05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

I'm hearing this CONSTANTLY. This 'stop calling us names you hateful liberals!'

This isn't an issue of liberals vs. conservatives.

It's an issue of sane folks vs. ingorant voters. There are ignorant voters on both sides, obviously. However, Bush won partely due to a very ignorant, core base of voters.

Certain Bush supporters don't like the name calling (btw, calling someone ignorant isn't necessarily 'name calling'), then they need to justify their reasoning.

There was a lot of 'gut reaction' voting this year. That's ignorant. Both sides are guilty. Bush's Base (ie, Rove's target market) was just moreso.

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Also keep in mind that the right has used the name-calling tactic for quite a while now. The left can only 'turn their cheek' so many times before they give up in frustration. And they are going to be frustrated for at least a few weeks yet. Things will cool down soon enough. ;o)

05 Nov 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

Heh, fighting fire with fire that one I think. I don't know how helpful it is, but this kind of rhetoric has been perfected by the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter. Maybe it actually works?

I do think this is pretty much correct:

"A generation ago, the big capitalists, who have no morals, as we know, decided to make use of the religious right in their class war against the middle class and against the regulations that were protecting those whom they considered to be their rightful preyworkers and consumers."

Reagan made promises to the religious right that he could never keep in order to get elected and enact his economic policies. I cannot see Karl Rove using Bush's 'political capital' to push through repeal of Roe vs. Wade either, but I wonder what sops he will throw out. Gay marriage was a good one, nice soft target that!

05 Nov 2004 | Geoff said...

On a related note, you should watch this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/evangelicals/vote.html

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Silly Geoff, don't you know that Frontline is the work of pinko commie leftist, gay lovers?

Oh...wait...now I'm name calling. ;o)

05 Nov 2004 | matthew said...

From Tom Tomorrow's piece on the same subject: The very phrasing of Slate's question points to one problem for Democratsthey're really lousy at defining the terms of the debate to their own advantage.

05 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Ignorance: What percentage of the Bush voters believe that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11? And therefore that Bush was right to invade Iraq? Those who believe that are wrong. Demonstrably, fact-checkably wrong.

WTF? We call it like we see it.

05 Nov 2004 | GM said...

It's much simpler to just paint the opposition as backwater retards, because, theres nothing else to blame the election on.

The fraud angle is gone, so rather than accept the fact that the democratic candidate for president was pathetic (again), or that the much talked about youth turn out was a bust (again), all that seems to be left is this...

Which is pretty sad, and I'm a democrat by the way.

05 Nov 2004 | Steve said...

More Noise than Signal going on around here..

05 Nov 2004 | indi said...

"Also keep in mind that the right has used the name-calling tactic for quite a while now."

I think you see that a lot more in local elections on both sides, but this year the ultra-liberals were way over the top with their vitriolic hate for Bush and all things republican. They flooded the airwaves with it - I think that pushed a lot of the more moderate democrats over to Bush.

05 Nov 2004 | feeling blue said...

Good article. I agree wholeheartedly.

Side-rant: Religion preaches kindness and being nice to your fellow mankind. Why is it that the more hardcore religious a person is, the less tolerant they are of people who aren't like them (blacks, foreigners, gays, etc.) ? I know this is a stereotype, but in my experience it is true more often than not. What does this have to do with politics? I'm disturbed that our country is being run more and more by the "religious" right. And what have we seen? More and more aggressive action against people not like "us".

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

" I think that pushed a lot of the more moderate democrats over to Bush."

Why would a moderate 'anything' be swayed to go for Bush?

"Why is it that the more hardcore religious a person is, the less tolerant they are of people who aren't like them"

Because their view of the world narrows dramatically.

Our local MPR station had a call-in yesterday asking people why they voted and who they voted for. A black person called in explaining he voted because his ancestors died fighting for that right. Who did he vote for? Bush. Because he felt gay marriage was morally wrong.

*sigh*

05 Nov 2004 | Ritz said...

That's the saddest part about the whole spectacle put on recently.

Religion preaches kindness and being nice to your fellow mankind.

That's very true! Too bad people seem to be using religion on both sides as a tool. "Everyone one else is evil because they don't see it our way." or "Religious right fag haters!"

Religion is now just another way to make someone else look bad, on either side. One of many ways I guess...

It does seem pretty standard now-a-days to assume someone is stupid when you don't understand what they do.

