" Sure it does. Not everything, mind you. But if you look at the majority of successful children's authors, they have empathy for, compassion for and yes, love for children.

eclark1849 said Interestingly enough, so do most child molesters.... for entirely different reasons, of course.

Have you ever been molested before? I'm so glad to hear that the messed up individual who did that to me actually loved me. Yes, that makes me feel great for you to say that.

How can you compare the love someone feels for children that they express in children's books to a child molester. That is a very sick thing to say indeed.

Let's hear, "if that really did happen to you..." again, shall we. Not that I haven't heard it before.

Got anything else snappy to say?

Novafan (disgusted)

Ok, I should know better, but I'm going to try one last time.

Novafan, you describe several situations. All in response to my statement about due process. First, you're in a room with Bin Laden, and he's sitting in a chair across from you, so you must resist the temptation to kill him. He's not threatening you, he's unarmed, and he's pretty much not going anywhere.

Your second and third situations are a bomb-bearing guy is threatening to detonate himself, and finally, the very real and recent apparant broad daylight kidnapping of a woman by two men in a mall parking structure, which several mall shoppers witnessed, but apparantly not one got a license plate number, or a description of either the woman or the men.

There's a significant difference in these examples. With Bin Laden, he doesn't appear to be threatening you right that moment. Is he planning to? Has he planned something? Sure, maybe, I don't know. What I do know is that you are in no immediate danger, that I can tell, and last I checked, private citizens aren't given a license to kill, so if you do give in to that urge, and you do kill him, congratulations, you've just committed murder. Now, I don't know what it's like to kill another person. I pray to God I never do. Truth to tell, if Bin Laden were calmly sitting in a chair across the room from me, either he's screwed, 'cause he's been captured, or I'M screwed, 'cause I'VE been captured.

Your other two situations? Let me make a suggestion: Go look up under what conditions actions taken in self defense provide absolve you of any guilt under the law. You kill a suicide bomber before he can make himself go BOOM? Self defense. You act to prevent a kidnapping, and the kidnappers get hurt or killed in the process? Self defense, or defense of another. Legally accepted defenses that protect you from criminal sanction when you act in a way that otherwise would be a crime. The key factor? The threat was real, or reliably perceived as real, and it was IMMINENT.

If Bin Laden's just sitting defenseless in a chair, there's no imminent threat to defend against.

The scariest thing I've heard in recent times is Americans saying they have no problem with a pre-emptive military strike on possible future threats. It scares me because there's nothing to stop us but ourselves. And Novafan, to be very honest, it's people like you that scare me the most. Because you have absolutely no concept of how very much like our current enemies you are.

I can't wait to hear what you're going to come up with next.

Well, if you're disgusted, then I can say "Mission Accomplished.

A) You know how I feel about Bush getting releected,
B) It's the potshot at Bush you're expected, and I didn't even have to say his (sorry ass) name.

Craig said Well, if you're disgusted, then I can say "Mission Accomplished.

My disgusted comment was directed at the individual who made the uncalled for child molestation comment. Maybe if you actually read the post, you would have figured that out. That would be giving you too much credit though wouldn't it.

kingbobb said If Bin Laden's just sitting defenseless in a chair, there's no imminent threat to defend against.

You know what the problem with liberals is? Well, let me tell you what a major problem is.

You cry foul if a mass murderer such as Osama Bin Laden has his rights taken away from him, and yet you do nothing as the rights of someone who isn't even born yet has his/her rights taken away from them.

Don't you see a fundamental problem here? It's OK to murder an innocent life in the womb of a mother because it's her choice (as you say), but it's not OK to take away the liberties of a mass murderer.

I can't figure this one out and neither can the Democratic Party. Until they do get it figured out, I don't think they will get someone into the Presidency again.

If a woman voluntarily has sex with a man and gets pregant, then they are committing murder when that child is aborted. How you can't see it this way, and yet cry foul when a deviant gets his/her rights taken away is hypocritical to say the least.

The only time abortion should be legal is if the woman was raped or if there is a problem that could result in the death of the woman and/or the baby if the pregnancy continues.

How can you care about the rights of criminals when you care nothing about the rights of the unborn?

Novafan: Wah wah wah I was molested as a child!

Bladestar: Shut up and get over it.

That certainly explains why you turned to religion since you feel so powerless and useless that you need to belief in an imaginary higher power to give you worth in your own eyes...

So according to Nova-dork, an atrocity commited in repsonse is OK, but not one commited by one (or ones) who do it in the name of THEIR faith in THEIR god? Gotta love that christian ethic...

"The crusades and the inquistion and the salem witch trials were good! But any other belief system is wrong!"

I wish you idiots had a working mirror so you could see how sad and pathetic you really are...

And the unborn aren't people, so they have NO rights...

Novafan:

I was being sardonic. I was pointing out that child molesters, and in fact a great deal of criminals, are great practitioners of pyschology. Child molesters know how to approach their victims by getting them to trust the molester. Look at a typical molester. He pretends he's looking for a lost puppy. He asks a child to help him, and he looks so sad. The child feels great empathy for him and helps. Or he acts as an authority figure which the child is afraid to disobey for fear of being punished. (The opening scene in Mystic River is a good example). Another is "Your mom/dad sent me to come take you to them." The child trusts them because they believe their mom/dad wouldn't send somebody that would hurt them.

BTW, as for whether or not your particular molester "loved" you or not, my guess would be that he honestly either didn't think or know the difference. I don't think that most child molesters think they're doing anything evil. Look at NAMBLA.

As for whether I was ever molested is more personal that I intend to be on these boards.

(Crap. I'm just gonna have to stop reading these boards all together to stop posting)

My disgusted comment was directed at the individual who made the uncalled for child molestation comment. Maybe if you actually read the post, you would have figured that out. That would be giving you too much credit though wouldn't it.

You seem to be disgusted by liberals in general because some of us won't bend over and take it up the arse from Bush & all the other sad conservatives in this country.

Bladestar: Shut up and get over it.

I don't remember throwing peanuts in your general direction, so what makes you think you're comment means jack squat to me. Yes, I found religion to make up for being molested. Boy, you sure hit the nail on the head with that one.

Novafan: Throwing peanuts now.

Bladestar: Loser here who thinks the Unborn have no rights!

Novafan: 'nuff said for me on this thread

Craig,
You might want to check out this website:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

The fight isn't over yet. There are people trying to find out the truth. My personal opinion? I think they managed to steal another election. I have a problem believing 51% of the voters actually think this administration is doing a good enough job to keep doing what their doing. Looks like we aren't the only ones. Although I've heard about this on Air America and several blogs, like Dailykos, and Josh Marshall's Talking points memos, the mainstream media is treating this story as a non-story. Anyway, seeing your political leanings, I thought you might be interested.

Oh no, pathetic loser can alter my statements in his "Quotes" because he too sad to be a man...

Craig,
You might want to check out this website:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

The fight isn't over yet. There are people trying to find out the truth. My personal opinion? I think they managed to steal another election. I have a problem believing 51% of the voters actually think this administration is doing a good enough job to keep doing what their doing. Looks like we aren't the only ones. Although I've heard about this on Air America and several blogs, like Dailykos, and Josh Marshall's Talking points memos, the mainstream media is treating this story as a non-story. Anyway, seeing your political leanings, I thought you might be interested.

Well, if it turns out that there were irregularities, but it didn't affect the election, I'd STILL want to get the problems fixed. There should be no toleration of fixable mistakes.

However, I have nothing but contempt for politicians who play partisan games with voting. The Republicans in Washington state are complaining about Democrats suing to get a look at provisional votes (so the Dems can contact the voters in question to get them to confirm that they are, indeed, legit). That's not the problem...the problem is that the Republicans here are allowed to examine provisional votes in other counties and are taking advantage of the ability in those other counties. (And they have the nerve to say that Democrats are not playing fairly....)

Roger,
Well, if it turns out that there were irregularities, but it didn't affect the election, I'd STILL want to get the problems fixed. There should be no toleration of fixable mistakes.

I agree. Right now (and I'm not sure of any exact figure) but there is a large percentage of people out there who don't think this election was properly counted. There are quite a number of irregularities in many states. (Especially those with the electronic voting machines without paper back-up). This is a non-partisan issue. Both sides should want to ensure we have an election with a true accounting of each vote.

By the way, I live in WA state, and the Dems are able to have a look. They judge found no reason why they shouldn't. Especially since many counties were already open to ispection.

inspection, not ispection

I post so many typos you all must think I am illiterate at times.

You might want to check out this website

I've heard of the site. I also heard that the founder of that did some interview with Dean or something and she showed how easy it was to manipulate the vote.

I think I might've mentioned this, but I read an article in Florida about voter registration vs voter turnout. And how the touch machines look fine, but it's the optical read ballots that seem odd.
People want to dismiss these results as nothing more than "Southern Democrats", but Florida isn't the South that everybody thinks they know and love. Nor can it be so easily explained when the results are not even across the board.

My personal opinion? I think they managed to steal another election. I have a problem believing 51% of the voters actually think this administration is doing a good enough job to keep doing what their doing.

Ah, yes. Your opinion is just so right that a majority of the people in the country couldn't possibly have done something different.

The election is over and conceded. I agree that if there are problems they should be fixed, but denial doesn't help.

Seems Novafan has left the building, so this is probably going to be like talking to the wind. Which, come to think of it, isn't all that different when he's lurking around.

Anyway, Novafan brings the issue of abortion into our discussion of whether it's ok or not to kill a known terrorist in cold blood. AKA murder. And let me start by saying that, when the person you're discussing something with brings a totally unrelated subject into the conversation, trying to make a "how can you do THIS when you also do THAT" point, it usually means that they're run into something that you've raised that they know they can't rebut, so they try a "bait and switch" tact.

Again, anyway, Novafan starts to make my point for me. We started out talking about whether it was ok to kill Osama Bin Laden when he's sitting calmly in a room, not threatening anyone. Now Novafan's talking about taking away Bin Laden's rights, and comparing that to allowing abortion.

See, he's changing the situation. The whole point about not being able to just kill Bin Laden, or any prisoner, is that people as individuals shouldn't have that authority. That's why we have governments, entrusted with the authority to decide when an individual has forfeited their basic human rights, such as freedom, liberty, and life. If just anyone could make that decision, we'd be spiraling down into anarchy.

And by the way, Novafan, I'll thank you to not make assumptions about me. I don't think I've spoken to the issue of abortion on these boards before, and neither have I made a delcaration of party affiliation, so please, when you're ressponding to something I've said, don't make those assumptions. I hope it comes as a surprise to you that my feelings about abortion mirror yours in many ways.

"The overwhelming majority of Bush supporters did not list "moral values" as the biggest factor in their vote. In one exit poll of about 13,000 voters from both parties, 22% listed "moral values" as the number one factor. Of that 22%, 80% voted for Bush. (Source: NY Times, 11/3/04) A fraction of 22% (even a large fraction) is still less than 22%. (We can also factor in a rather wide margin of error, since we know how "accurate" this exit poll was -- but let's take it at face value for a moment.) Even if every single one of that 22% voted for Bush, that leaves at least 78% -- which is in fact an overwhelming majority -- of Bush voters naming some other issue as the most important to them in the election. (Source: New York Times, 11/3/04)"

Captain Math asks me to point out that there is severe math abuse going on here.

If 22% of all voters (based on the sample) voted based on "moral values", and 80% of those moral voter values went for Bush, then 17.6% of all voters voted for Bush based on moral values. Does that mean that 82.4% of folks voted for Bush on reasons besides moral values? Nope, because about 49% of voters didn't vote for Bush at all. About 51% voted for him... which means that more than a third of the folks who voted for Bush (again, assuming the sample is an accurate one) did so based on "moral values". It also means that if you take out the "moral value" votes for both sides, Kerry beats Bush handily in the popular vote, making this arguably a "swing" issue.

Captain Sociologist also idly wonders why some many folks are taking the exit poll info as accurate as to demographics and as inaccurate when it comes to representing how people actually voted.

Captain Sociologist also idly wonders why some many folks are taking the exit poll info as accurate as to demographics and as inaccurate when it comes to representing how people actually voted.

Screwing with the polls (on principle)?

Mark,
I stated MY opinion. I did not try and say it was fact. I find it hard to believe. I'm still allowed my opinion, aren't I? Or in this new America do I have to think the way the "majority" does to be allowed to speak. I don't think anything will come of it for this election. Bush will be inaugurated in January. Yay for your side. But, I'd like to make damn sure that the next election is truly the will of the people instead of the voting machines.

Posted by Glenn Hauman:
"Captain Sociologist also idly wonders why some many folks are taking the exit poll info as accurate as to demographics and as inaccurate when it comes to representing how people actually voted."

This is an example of the lazy media (hey, I'm counting myself in that group). You have to look at where the exit polls are taking place, mostly in urban (city) centers. Reporters and the like don't really want to stray far from the comforts of home, and home is the cities.

It reminds me of what happened here in NC several years ago. Jesse Helms was running for reelection against Charlotte businessman Harvey Gant. It was a horribly nasty campaign from both candidates, and ALL of the polls (both pre and exit polling) showed Gant with quite a large lead. But, in actual votes, Helms won easily. This is because the pollsters didn't go out from the urban centers to the small towns and rural areas where Helms was very popular (because he actually worked for these people, unlike a soon-to-be former senator from NC).

Karen says

"I stated MY opinion. I did not try and say it was fact. I find it hard to believe. I'm still allowed my opinion, aren't I? Or in this new America do I have to think the way the "majority" does to be allowed to speak."

See, I think this is one reason why the left lost. You state an opinion, mark mocks it and you respond in a way that implies he is trying to in some way strip you of your right to speak. Straw man argument, all the way.

Like the boy who cried wolf, if people insist on treating disagreement as equal to censorship it will become easier for the true censors to get away with it.

I stated MY opinion. I did not try and say it was fact. I find it hard to believe. I'm still allowed my opinion, aren't I? Or in this new America do I have to think the way the "majority" does to be allowed to speak. I don't think anything will come of it for this election. Bush will be inaugurated in January. Yay for your side. But, I'd like to make damn sure that the next election is truly the will of the people instead of the voting machines.

You have the right to speak and I never claimed otherwise. You are the one throwing out accusations of election stealing based on polling data, though, and saying that "the fight isn't over yet". You can cloak it by saying it's an opinion, but if I say my opinion that John Kerry was a traitor for meeting with the North Vietnamese, you'd probably be calling it slander (BTW, just for the record I don't consider Kerry a traitor). It reminds me of what's sometimes said by the losing side in a close football game: "We won every statistic except the final score". Only one poll counts - the one on election day.

I agree with you, though, that the election process needs updating. In the last 10 years I've used three types of systems: punch-card, optical scanner (connect-the-dots), and now e-voting. Optical scanner is the best of the lot in my opinion. You get a paper trail with no confusion on chads. I imagine if optical scanners became the norm, though, we'd have problems with a lack of pens causing disenfranchisement. :)

Bill,
See, I think this is one reason why the left lost. You state an opinion, mark mocks it and you respond in a way that implies he is trying to in some way strip you of your right to speak. Straw man argument, all the way.

Key word being Mocked. I responded because it appeared as though what I said should not be aired since it was not the majority view. It wasn't right.

Mark,
I never said it was fact. Just my opinion. I also don't think anything will ever be proven. This is not just my accusation. Many people think there was something funny about this election. And even if there was no overt fraud at all, if the machines had glitches that miscounted, then there is a huge problem. (From what I understand more than a few had problems. The ones that did not appear to have anything wrong could still have performed below standard, we just don't know about it.)

I mentioned optical scanners above as the best modern tool precisely as you've said: A valid paper trail.

And the pollsters go where a majority of the people polled will be. If you have 100 urban voters and 25 rural voters then the most likely accurate statistics will be answers from the 100, not the 25. And no one is addressing Captain Sociologist's comment of why part of the poll viewed as accurate, but another is viewed inaccurate.

Karen,

Being mocked is not the same as not having the right to say things. There are those who will mock you no matter what you say. Your only reasonable option is to try to be as accurate as possible so that the mockery isn't well deserved.

At any rate, there is no logical reason to assume that being mocked means that you have lost the right to state your opinions. Mock back. Ignore it. Provide evidence. Whatever. But don't cry censorship and expect anyone to take it seriously.

As for Captain Sociologist's statement...personally I don't put much stock in ANY of the poll results. There are a thousand ways to skew them. Only one or two were good at predicting the eventual outcome. The stuff about moral issues being so important is also something to take with a grain of salt, though both sides are making hay from it. (People were given a list of options and "moral values" got the most hits--but when asked to name their own most important issue "moral values" dropped considerably as a choice).

And no one is addressing Captain Sociologist's comment of why part of the poll viewed as accurate, but another is viewed inaccurate.

You mean about "values" being the "most important concern"? Well, here's one Republican who would agree that it was not. I life in Dallas/Fort Worth and generally the number one reason(s) people in my sample area voted for Bush were 1) terrorism and 2) economy. No values came into the equation. I tend to dismiss the accuracy of values as much as I dismiss that Kerry had a lead in Ohio :)

Ah, yes. Your opinion is just so right that a majority of the people in the country couldn't possibly have done something different.

Sounds like religion - Their opinion is just so right that a majority of people in the country that thinks it right must mean it's right.

You have to look at where the exit polls are taking place, mostly in urban (city) centers.

Yet, this makes even LESS sense - because the more rural you are, the more likely to have your focus upon "moral values".

More people in urban areas are concerned with violence, with terrorism, and with the economy.

So if 20% of people said moral values, and the polls are only done in urban areas, then it's likely much higher to the total %-age of people that would cite moral values.

Sounds like religion - Their opinion is just so right that a majority of people in the country that thinks it right must mean it's right.

or like Political Correctness/Moral Relativism.

Bill,
At any rate, there is no logical reason to assume that being mocked means that you have lost the right to state your opinions. Mock back. Ignore it. Provide evidence. Whatever. But don't cry censorship and expect anyone to take it seriously.

The statement, "Your opinion is just so right that a majority of the people in the country couldn't possibly have done something different." does not require evidence. I take it to mean that since I am not among the majority my opinion is wrong. I would like to point out that since it is opinion it is not wrong or right. I would also like to point out that since it is personal opinion I do not have to back it up with facts. There are no facts. I cannot prove anything, which I have said before. I was not crying censorship. I asked a rhetorical question. I did not accuse Mark specifically. You seem to think I am being too sensitive to the mocking. Perhaps I am. Perhaps after a couple of weeks of hearing discussions about whiny liberals because we don't choose to accept our loss in the way we are told we should, I am more than a little defensive. I will not get over this election any more than Rush Limbaugh got over the election on Bill Clinton. I did not change my mind about this administration because of this election. I truly believe that history will mark this time as a dark period for the US. Again, my personal opinion.