05 Nov 2004 | Michael said...

Paul - you can see the percentages from both parties that thought Iraq attacked the US in New York in a report from PIPA (PDF). After reading the report last week, I was not surprised Bush won. How do you get the facts out over the noise of sound-bites, during the most important time for many Americans -- football season?

Main Entry: ignorant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence

05 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Yeah, I even got forwarded a site that showed IQs were higher in Blue states than Red. My question would be, so what? Calling people ignorant I think shows why the democratic party is in trouble to begin with. It is almost the same as having to sign a loyalty oath to get into a Bush speech... if you aren't with us, you're wrong and the enemy. That kind of thinking is what is ignorant.

There was a TON of misinformation out there and the Dem party didn't do enough to fight it. The polls showing how misinformed a majority of Bush supporters were is plainly frightening. But then, what was Kerry's message? Would he stay in Iraq until it was done? He had one sentence answers, he didn't frame it as an issue or concept, just "I will stay the course". That doesn't win anything.

They are so busy trying to win the vote that they forgot to win the minds of the people. They never challenged the gay marriage issue. The midwest should be democrat central because so many of their views match directly, but the dems haven't made a fight of it. They didn't say hey, these bills remove the rights of gay couples not only to marry, but to get health insurance, visit each other in hospitals... completely removes their rights as a loving couple. Make THAT argument and you would have seen much different numbers for those propositions. There are not that many hateful people in the US, no matter how much you (strangely) want to believe it.

05 Nov 2004 | feeling blue said...

I asked a guy I work with why he was against gay marriage. He said because he didn't want to have to explain to his kids why the two guys walking down the street were holding hands. So, yeah - with Bush in office we sure won't see any of *that* any more. It drives me insane to think that some people like him decided who to vote for based on that sort of logic.

Talk about ignorance.

05 Nov 2004 | Mark said...

"...Religion preaches kindness and being nice to your fellow mankind. Why is it that the more hardcore religious a person is, the less tolerant they are of people who aren't like them..."

Hilarious.

Aren't liberals the ones who preach tolerance, diversity, acceptance, political correctness?

Just look back to Jason's post to see the kind of words used to describe others who "aren't like them".

Tell me where the difference is here.

05 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Oh, and if you really believe that Reps are so evil... wouldn't a nut like Keyes get more support?

05 Nov 2004 | feeling blue said...

The difference?

You're kidding, right? Here's one difference: pissed off liberals are bitching and moaning. Pissed off conservatives have killed over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians. Not only were they innocent civilians, but they were civilians in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Pretty goddamn big difference in my book.

And people like Bush's "morals" better.

05 Nov 2004 | Andy said...

There are not that many hateful people in the US, no matter how much you (strangely) want to believe it.

Maybe. I'm thinking we'll find out over the next couple of years.

Anyhow, I always find it interesting how people who are very decent on a person-to-person level can be completely indifferent at a more abstract level.

A friend of my father's would, literally, give the coat off his back to a homeless person, but he thought welfare was wrong, and would never approve of socialized medicine.

05 Nov 2004 | Mark said...

Again...

"...Religion preaches kindness and being nice to your fellow mankind. Why is it that the more hardcore religious a person is, the less tolerant they are of people who aren't like them..."

Because, once they ease up on the tolerance, they are branded hyprocrites.

How do you win the game if the officating crew is completely against your team to begin with?

05 Nov 2004 | Mark said...

Feeling blue...

I guess the dems have never been involved in an unjust war - right?

Maybe it's time for you to get a new book.

05 Nov 2004 | tiffany said...

Eh, the name calling isn't nice, but I think it's accurate. How can you *NOT* be ignorant if you vote for someone who says one thing and does the opposite?

How can you vote for someone who claims to be "moral" and have "values," but is anti-family, anti-environment and -- quiet as it's kept -- pro-killing (whether through war or death penalty). Dude broke 2 of the 10 commandments (Killing and false witness) just with the Iraq debacle. Three if, as I do, you think the war in Iraq is about oil (Coveting thy neighbor's goods).

But what Republican leaders know is this: The U.S. is a greedy, racist, sexist, homophobic country. And *boy* do they play to those fears.

05 Nov 2004 | Andy said...

Two wrongs don't make a right, Mark.

05 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

From Paragraph 3...

"Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into youif you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it."