You seem to think I am being too sensitive to the mocking. Perhaps I am. Perhaps after a couple of weeks of hearing discussions about whiny liberals because we don't choose to accept our loss in the way we are told we should, I am more than a little defensive.

On the flip side, Karen, I'm probably a bit defensive since the election hearing the talking heads (and more than a few people on this forum) wringing their hands about the stupidity of the masses in the Red States and about the intolerance of those who voted for Bush. We're tired of being insulted, too.

Truce?

Truce.

I'm not here to fight with anyone. I really like that PAD provides a forum for our thoughts and allows all sides. I loved his writing before I found this site, but have a lot of respect for what he does here. I learn things here while reading the thoughts of those who take the other sides of issues. Sometimes it crystalizes my own thoughts, sometimes I even agree and change my mind after seeing the information some bring to the conversation. (Not as often.) :)

A bit late, but my goodness this little snit from PAD was too good to pass up. Funny how the so- called "Party of Love and Understanding" can turn around and be so incredibly bigoted.

But I'll hit on a few points here.

PAD: Well, if/when the draft comes, it'd be kind of nice if only conservatives were left to send their children to die in Bush's war. All the liberals in Canada could wave bye-bye to the passing troop transports.

I absolutely disagree. I think that only those who wanted to bring back the draft in the first place -- the Democrats -- should be forced to send their children to war.

This entire draft thing has been a massive myth that the liberal left -- and the liberal media -- has persisted in spreading. Bush is against the draft. The Republicans are against the draft. The military is against the draft. The only people who wanted to bring back the draft were all left-wing lunatics and Democrats. Kerry was far more likely to bring back the draft than Bush ever was.

Secondly ...

This cute little tidbit from that snit that was posted:

... that if Canada could just give up a strip of land along the northern
border of North Dakota and Montana, we could build a "Freedom Trail"

A cute little pipe dream. That particular stretch of Canada is Red Country and would've went overwhelming to Bush if they were USA states. Take out Quebec and Canada is just as evenly split in the Conservative/Liberal spectrum as the USA is. A little bit more to the left, but it's not quite the socialist paradise that many people think it is.

You'd be better off seceding to Europe instead.

But ah well. You lost. I won. I'm glad that the public did not buy all the lies that the mainstream media tried to cram down our throats those last few months. That really restores my confidence in the intelligence of the American population.

Now we need to do something about the brain-washed 47%.

Starving Writer posted: "Now we need to do something about the brain-washed 47%.

You mean you believe that the other 4% of Bush's voters voted for him of their own accord? :D

(Yes, I'm just kidding -- but I couldn't resist such a wide opening!)

Let's not forget what the leftists and the Democrats did in the period before the election.

- Had a "neutral" TV station all but reveal its liberal bias when they "revealed" memos designed to smear the President of the U.S.A. Too bad those memos were proved fake by the blogsphere in 15 minutes flat.

- Attempt to bring back the draft, then claim that the Republicans were doing it. Take a closer look at the two "bills" that tried to bring back the draft. All of them were co-sponsored by Democrats. The bill that was passed up in the House lost overwhelming. Only two Representatives voted for it. Both were Democrats. Bush, Republicans, and the U.S. Military all steadfastily stated that they would *not* bring back the draft. And yet this somehow became an issue thanks to a certain rather biased newsanchor.

- Protestors shot up various RNC headquarters around the nation. I have yet to hear of one instance where Republicans or righties tried to shoot up a DNC headquarter. It seems as if most of the lunatics were on the Democrats' side.

- Some cute "pranksters" tossed pies at Ann Coulter when she was giving a speech. When's the last time a Republican threw anything at any of the many celebrity leftist asshats out there? God knows Michael Moore certainly deserves having several pies tossed his way. Of course he probably would've taken it as a compliment or devoured them before they hit the ground.

- A Democrat tried to drive over Katherine Harris, the ex-Secretary of State of Florida. He thankfully failed. Not one single Republican lowered themselves to attempted murder. Too bad you Democrats can't say the same thing.

- The very existence of Michael Moore and his crockumentary. The fact that otherwise rational human beings actually gobble up his bullshit then ask for more. No, wait, actually, you leftists keep Michael Moore. I honestly believe that he played a massive part in handing Florida and Ohio over to President Bush. As long as Moore is around, the Republicans will continue to pile up victories after victories.

Here's to another landslide in 2006, and a new Republican president in 2008! (Oh, please please please nominate Hillary in 2008 -- The Republicans could put up a boiled cabbage and it would still beat Hillary in a landslide.)

- The very existence of Michael Moore and his crockumentary. The fact that otherwise rational human beings actually gobble up his bullshit then ask for more. No, wait, actually, you leftists keep Michael Moore.

Well, yeah, the right has had Rush Limbaugh. Fair's fair, I guess.

"Protestors shot up various RNC headquarters around the nation. I have yet to hear of one instance where Republicans or righties tried to shoot up a DNC headquarter. It seems as if most of the lunatics were on the Democrats' side."

There was at least one incidence where the headquarters of the Democrats was shot at--don't have the details right now but I remember seeing it.

I'd agree that the violence was mostly fromt he left though I think one should fairly point out that it may well have been more from the anarchist fringe than from true liberals. I would no more blame liberals for the actions of the anarchist fringe than I would want conservatives to be tarred by what some separatist militia group does.

You know, thinking about the "let's split away and make our own country! Mom could make the costumes and my dad has lumber!" fantasy; a good number of the "blue" states didn't go to Kerry by a whole lot. How is the new country of FONAS going to ensure that a shift of just a few percent in the electorate doesn't turn a state into one of (shudder) THEM? Re-education camps? Loyalty oaths? Come to think of it, would FONAS even be a democracy? Founded on specific political values, would it risk having a mere majority potentially alter those values?

And bang, right away I find a potential solution-- from alleged "humorist" Garrison Keillor in an article found at http://maroon.uchicago.edu/news/articles/2004/11/07/npr_star_keillor_tel.php

"Not one to shy away from speaking his mind, Keillor proposed a solution to what he deemed a fundamental problem with U.S. elections. “I’m trying to organize support for a constitutional amendment to deny voting rights to born-again Christians,” Keillor smirked. “I feel if your citizenship is in Heaven—like a born again Christian’s is—you should give up your citizenship. Sorry, but this is my new cause. If born again Christians are allowed to vote in this country, then why not Canadians?”

Oh my sides! The article describes "tears of laughter" rolling down the sides of the audiences cheeks. No word on whether or not they ended the festivities by rampaging through the downtown area smashing the windows of any Republican owned shops.

FONAS Uber Alles!

Well, yeah, the right has had Rush Limbaugh. Fair's fair, I guess.

Okay, I can't believe I'm goig to stand up for Rush considering I grew tired of him over a decade ago. However, one important difference between Rush and Michael Moore is that Rush doesn't present his show as a "news" show the way Michael Moore presents his films as "documentaries". Rush says point blank that his primary intent is to entertain.

Other talk show hosts (Hannity comes to mind) don't bother making that distinction.

Now we need to do something about the brain-washed 47%.

Yeah, we 47% have been brainwashed by an Administration reveling in the New Evangelical Kingdom.

I think you got the wrong %-age there being brainwashed.

Btw, does anybody else think it's pathetic on the part of the right that they literally spit on Michael Moore, yet defend ultra-bitch Ann Coulter as if she's the Second Coming?

You think some of us, and Michael Moore, have a particular distain for the right. But if Clinton died tomorrow, Coulter would be there to piss on his grave.

"Btw, does anybody else think it's pathetic on the part of the right that they literally spit on Michael Moore, yet defend ultra-bitch Ann Coulter as if she's the Second Coming?"

Well for starters, "literally" means he has actually been spat upon. If that happened, shame on whoever did it (hell, write them up for assault, no telling what they might be carrying).

Since I have not spit on Mr Moore, that being far more energy expending than I think he is worth, and I got tired of Ann Coulter about 2 weeks after I first heard her, I guess I am not a member of the right. And the left won't have me. I feel forlorn.

I think you got the wrong %-age there being brainwashed.

and

You think some of us, and Michael Moore, have a particular distain for the right.

I wonder why we would think that.....

Karen,
While I too would like to see a paper trail with electronic voting machines - which I detest - you are really going over the top here. Let's look at some of the statements that have you so hot and bothered, okay?

KAREN: My personal opinion? I think they managed to steal another election. I have a problem believing 51% of the voters actually thnk this administration is doing a good enough job to keep doing what they're doing.

MARK L:Ah, yes. Your opinion is so right that a majority of people couldn't possibly have done something different.

Karen, you're not "merely stating an opinion here". A pure opinion would be "Bush sucks", "PAD's latest NF book is the best ever" or "chocolate rules".
You are not doing that. You are accusing people of committing a crime and trying to delegitimize a freaking national election for President. If there were actually strong evidence, fine. But there's not. Just your feeling that the majority of the country MUST agree with you. That's what Mark L was trying to say. Reread the damn post. He's not saying you have to side with the majority. He's pointing out that because the evidence/vote counts don't jibe with your way of thinking the election must have been "stolen". That is an acuusation you made, so don't play the victim.

KAREN: I responded because it appeared that what I said should not be aired because it was not the majority view"

Wrong. He was simply responding to your outrageous assertion that because the electon did not go the way you wanted it to, there must be some foul play, snce you have a hard time believing a majority of people don't think the same way you do.

KAREN: I would also like to point out that because it is my personal opinion I do not have to back it up with facts.

What are you? Five? No, Karen, you don't. But it would sure give your accusations and/or your opinions in this case a bit more legitimacy, rather than being viewed as playing the victim and being paranoid, strident, delusional, partisan, drowning in sour grapes, arrogant and elitist.

This is what most people don't get. You are entiltled to your opinion. You are not entitled to have your opinions respected or even taken seriously. Al opinions do not have equal weight.

I wonder why we would think that.....

I don't hide it. But the point is that those on the right point fingers and then try to hide when the focus is upon them.

Moore shows his distain with facts, yet right-wingers then just say to be nothing but a freak show, that he must be full of lies.

Coulter ought to look at her own ugly mug in the mirror some time if she wants to see a real freak.

Couple those "opinions" toward people like Moore, with the Bush Administration's bs, and it's no wonder that the people don't know the truth.

I find it sad that this discussion has now devolved into, "Your side has more freaks than our side does."

While I decided to throw my support in with the Kerry camp this election, I have never joined either political party because inter-party debates always seem to end up in name-calling discussions like this.

I have heard plenty of stories about bricks being thrown threw windows that had Bush posters or cars with Kerry stickers being keyed. This was a particularly contentious election and many people did take it way too far. But I don't think these people are indicative of what the vast majority of members of either party are like, anymore than I think Michael Moore or Anne Coulter are indicative of typical Democrats or Republicans.

Most Democrats and Republicans are decent, hard-working Americans who just want to pay their bills and take care of their families. I know that's a shocking idea to some here, but it's true. I think a lot people need to remember that for the next election.

Is it true that Canada is "a land that tilts more to the left than the United States" as reported by reuters?

Isn't Alaska more to the left than Canada? But then again doesn't Alaska tilt more to the right? Something to ponder. :0)

Here's a support site I found:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html

Craig said Moore shows his distain with facts.

That has to be one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. Stop it, you're killing me. LOL

Keep going Craig, and soon it will be one enemy of freedom down with millions to go...

Bladestar said Keep going Craig, and soon it will be one enemy of freedom down with millions to go.

LMAO @ Bladestar. He actually wishes me and others ill will.

Gee, imagine that.

I feel pretty free, Bladestar, as I'm sure others in the so called "millions" that you refer to do also.

Canada has great beer. You and Craig should get together sometime if you're legally old enough to drink that is.

Scratch that Bladestar, don't get together and drink. Beer is a depressant, of which, you don't need right now. The best thing to do is breathe deeply and count to 10. You can use your fingers if you want to. :0)

For those who still believe Saddam wasn't connected with terrorists:

"WASHINGTON — Money from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program (search) helped pay the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, the House Committee on International Relations is expected to reveal Wednesday during a hearing on corruption in the Iraqi relief program."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138759,00.html

Here's a liberal site reporting similar items so you can't say it's made up by Fox.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/15/food.for.oil.ap/index.html

So, how many of you still believe it was the wrong war at the wrong time?

Novafan said...
So, how many of you still believe it was the wrong war at the wrong time?

I do.

But that's not why I'm posting. What part of the CIC Canada website are you drawing attention to, and why? I must confess I'm not sure what you're pointing out.

Moore shows his distain with facts

Disdain with facts or disdain for facts?

Craig,
First of all, it's DISDAIN. Not DISTAIN. I don't even think DISTAIN is a word.

"BTW, does anybody else think it's pathetic on the part of the right that they literally spit on Michael Moore, yet defend ultra-bitch Ann Coulter as if she's the second Coming"

No, what I find pathetic

1.) Is that you have to ask for support from others, as if the more people who agree with your opinion the more truthful or witty your statement is

2.) That you actually think think the right LITERALLY spit on Michael Moore, meaning someone actually did. If so, I would love to hear/read it

3.)That you're willing to believe all of Michael Moore's bullshit because you hate the Administration so much

4.) That you speak in generalities and stereotype "the right" as "defending" Ann Coulter as if she's the second Coming
A.) I love Ann Coulter. A lot. But Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review fired her after he thought she went over the line. Honest, Craig, all of "the Right" don't think alike

It's also pathetic

5.) That you would continue to bring up Coulter when no one else did, and that you continue to bash her books when you have not read them. I actually read three of Moore's books. Some of the content was funny opinion, some were things that made me think and some were easily debunked lies. I also have seen "Fahrenheit 9/11". This way, I actually know what I'm talking about when I criticize.
Unlike you when you criticize Ann Coulter.

It's pathetic that
6.) You have to stoop to calling a woman you don't agree with a "bitch"

7.) You are constantly negative anymore. You weren't always this way. Yet now you're almost as nasty as Bladestar. Isn't there anything in this country you're happy about or grateful for? No jokes or sarcasm. I'm serious.

Finally, it's pathetic that you state
8.) "an Administration riveting (I believe you meant reveling, but what the hey)in the New Evangelical Kingdom".

This is really ridiculous. Yeah, a bunch of people with a point of view different than yours actually voted and exercised some power. How dare they!
If Blacks tipped the balance for Bush, would you talk about a New African Kingdom"? If Hispanics, which actually voted in great percentages for Bush this time and definitely helped tip the balance, were focused on, would you be fearful of a New Mexican Kingdom? I mean, a majority of Hispanics are - gasp - religious, so you could bash two birds with one stone that way?
Do you have any idea what your blatant disdain for those who hold different points of view from you - ESPECIALLY if they're religious - looks like? Hate and intolerance, pure and simple.
In short, it's pathetic.

I love Ann Coulter. A lot. But Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review fired her after he thought she went over the line. Honest, Craig, all of "the Right" don't think alike

And not all of the Left, either; so bringing up Moore as a symbol of the Left should be about as effective as bringing up Limbaugh--I take 'em both equally seriously. And in fact, you can't really point at one person to personify the ideology of either side...

Jeff said What part of the CIC Canada website are you drawing attention to, and why? I must confess I'm not sure what you're pointing out.

Did you go to the site Jeff? It's the immigration site that has been frequented in the last 10 days or so. Did I get the address wrong?

Yes, but unlike you religio-fascists dirtbags, we're fighting for freedom for everyone, while you're trying to get your ignorant religious beliefs turned into laws that limit everyone, not just yourselves.

Keep you religion to your self! Not everybody believes all that garbage.

Novafan wrote...
It's the immigration site that has been frequented in the last 10 days or so. Did I get the address wrong?

Nope, I must just be missing the part where it's newsworthy. Not surprising...I don't reckon you'd find the immigration section of your government's website engrossing either =)

Let me toss this into the mix:

The GOP has been claiming that the election results show that most of the country is now behind the Bush administration. I've done some rough math, and I don't see the numbers supporting that claim.

I've seen that there are an estimated 186 million American voters. 59.5 million voted for Bush. Close to 56 million voted for Kerry. That leaves about 71 million Americans who voted for neither.

Can someone explain to me how less than 1/3 supports a claim of "most?" And I don't buy the explanation of "when the GOP says that, they mean a majority of voters." Bushites are claiming that they've got the support of the country now, and I really don't see it. They won the election by a margin of around 2% of all eligible voters. Where I come from, that's not considered a huge margin of victory.

kingbob,

If you accept that reasoning, then no president ever has support of much of the country. Most presidential election turnouts the last few years have been in the 40% range - meaning only 20% might have supported some candidate.

However, votes translate into power. If people don't vote, that's their own problem. Bush has the support of most of the people who count - the ones who show up at the polls.

So, how many of you still believe it was the wrong war at the wrong time?

I do. Where's the connection to 9/11?

Whenever you have to resort to juggling the stats to show that the guy who beat you really didn't beat you, if you look at it a certain way, it's time to take up a new hobby. It's like saying that your foootball team, which lost by 7 points, actually WON if you look at things like how many yards they rushed and who held onto the ball longer and who has the more stylish helmet design and which quarterback has the prettiest wife, anything but the actual final score.

I said: It reminds me of what's sometimes said by the losing side in a close football game: "We won every statistic except the final score". Only one poll counts - the one on election day.

Bill said: It's like saying that your foootball team, which lost by 7 points, actually WON if you look at things like how many yards they rushed and who held onto the ball longer and who has the more stylish helmet design and which quarterback has the prettiest wife, anything but the actual final score.

Hmm, where have I heard that before :)

Mark L.:

Yep. Mind, I'm not saying Bush didn't win, or that he has the support of a majority of voters. In a way, I'm splitting hairs, by putting a lot of stock into words. Which, if the fours have taught me anything, you'd think I'd have learned not to do.

The point I was trying to make was that the Bush administration is laying claim to something they can't prove with numbers. At best, the "majority of Americans" are ambivilent when it comes to his government. They didn't vote, either for him or against him.

I think a true test of where our current government is will be in 2 years. If things lean heavily republican there, I think that'll show a trend that we are swinging conservative. I'm not convinved yet that we are.

And even so, I wish some GOP supporters would stop trying to tell Democrats and liberals that they are "wrong." Last I checked, the Senate still needs 6 additional voted before they can really get anything done, meaning that they are going to have to accomodate 6 democratic votes for everything they want to get done, assuming we don't start to see splintering within the GOP. A lot of promises were made this election, and people are going to expect making good on those promises.

In other news, does anyone feel safer now that Russia has announced that they are developing new ICBMs? I sure do.