--

Starting an argument by saying the ignorance is rooted in the literal word of the Bible is a slippery slope. Let me venture to say that most (not all, but most) who criticize the Bible as a tool of the narrow-minded and simple have never read it cover to cover.

Before you decide to step on what is arguably the most important literary work ever writtenand remember, we designers would not be here if not for Gutenbergyou better be sure you know where you're going with it.

In this case, whether or not you actually believe the Bible (or are "religious") is beside the point... Labeling a wholesale group as "ignorant" because they voted according to their beliefs, based on the Bible, is the greater crime.

If I've not seen and experienced Fahrenheit 9/11 for myself, but label anyone who has seen and believes it as "ignorant"... who's the greater ignorant party here?

Have these Slate pundits read the Bible? Front to back? Have you?

Do you think that's air you're breathing?

Who is ignorant in this case?

05 Nov 2004 | Andy said...

Personally, I'd go with narrow-minded.

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

"Tell me where the difference is here."

A member of the KKK is different than me. Does that mean I need to tolerate their views?

05 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

Come on Andy, step out yo... have you read it? I'm not saying they're aren't narrow-minded people in this world... There are plenty. But is the Bible itself narrow-minded? Tell me.

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Starting an argument by saying the ignorance is rooted in the literal word of the Bible is a slippery slope. Let me venture to say that most (not all, but most) who criticize the Bible as a tool of the narrow-minded and simple have never read it cover to cover.

The bible is a book of vague sayings. To base civil law and morals based on ANY single book is extremely narrow minded.

Labeling a wholesale group as "ignorant" because they voted according to their beliefs, based on the Bible, is the greater crime.

No, it's not. People should base how they live on this planet through logic and appreciateion of fellow man. Not the random words of a few.

It's not even an issue of the bible being factual vs. fiction. It's simply a matter of not basing all the laws of the land on one collection of essays.

Finally, those that DO base their laws on the word of the bible seem to have a very random and arbitrary way of deciding which items they want to enforce and which they want to ignore completely.

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

" But is the Bible itself narrow-minded? Tell me."

No, Josh, it's not. Like I said, to use ONE written 2000 year-old tome as a basis for all law and morality *is* narrow minded.

05 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

Darrel says, "The bible is a book of vague sayings."

How vague was Christ when he said, "Love others as yourself"?

You'd be amazed at how much "logic and appreciation of fellow man" can be found in those pages. Have you read it Darrell? Every last word?

And again, I'm not excusing those who "talk the talk" but don't "walk the walk." But before we hold up the Bible as the problem, have we read it, and do we understand it?

05 Nov 2004 | Mark said...

"...People should base how they live on this planet through logic and appreciateion of fellow man..."

Ok. That sounds like a plan. Lets start by being logical and dropping the completely useless rhetoric that 55 million people in the U.S. are ignorant, then lets appreciate that those 55 million people had valid reasons for voting the way they did, find out what is was, and next time present a candidate who can stand on his / her own credentials and not merely a "not Bush" campaign.

05 Nov 2004 | Shane said...

Some call themselves liberals, some conservatives, others democratics, and republicans. Leftists, rightists, centrists. Labels. Labels. Labels. IT is absolutely crazy that someone can say that those from south/southeast/plains states are ingnorant, and those from the northeast/pacific northwest are not. That would be ludicrous, no?

Bush won the popular vote in the south/southeast/plains by 2-3%, and lost in the northeast/pacific northwest by 5-6%. That doesn't mean that 3% more northeasterners/pacific-northwesterners are less ignorant than they're counterparts. What it means is that 52% of Americans who voted preferred Bush over Kerry, regardless of the label they (or you) applied to themselves.

One candidate lost and one candidate won. Let's quit crying/cheering about it and get to the next level.

05 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

Darrel says, "The bible is a book of vague sayings."

How vague was Christ when he said, "Love others as yourself"?

You'd be amazed at how much "logic and appreciation of fellow man" can be found in those pages. Have you read it Darrell? Every last word?

And again, I'm not excusing those who "talk the talk" but don't "walk the walk." But before we hold up the Bible as the problem, have we read it, and do we understand it?

To base civil law and morals based on ANY single book is extremely narrow minded.

This may be true... but cival law and morals must come from somewhere. Let Ben Franklin (yes, the $100 bill dude, in a letter to Thomas Paine) sum this one up for me:

You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security... If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

But before we hold up the Bible as the problem, have we read it, and do we understand it?