No, wait, actually, I don't....

The bottom line is, what people who didn't vote think is completely irrelevent. If you couldn't get off your ass on the one day that our voice really counts and make yourself heard, why should anyone care whether you support the president or not?

Personally, I think everyone between the ages of 18 and 27 who didn't bother to vote should be immediately drafted and shipped out to Iraq. Maybe they'll take their right to vote seriously next tim.

You and Craig should get together sometime if you're legally old enough to drink that is.

Now that's a good one. But then, I've heard it before. Best defense is a bad assumption?

Now I'll make an assumption of my own: Do you have the iq of a Bush or a monkey? Oh, wait, those are the same thing. Maybe they need to stop letting you out of the zoo.

and that you continue to bash her books when you have not read them.

You know, it's funny, but I don't think I ever said whether I had read her books or not.

But, no, I haven't. And until the last few days, I hadn't read/watched anything from Michael Moore either - I still don't care for him and some of his tactics, but he at least knows the truth.

I have read some of Coulter's editorials, and they are so far off base it's downright sad.

would you be fearful of a New Mexican Kingdom?

Drag me over the coals for this one, but I've called the illegal immigration of Hispanics into this country a "passive invasion".
Thankfully, the states, blue and red alike, are starting to wake up and take notice of the fact that our federal gov't isn't going to do shit about it.

Do you have any idea what your blatant disdain for those who hold different points of view from you - ESPECIALLY if they're religious - looks like? Hate and intolerance, pure and simple.

So, I see that a gay marriage amendment meets your approval then? That that isn't intolerance?

Try looking to your own side of the fence sometime before bitching about what my yard looks like.

I'll say it again, for the umpteeth time: it is my opinion that the people that voted for Bush show a general display of ignorance and stupidity that makes me wonder why any of us try at all. That this country isn't worth it, because it's being run into the ground by a bunch of people who are only good a running a propoganda machine of intolerance and ignorance.

Take it or leave it.

Btw, wake me when the right-wingers realize how much DISDAIN they show for gays, liberals, and anybody else that doesn't agree with their God-enforcing "philosophies".

Personally, I think everyone between the ages of 18 and 27 who didn't bother to vote should be immediately drafted and shipped out to Iraq. Maybe they'll take their right to vote seriously next tim.

(sarcasm)
Heaven forbid we send good and honest Republicans to fight and die for what our leaders believe in!
(/sarcasm)

From Den: "The bottom line is, what people who didn't vote think is completely irrelevent. If you couldn't get off your ass on the one day that our voice really counts and make yourself heard, why should anyone care whether you support the president or not?

Personally, I think everyone between the ages of 18 and 27 who didn't bother to vote should be immediately drafted and shipped out to Iraq. Maybe they'll take their right to vote seriously next tim. (sic)"

Makes me wonder, why just 18 and 27?

Don't you think you're making a broad assumption about those 71 million who didn't vote? And just look at that number. Since they nearly form a true majority, I'd really think twice before I went about kicking that bee hive.

I do know a few people who abstained. And yes, in most voting cultures, absination is a valid voting choice. Some don't vote because they truly feel that their vote doesn't count. Even if their "side" wins, they don't really have any say or control over that elected official, so why bother? Also, I've heard many people didn't vote because neither Kerry nor Bush represented a candidate they could support.

As to your drafting idea, I'd much rather put the people who voted for Bush in line for the draft before anyone else. In fact, anyone who supported Bush and his attack on Iraq that's not already contributed a body to the military should volunteer to do so. I mean, if they so clearly support the idea that we should go around attacking nations that we think are going to be threats some time in the future, there's a recruiter near you that'd be delighted to see you.

I say this in jest, but with no small amount of trepidation. I was the guy, after the 2000 election, who shrugged and said "how bad can it get? Bush only has 4 years to screw things up. We'll be able to fix anything that he breaks."

Now, I'm not so sure there's going to be anything left to fix...

Craig:
Coulter ought to look at her own ugly mug in the mirror some time if she wants to see a real freak.

Ann Coulter may be a lot of things but "ugly" isn't one of them. She is a little too skinny for my personal tastes.

(Yeah, I know. I can't stay away. Just like everything else in life that's probably bad for you, PeterDavid.net is addictive too.)

Btw, wake me when the right-wingers realize how much DISDAIN they show for gays, liberals, and anybody else that doesn't agree with their God-enforcing "philosophies".

Will do. Right after the left-wingers realize how much DISDAIN they show for conservative Christians and anyone else who doesn't agree with their God-excluding "philosophies."

Jim in Iowa

Right after the left-wingers realize how much DISDAIN they show for conservative Christians and anyone else who doesn't agree with their God-excluding "philosophies."

Yeah, damn those left-winger Founding Fathers of ours.

You want to preach? Do it from an altar, not a press podium.

"Personally, I think everyone between the ages of 18 and 27 who didn't bother to vote should be immediately drafted and shipped out to Iraq. Maybe they'll take their right to vote seriously next time."

You know...that's an intriguing notion. Reinstitute the draft, from ages 18 to 35, except voting in a national election earns you an exemption. Watch the voting rate skyrocket.

And Jim...just an observation: The liberal left believes the country is metaphorically going to hell because we don't believe in Bush. The religious right believes I, and others like me, are literally going to hell because we don't believe in Jesus. When it comes to arrogance and disdain, we can't come close to you guys.

And for anyone who wonders why I have political discussions here...look at the response rate to just about any other blog entry, as opposed to this one.

PAD

Makes me wonder, why just 18 and 27?

Because that's the age of registration for selective service and the age of the coveted "youth vote" that Puff Daddy (who apparently didn't vote himself) and the media hyped as being key to this election, but turned out to be nothing.

I am so sick and tired of the "waa waa, my vote doesn't count," bullshit. If you'd pull your ass away from the X-box and actually vote, it would count.

As for sending the Bush supporters off to Iraq: Absolutely, let them put their money where their mouth is. Let's start with the Bush twins. Sending them both to Iraq should make up for daddy ditching out on Vietnam.

"As for sending the Bush supporters off to Iraq: Absolutely, let them put their money where their mouth is. Let's start with the Bush twins. Sending them both to Iraq should make up for daddy ditching out on Vietnam."

I've heard this sentiment expressed any number of times. While it's an entertaining notion, I think we all know it's simply not feasible. First, not only would you be sending them, you'd have to send about two dozen secret service guys with them. And even then, it's simply not worth the risk, because if one or both of them gets captured, then--to paraphrase Jed Bartlet--we no longer have a commander in chief. We have a father who's out of his mind with worry because his little girl is in a hut somewhere in Iraq with a gun to her head. No one needs that.

PAD

Will do. Right after the left-wingers realize how much DISDAIN they show for conservative Christians and anyone else who doesn't agree with their God-excluding "philosophies."

Um....you DO realize that many left wingers ARE Christians? And, in fact, base their philosophies on Christian doctrines?

It may not be the same doctrines that you count as important, but's let's not show the disdain for their principles that you claim to dislike.

And for anyone who wonders why I have political discussions here...look at the response rate to just about any other blog entry, as opposed to this one.

Maybe this theory can apply to your books as well? Maybe people will buy your books just so they can vehemently disagree with them. You certainly seem to have an audience for your political thoughts. I say you put them in a comic and charge us $2.95 for it!

Mark L.

Great minds think alike and all. Also, I have no short term memory.

I also have no short term memory.

We have a father who's out of his mind with worry because his little girl is in a hut somewhere in Iraq with a gun to her head. No one needs that.

And yet, it makes you wonder how many families are going through exactly this, PAD.

I've heard this sentiment expressed any number of times. While it's an entertaining notion, I think we all know it's simply not feasible. First, not only would you be sending them, you'd have to send about two dozen secret service guys with them.

No way. Send them out with nothing but the standard equipment every other GI gets. Let them tool around Fallujah in a Humvee with no body armor with the common grunts. Bush can afford to buy them nightvision goggles. He's forced many other families to buy them for their sons.

And even then, it's simply not worth the risk, because if one or both of them gets captured, then--to paraphrase Jed Bartlet--we no longer have a commander in chief. We have a father who's out of his mind with worry because his little girl is in a hut somewhere in Iraq with a gun to her head. No one needs that.

That's exactly what we do need. If Bush is too wussy to make the sacrifices he's demanding of every other family in America, then he can just tell Dick to swallow a couple of nitroglycerin tablets and make the tough decisions. After all, Dick's daughter is safe. She's already passed the "don't ask, don't tell" stage.

And yet, it makes you wonder how many families are going through exactly this, PAD.

Those families don't have access to the nuclear codes, though.

Den said: "I am so sick and tired of the "waa waa, my vote doesn't count," bullshit. If you'd pull your ass away from the X-box and actually vote, it would count."

Wow, there goes the point, whizzing right by you.

I made no reference to folks who, through apathy or laziness, fail to vote. I mentioned people who choose not to vote. Some of these folks think that, when presented with the choice of a punch to the jaw or a knee to the groin, choose "none of the above."

Keep you religion to your self! Not everybody believes all that garbage.

Not everyone believes your ideology, either. I don't think it's fair to ask other people to shut up unless you're willing to do the same.

Although I know that in many cases, the right and left can be divided along lines of religious and non-religious...as a religious Democrat, I don't feel that the label is an oxymoron, or that the terms have to be mutually exclusive. There is a lot more grey in this world then people seem to be painting...

kingbobb said As to your drafting idea, I'd much rather put the people who voted for Bush in line for the draft before anyone else. In fact, anyone who supported Bush and his attack on Iraq that's not already contributed a body to the military should volunteer to do so. I mean, if they so clearly support the idea that we should go around attacking nations that we think are going to be threats some time in the future, there's a recruiter near you that'd be delighted to see you.

How about all of the Kerry supporters get their girls pregnant and have them get a partial birth abortion. Fair's fair right?

Craig wrote: Yeah, damn those left-winger Founding Fathers of ours.

You want to preach? Do it from an altar, not a press podium

Say what? The very foundation of freedom of religion came from a country that was predominantly Christian. This was not a concept that was imposed by a "left winger" Thomas Jefferson, but was a concept that a large number of pastors preached from the pulpit (we don't preach from an altar at my church ;-) ).

Name me a single country that has as much freedom as we do that did not have Christian roots? Greece was not free. Only the wealthy men could vote. Muslim countries are not free. The very ideas of enlightenment came in the context of a Christian world view. It was Christian nations and Christian leaders who were at the forefront of liberating slaves (there were others who favored freeing slaves, but they never had the organization or moral zeal that the Christians had in this effort). I am not saying that Christians have a monopoly on ideas of freedom, etc., nor that there have not been times of abuses, but historically Christian nations and cultures have allowed some of the biggest advances in human rights this world has ever seen.

I believe in the freedom of religion. That means I can be free to base my views in a religious worldview, and you are free to base yours in one that is not, or one that is a different religious worldview. We then compete for the minds and votes of others. Freedom of religion means I cannot simply write laws because the Bible says something is right or wrong apart from a vote of the people. Freedom of religion does not mean that just because the Bible agrees with my view (whether that murder is wrong, gay marriage is wrong, adultery is wrong, or slander is wrong), it cannot be made into law. Law, and the rule of law, is based ultimately on the will of the people. That is the beauty -- and the danger -- of democracy. If 70% believe gay marriage is ok, then that will become the law of the land. If 70% believe it is not, the same is true. If 70% believe slavery, or racism, is right, then you battle for their minds and try to convince them why they are wrong.

Bottom line, we ALL are allowed to preach, whether from the Press Podium or the Pulpit. That is freedom. What we are not allowed to do is to impose our will on others without going through the democratic process--as happened with making abortion legal, and as has been tried with gay marriage by judges and others.

PAD wrote: And Jim...just an observation: The liberal left believes the country is metaphorically going to hell because we don't believe in Bush. The religious right believes I, and others like me, are literally going to hell because we don't believe in Jesus. When it comes to arrogance and disdain, we can't come close to you guys.

PAD, is it disdain if I tell someone he is infected with AIDS but he refuses to accept the diagnosis? Since you believe I am wrong, then I understand you will see it as arrogance and disdain. Since I believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, then it is not disdain to tell you that you are going the wrong way and headed towards a canyon where the bridge is out (to change the metaphor), but an act of compassion.

I would point out that it was you, not I, who brought up this issue of salvation. I have not treated you with disdain, nor have I used your site as a place to "proselytize" for my faith. I have tried to understand why you and others believe as you do, and have sought to explain why I believe as I do.

I was under the impression that this was a place that was interested in the exchange of ideas, even if we disagreed. Do you consider it an act of disdian for me to simply say I disagree and why I disagree? I have found the exchanges quite challenging and helped me to think through why I hold to my positions.

I find it interesting that I answered a comment in almost the same tone and manner in which it was given. I did not attack or call names, but merely pointed out the view from the other side. I find the level of response quite enlightening.

Roger wrote: >B>Um....you DO realize that many left wingers ARE Christians? And, in fact, base their philosophies on Christian doctrines?

Um... you do realize that I specifically wrote CONSERVATIVE Christian in my response? Which would, by definition, not include a left-wing Christian?

(For those of you who seem to not understand when I use sarcasm, that was being mildly sarcastic. Hopefully not disdainful, but just answering the comment in the manner it was given.)

It may not be the same doctrines that you count as important, but's let's not show the disdain for their principles that you claim to dislike.

How, exactly, did I show disdain? I was simply mirroring a comment that was aimed at my political and religious point of view.

PAD wrote: And for anyone who wonders why I have political discussions here...look at the response rate to just about any other blog entry, as opposed to this one.

PAD, I confess, I have complained about the political nature of this site. I repent of such comments. I have found the opportunity to be challenged and to challenge others quite helpful. As much as I appreciate your views on other issues, the only other blog entry I go to first before ones like this is your "Cowboy Pete" roundup. So I retract my complaint.

I don't feel it is my perogative to bring up these issues on your site when they are not the point of the blog, so your initiating them allows me the chance to interact. So continue your political blogs--it is enlightening. (And no, I am not trying to use reverse psychology to actually get you to stop writing them! I am sincere about this!!)

Jim in Iowa

Den W. said No way. Send them out with nothing but the standard equipment every other GI gets. Let them tool around Fallujah in a Humvee with no body armor with the common grunts. Bush can afford to buy them nightvision goggles. He's forced many other families to buy them for their sons.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Kerry vote against additional funding for the troops.

I don't see Kerry's daughters volunteering to go to Iraq either. If they did, they would take a camcorder with them to get some good shots of themselves in while other people are there fighting a war. Sounds like Kerry doesn't it. Maybe they'll go to an anti-war party afterwards, jot down some information from people who say they committed war attrocities, meet with Saddam in jail, then petition Congress that all vets are War criminals and this war needs to stop now. Then they will insist to Congress that all insurgent attacks will stop as soon as we meet Saddam's demands.

Craig said Now I'll make an assumption of my own: Do you have the iq of a Bush or a monkey? Oh, wait, those are the same thing. Maybe they need to stop letting you out of the zoo.

That's really funny Craig --- Not. Don't run out and quit your day job. You need a lot of work.

Have you checked out that immigration site yet? They are looking for a few good men.

Wait, you don't qualify for that do you? See, now that was funny.

Maybe you can move to Mexico instead? Do you speak Spanish? No hable English?

I don't think they like liberals very much in Mexico though. You can still give it a try.

kingbobb said Now, I'm not so sure there's going to be anything left to fix...

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

This post isn't directed solely at you kingbobb, but at liberals in general.

How can you liberals stand living like this? Everything is negative. Everything is broken. Good grief, would you take a look at yourselves. Grow up a little bit. Why, for goodness sakes, why don't you for once hope that things will turn out ok. Why don't you hope that our President, no matter who he is, will lead our nation into greatness. Is that too much to ask?

Why do you have this fixation on the negative? Is it really that difficult for you to wish our President well? Don't you think that if he succeeds that our Country succeeds?

If you don't want every President we have, regardless if you voted for him or not, to succeed, then there's something fundamentally wrong with you. You need to take a long hard look at yourself if you want the leader of our country to fail.

ok, so nobody shoot me for putting this up, cuz i really don't use this kind of language...well, ever,and maybe i don't agree with all the rants it makes... but since it sort of followed the theme of the original post, i thought i would just throw it out there

www.fuckthesouth.com

and again, yes, its probably offensive to a lot of ppl, but isn't everything these days?

Novafan wrote...
If you don't want every President we have, regardless if you voted for him or not, to succeed, then there's something fundamentally wrong with you.

I'm sure they do want the president to succeed; however their opinions on what he should succeed at are very different from the goals he is pursuing.

Nobody's obligated to hope someone succeeds at something when they fundamentally disagree with what that person is doing. I'm going to get all kinds of grief for this extreme example, but German citizens in the late 30s were not obligated to root for Hitler's "policies."

Let me hit this off at the pass.

Here come the ... Conservatives attacked Clinton ... argument, so if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander right?

Wrong. For one, I didn't attack Clinton when he was in office. And two, two wrongs don't make a right.

What argument can you use besides the one I just mentioned?

Even if you didn't vote for Bush, at least you can support him now while he's still in office. Or is that too much to ask?

Jeff said I'm sure they do want the president to succeed

I think you're wrong here Jeff. Let one of these liberals speak up and say they want Bush to succeed at anything. I can't see them doing it.

Greece was not free. Only the wealthy men could vote.

Wow, somebody needs a history lesson.

Who could vote when this country was founded? It wasn't women, it wasn't non-whites.

Yep, it was wealthy, land owning white men.

So much for your Christian roots - gone to hell in a blaze of prejudice and bigotry.

Why don't you hope that our President, no matter who he is, will lead our nation into greatness.

Oh please, he's already had four years in office, and he's fucked things up pretty badly as it is, yet people reward him with another four years to fuck things up even further.

Yeah, I'm supposed to hope what exactly? That Bush quits screwing everything up and everybody over?

That he won't discriminate against gays? That he won't continue to let technological jobs get shipped overseas?
That we won't have another 9/11 when he can't even find the original target of the War on Terror in the first place? That he won't find another convenient target to invade because, again, he can't get his hands on bin Laden? Or worse, that he continues to NOT EVEN MENTION bin Laden?

I'd take another 8 years and listening to details of Clinton getting his jollies than deal with this crap from Bush.

Let one of these liberals speak up and say they want Bush to succeed at anything. I can't see them doing it.

Bush may succeed at never admitting to making any mistakes.

Novafan, I think Jeff explained it somewhat, but I think everyone on some level wants the president to succeed, just not neccessarily at the specific things he might be doing. You can want a presidency to be successful because you don't want the country to go to hell, and you don't want your own life to be hell, but that doesn't mean you just keep your complaints to yourself and support the man for doing whatever he might choose to do. When he does something you agree with, you stand by and support him. If he decides to invade China by land, well, you don't have support that too.

Slightly related, but mostly not, I am reminded of Bush's acceptance speach a few weeks back, when he said he was going to reach out to those who share his goals (in reference to the country being so partisan and divided). Well, if they already share your goals, you're not really reaching out to anyone, are you?

Alright, I'm realizing I'm over tired and in babble mode, so I'll quit now.

Monkeys.

More from Novafan: "Why do you have this fixation on the negative? Is it really that difficult for you to wish our President well? Don't you think that if he succeeds that our Country succeeds?

If you don't want every President we have, regardless if you voted for him or not, to succeed, then there's something fundamentally wrong with you. You need to take a long hard look at yourself if you want the leader of our country to fail."

Looking around in my posts...hmm, don't see anything about WANTING Bush to fail. Nope, mostly just stuff about how I don't care for the job he's doing.

Beleive me, now that he's go the job (again) I hope he proves himself to be a good leader for America. I don't WANT him to fail. I WANT him to lead this country safely and prosperously. I'm still looking for that.

Oh, and hey, would you say some guy named Hitler was successful? I mean, before the world united against him and he committed suicide?

So, I guess the answer is, no, I don't think that just because someone has a position of power, I'm obligated to support everything they do.

This, also from Novafan: "How about all of the Kerry supporters get their girls pregnant and have them get a partial birth abortion. Fair's fair right?"

Heh, there's logic for you. I could go into how this is just SO not a logical application of wanting the Bush supporters to enlist...I COULD, but I have to make myself stupider to do so...

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Kerry vote against additional funding for the troops.

Yes, you are wrong. He supported a version of the bill that included funding mechanisms for the Iraq venture. That he voted against a version he did not like should not be construed that he was against proper funding of troops in Iraq.

Um... you do realize that I specifically wrote CONSERVATIVE Christian in my response? Which would, by definition, not include a left-wing Christian?

Then please give more credit for the Christian values in the left wing. Citing it for the right wing gives the mistaken impression that Christian values are not associated with the left wing. Particularly when you term them "God excluding." (After all, they do not consider their philosophy exclusive of God).

Let one of these liberals speak up and say they want Bush to succeed at anything. I can't see them doing it.

You know, I desperately wanted the Iraq venture to succeed. To have taken down Saddam and worked with the mass population of Iraq to establish a democracy would have been a masterstroke.

But the bungling that followed, allowing the looting of the museums, the lack of attention paid to infrastructure, the wrong minded purge of the Baathists social structure (in the name of being politically correct), the severely undermanning of the military police which allowed outside terrorist elements to infiltrate, the incompetent campaign to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqui people, the lack of even bad case scenario construction....all of this, to my mind, deserves nothing but contempt and a termination of services.

I will hope for the best, but this record of incompetency is not inspiring.

Wow, somebody needs a history lesson.

Who could vote when this country was founded? It wasn't women, it wasn't non-whites.

Yep, it was wealthy, land owning white men.

So much for your Christian roots - gone to hell in a blaze of prejudice and bigotry.

I don't need a history lesson, I just need to explain my thoughts better. I agree that is where we started. But we did not stay there. Why? Because the principles used when we started laid the groundwork for women and blacks to later vote.

Christianity has not been perfect in its practice. But it has allowed a lot of movement in the right direction. Things like slavery, racism, denying women the right to vote, were concepts that were not practiced in most countries at the time. In many regards, we led the way of reformation.

Name for me a major philosophy or religion in the 1700's that actively promoted the right of blacks or women? The bigotry of the time was the standard practice. My point is that Christianity both allowed for this reformation and in fact was often the moral foundation for such a reformation. The liberation of slaves owes much to Christianity. As I said the first time, Christianity has been used to justify abuses, as has virtually any other religion or philosophy over time. But it has also been the source of charities, hospitals, caring for the poor, liberating of slaves, accepting the equality of women, etc., over time. You must understand the evolution of cultural change that happened before judging Christians as bigots by a standard that only exists today.

Jim in Iowa

Then please give more credit for the Christian values in the left wing. Citing it for the right wing gives the mistaken impression that Christian values are not associated with the left wing. Particularly when you term them "God excluding." (After all, they do not consider their philosophy exclusive of God).

Fair enough. The God excluding referred to many on the left who do actively exclude God from anything more than a nice moral tale or fairy tale. I agree that some on the left are Christian, and even evangelical Christian (Tony Campolo would somewhat fall on that side).

If you read many of the posts on this site, you will find a strong and real disdain for Christian values. Just go back and read the disdain for my belief in prayer on this site. I have been told that I am an idiot because I believe the Bible is true. So while I have no problem agreeing that some on the left do not exclude God, there is at least a very vocal group on this site who do.

Jim in Iowa

"Since I believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, then it is not disdain to tell you that you are going the wrong way and headed towards a canyon where the bridge is out (to change the metaphor), but an act of compassion."

See, whereas I see it as an act of supreme arrogance, of self-righteous, holier-than-thou, snot-faced, wrong-headed, purblind, where-the-hell-do-you-get-off-you-Bible-thumping-yahoo, biased, prejudiced, anti-Semitic chowder-headed, lame-brained jackass intolerance.

But I only say this because I care.

PAD

If you read many of the posts on this site, you will find a strong and real disdain for Christian values. Just go back and read the disdain for my belief in prayer on this site. I have been told that I am an idiot because I believe the Bible is true. So while I have no problem agreeing that some on the left do not exclude God, there is at least a very vocal group on this site who do.

That's a fair statement to make; I would not want the spiritual impulses and motivations to be excluded or them to be disrespected merely because they ARE religious or spiritual.

Jim:
Christianity has not been perfect in its practice. But it has allowed a lot of movement in the right direction. Things like slavery, racism, denying women the right to vote, were concepts that were not practiced in most countries at the time. In many regards, we led the way of reformation.

Yes, quite progressive. What happened to all that tolerance? Churches used to be leaders of social progress in this country. Now Christians in this country seem to be more interested in political power.

Jim:
Since I believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, then it is not disdain to tell you that you are going the wrong way and headed towards a canyon where the bridge is out (to change the metaphor), but an act of compassion.

I used to live in Florida where my friends were trying that compassionate stuff with me. Your "compassion" insults my religion, by telling me I am "going the wrong way." And if I compassionatly reached out to you by telling you that you are going the wrong way and should convert to Judaism? See, some of us liberals believe in God, but don't feel the need to denigrate your religion by telling you it is wrong. That is why we have a seperation of church and state, so all people can worship as they see fit, not as you see fit.

Speaking of the twins, the Oct. 17 installment of "Opus" had the president confronting an elephant seal in his anxiety closet. He confessed it didn't make him anxious ("ya know, I'm weirdly at peace with it," he said), and they both realized there'd been an address mix-up.

But the president added that he didn't have any anxieties...

Unless it involved the twins.

Meanwhile, over at Opus' residence, the twins appear out of his anxiety closet announcing that they've enlisted, and Opus, armed with a bat to ward off the elephant seal he's expecting, finds he is "weirdly at peace with this."

Hmmn, if the offspring of a sitting president did enlist and specifically requested a combat assignment, would the request be denied because of potential concerns the commander-in-chief would become a grieving father if they were captured? Or would they not be allowed to enlist at all, because of their relationship with the president?

If it's true now, it wasn't always. Just ask Robert Lincoln who was in the Union army during the Civil War.

Rick

I have a couple of questions for the consevative Christians. I am not trying to be sarcastic, I am truly interested.

1. How will you find new converts when you seem to be so exclusionary? Examples: If you are gay, and will not live a lie for your religion; or if you believe in a woman's right to choose, but get denied communion.

2. What side of the gun control issue would Jesus lean toward? By extension, while we are on the issue of violence, what would he think of going to war with Iraq?

RE: Voting

Den,

"Because that's the age of registration for selective service and the age of the coveted "youth vote" that Puff Daddy (who aparently didn't vote himself) and the media hyped as being key to this election but turned out to be nothing"

You know, I think it's really unfair the way the media and pundits have blasted the "get out the youth" vote as a failure. While the PERCENTAGE of the overall vote stayed the same for the youth demographic, that is simply because turnout was up across ALL demographic groups. Many, many, many more young people voted this time, which is encouraging.
What is really encouraging is that they seemed to be evenly split politically, putting a lie to the theory that a greater youth vote, due to their supposed more liberal/rebellious nature, fear of a draft and "give me more money" attitude about college aid is a predominantly liberal/Democratic voting group.
Puff daddy helped get more young people to vote. They seemed to do so in a thoughtful manner. Both he, those who helped him and those who voted should be commended, not put down.

Den,
"Absolutely, put their money where their mouth is. Let's start with the Bush twins. Sending them both to Iraq should make up for daddy ditching out on Vietnam."

Gee, using this brilliant line of reasoning

A.) Anyone who serves in The National Guard is not honorably serving their country

B.) Bush actually DESERVED a "pass" as you define it, since his father was a World War II hero and actually lied to enlist EARLY

C.) Clinton should have sent Chelsea to get dragged through the streets of Somalia, since he had no problem sending other soldiers to meet that fate

Den W,
"That's exactly what we do need. If Bush is too wussy to make the sacrifices he's demanding of every other family in America..."

First, every other family in America? Last I knew, there wasn't a draft and he has not even made a huge push for "recruitment". The military is still hitting all their recruitment targets because many, believe it or not, WANT to serve.

Second, if the only way one, in your opinion, can support a position is to make it affect them personally, then I would assume that if you care about the homeless, you're more than willing to take one in your home. Forget about donating to charity! I mean, Bush is FUNDING the Iraq war. Make a real difference! The first homeless person you see on a steam grate, you should take them in your home.
You should also refrain from calling yourself an environmentalist if you use paper, drive a car to work and eat red meat. If you do any of these things, then acording to your own theory, you should be quiet.

Meanwhile, back in reality, check out http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-11-17-kerry-nest-egg_x.htm

It seems that Kerry forgot to spend 15 million dollars in his campaign. I'm certainly not as bright as Mr Nuance but I have to wonder if 15 million MIGHT have made a difference in Ohio.

Looks like the smarter guy won. Again.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Kerry vote against additional funding for the troops.

You are incorrect.

A.) Anyone who serves in The National Guard is not honorably serving their country

Never said that. I only said that he did so to avoid going to Vietnam. Of course, I don't believe that Bush's service in the guard was honorable, but I never made a general statement about anyone else in the guard. Nice try.

B.) Bush actually DESERVED a "pass" as you define it, since his father was a World War II hero and actually lied to enlist EARLY

Nope. That's why both twins should go. One for this generation and one to make up for Bush spending Vietnam on an extended coke binge.

C.) Clinton should have sent Chelsea to get dragged through the streets of Somalia, since he had no problem sending other soldiers to meet that fate

Maybe if he had, he'd have sent the troops in with better planning and equipment. Don't assume that just because I think Bush is twat that I have a tremendous love for Clinton.

First, every other family in America? Last I knew, there wasn't a draft and he has not even made a huge push for "recruitment". The military is still hitting all their recruitment targets because many, believe it or not, WANT to serve.

Then why is the army imposing a "stop loss" rule on people whose enlistment is up?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04319/411224.stm

I made no reference to folks who, through apathy or laziness, fail to vote. I mentioned people who choose not to vote. Some of these folks think that, when presented with the choice of a punch to the jaw or a knee to the groin, choose "none of the above."

No, you missed the point. If you choose not to vote, then you get what you deserve. If you choose to participate and make demands that politicians actually look out for our interests for a change, maybe your chooses will improve.

How about all of the Kerry supporters get their girls pregnant and have them get a partial birth abortion. Fair's fair right?

Wow. Talk about having nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I love how you and Jerome both try to change the subject instead of debating the issue.

I love how you and Jerome both try to change the subject instead of debating the issue.

When the "issues" are discussing forcible drafts and partial birth abortions from Bush/Kerry supporters, I think it's fair to say the conversation has gone off the deep end where the term "debate" isn't even relevant.

If you read many of the posts on this site, you will find a strong and real disdain for Christian values.

No, and this is where people like you continue to fail to see the arguments we are presenting.

A) Values are NOT exclusive to Christianity, contrary to popular belief. I've had to put up with this same garbage on another forum - not only have Christians "claimed" marriage, they've now claimed moral values as well.

What I despise is the notion that, while you claim to be of some higher moral value, Christianity still allows for discrimination and bigotry, only now instead of directly at women and blacks, it's at gays.
That people are so blasted hypocritical when it comes to quoting the Bible - take what you want, leave the rest behind.
That Christians are never wrong, and if you question their belives, you're some sort of Satanist who's going to hell. Why? Because you can't question Christians. Why can't you? Because. No reason, just because.

Yes, there is a special kind of arrogance behind all of this, and you fail to admit that as well.

From Den, quoting me: "`I made no reference to folks who, through apathy or laziness, fail to vote. I mentioned people who choose not to vote. Some of these folks think that, when presented with the choice of a punch to the jaw or a knee to the groin, choose "none of the above.'

No, you missed the point. If you choose not to vote, then you get what you deserve. If you choose to participate and make demands that politicians actually look out for our interests for a change, maybe your chooses will improve."

Remember, you suggested that people who don't vote should be drafted to remind them what their vote is about. My point is that, for some, not voting is in fact voicing your opinion. Basically stating that the parties are putting forth candidates that are not worthy of the office of president, and this not worth voting for.

You seem to think that voting is an obligation, not a right. Go check the Constitution: People have the RIGHT to vote. We aren't REQUIRED to. Chastising people because they choose note to vote makes no sense.

And I'm not responding to your comment about forced partial birth abortions (which was YOU changing the subject first) because there's no point. I've spent enough time trying to "debate" a subject which pretty clearly has no room for debate or conversation with a lot of people that I'm not going to continune it with you.

See, some of us liberals believe in God, but don't feel the need to denigrate your religion by telling you it is wrong.

For your point to be valid, then either there is no objective truth, or we can't know any objective truth. Any honest comparison of the major religions show contradictions on some key issues. They can't all be true at the same time. It is not being arrogant to say someone is right and someone is wrong, it is being intellectually honest. The responses to my post demonstrate this fact: PAD and others have no problem saying I am wrong.

If religion is just a nice "crutch," a nice intellectual way of looking at the world, then by all means, we should let people believe whatever works best for them. But if there is an objective spiritual reality (not saying we can "prove" it by physical means since by definition that would take it out of the spiritual realm), one that has rules and laws that are even deeper and more important than the laws of physics (which is a logical position if you accept there is an all-powerful, personal God who created everything), then you cannot treat religion as meaningless to daily life as whether you root for the Yankees or the Red Sox.

Rather than calling me names (PAD had a rather nice, long stream of them), why not deal with the content of what I am arguing? Why are some of you (not all) who are "liberal" unwilling to have a rational discussion about this? My original point was exactly this issue.

Jim in Iowa

David B spewed:

"Not everyone believes your ideology, either. I don't think it's fair to ask other people to shut up unless you're willing to do the same."

I think I'll use kingbobb's quote in response:

"Wow, there goes the point, whizzing right by you."

I'm not the one trying to pass laws forcing people to do anything or banning them from anything. You assholes are trying to legislate your religion,, you ARE the Taliban.

Jim, fuck your god.

Hmmm... I'm still alive.... score more points for me

That last part was aimed only at Jim in Iowa's hateful, bigotted prejudiced god. Not at Peter's jeish god or any intelligent person's god.

Thomas Jefferson, inventor, author of the Declaration of Independence, and 3rd President of the United States, weighs in...

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

"It is in our lives and not our words that our religion must be read."

"Difference of opinion is helpful in religion."

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

And two of my favorites:

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

"I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past."

"But if there is an objective spiritual reality (not saying we can "prove" it by physical means since by definition that would take it out of the spiritual realm)..."

And there in lies the problem. Your beliefs or PAD's beliefs or my beliefs can't be proven. Physically, or spiritually. If they could, everyone would agree. Basically, you have no proof that you are right, but you behave as if you were, which is what people like myself take issue with. I don't care about what you believe, what your morales and values are (and by the way, I am an atheist and I share many of the same values as, say, a christian, like not stealing, not killing, helping people, being nice and all that jazz.), I don't care until you try to impose your beliefs and will on me. Many religious types will claim to be respectful of everyone else's beliefs, but will "pray" for their souls so that they might find the "right path". It's essentially a slap in the face. Then they don't understand why those other people have a hard time taking them seriously or making an effort to understand them. It's one thing to say you are right about something when you have facts and proof, it's just obnoxious to say so when you have none or as much as anyone else.

And no, I'm not saying I'm right either. I don't try to convince people to give up their religions, I don't hope that they "come to their senses". Whatever gets you through the day and keeps you (in general you, not you specifically) from interfering with my life or stepping on my rights as a living being.

Monkeys.

then you cannot treat religion as meaningless to daily life as whether you root for the Yankees or the Red Sox.

What a silly statement. Everybody knows that Yankees fans worship the devil. :)

If you read many of the posts on this site, you will find a strong and real disdain for Christian values.

No, and this is where people like you continue to fail to see the arguments we are presenting.

On the contrary, there are very few "arguments" being used. Being called a "bigot" because I believe an action/behavior (engaging in sex with someone of the same gender) is wrong is not an argument, it is a judgment. Being called an idiot because I believe in prayer is not an argument, it is a judgment. There are some who have engaged me on the idea and argued their case, but I stated I was refering to those who simply dismissed me with disdain because they feel I am wrong.

A) Values are NOT exclusive to Christianity, contrary to popular belief. I've had to put up with this same garbage on another forum - not only have Christians "claimed" marriage, they've now claimed moral values as well.

I agree, which is why I specified "Christian" values. The Bible very clearly and explicitly says homosexual actions are wrong. You may disagree. You may say the Bible was wrong, out of date, didn't understand contemporary gay monogamy, whatever. But there is over 3,000 years of clear biblical teaching and understanding that having gay sex is wrong.

In regards to who is "moral," that is the essence of the debate. If you feel it is bigotry that I believe gay sexual behavior is wrong, then by definition you believe you are on the moral high ground. The same is true if I feel gay sex or gay marriage is wrong. Each side is doing the same thing: claiming their moral viewpoint is correct. This is not exclusively a Christian way of arguing. What is valid to say is that the current definition of a number of values is different than what it was in the past. Go back 100 years and you will not find the number of people openly living together rather than getting married as exist today. That is a marked change in a moral value. Go back 100 years and you will find, among some, an acceptance of racism. That has also changed (at least to some degree). In the case of living together, I would say it is immoral to do so. I