The bible isn't the problem. It's what certain people do with it is the problem.

Lets start by being logical and dropping the completely useless rhetoric that 55 million people in the U.S. are ignorant,

No one said that...other than the Mirror. ;o)

then lets appreciate that those 55 million people had valid reasons for voting the way they did, find out what is was

Yes! I'm still waiting to hear what those valid reasons were, though...

This may be true... but cival law and morals must come from somewhere.

Sure...they come from PEOPLE interacting with each other. They come from asking questions. Observation. Trial and error. They're living things. They evolve. They adopt. They accomodate.

05 Nov 2004 | Shane said...

Worth throwing into the debate...
America is not red and blue, but more of a purple (1)

America is not red and blue, but more of a purple (2)

05 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

They come from PEOPLE interacting with each other. They come from asking questions. Observation. Trial and error. They're living things. They evolve. They adopt. They accomodate.

What about murder? If you kill someone, is it wrong? If you steal something that is not yours, is it wrong?

Are these laws up for "asking questions, observation, evolution, and accomodation?" Where do you think those laws came from?

05 Nov 2004 | Charbel said...

I know a lot of people who sided with Bush for 2 reasons...gay marriage and religion...This is very ignorant on the behalf of those who voted for him, because they are not seeing the facts...They are so focused on a couple of issues that they're ignoring the whole picture...While we're busy banning gay marriage and feeling good about ourselves that we did something, outsiders are busy counting the many more reasons they have now to hate americans....

This administration has done a great job at keeping the ignorant even more ignorant by feeding them lies, deceits and making them fear whomever is not us...it's a shame...The only reason the blue states voted blue is because they're more exposed to international people...they understand the bigger picture and that not everyone is a terrorist...The red states are very focused on a couple of topics and have no idea what's going on elsewhere in the world...

05 Nov 2004 | GM said...

I just love this, conservatives are ignorant and have no idea what they're doing? You know what? They do know one thing that apparently quite a few liberals do not, actually going out there and voting is pretty damn important.

Maybe if liberals were as "well informed" as people here assume, John F. Kerry would be president in January.

05 Nov 2004 | feeling blue said...

Where do you think those laws came from?

Oh, surely from the Bible! For only religion could teach such complex lessons. This may come as a surprise, but the majority of athiests and agnostics are kind human beings, too.

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

What about murder? If you kill someone, is it wrong? If you steal something that is not yours, is it wrong? Are these laws up for "asking questions, observation, evolution, and accomodation?" Where do you think those laws came from?

Are you saying that we, as human beings, didn't think murder was wrong until Jesus Christ came along?

One does not need religion to be moral. To think that is to be ignorant.

hey do know one thing that apparently quite a few liberals do not, actually going out there and voting is pretty damn important.

Touche, GM. ;o)

05 Nov 2004 | Chris from Scottsdale said...

BORING!

05 Nov 2004 | Dave Strus said...

I'm with you, Jason.

I get annoyed by folks on all sides (as opposed to both sides, because there really are more than two political camps into which people fall) who are certain that the only possible explanations for people disagreeing with them are ignorance and/or stupidity.

I do think a large number of voters are poorly informed, but I also think it's possible for two intelligent, similarly well-informed people to reach opposite (or at least conflicting) conclusions.

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Paul has a good point. If you voted for Bush, and you feel the name calling is unjust, then you need to differentiate yourself from the fanaticals like the ones Paul quotes. Justify your vote instead of calling foul because you're being lumped with the rest.

The one thing that republicans, as a group, ARE better at than liberals is that they're willing to support the team to a greater extent. There are PLENTY of republicans who despise Bush, but voted for him to support the team. Strategically speaking, that's a perfectly valid justification.

05 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

What does this say about the true nature of the people of the United States of America?

On both sides...

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

Seems conservatives still haven't monopolized ignorance yet.

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Dave...please don't overgeneralize. I agree completely with you. Most folks would too. Just because a small subset of bush followers ARE ignorant on the specific issues they chose to base their vote on does not mean people are calling all republicans ignorant.

05 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

Are you saying that we, as human beings, didn't think murder was wrong until Jesus Christ came along?

No, but "thou shalt not kill" predated Christ by a few thousand years. If anyone has an earlier reference to a law that condemns murder, by all means, please post.

05 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Okay. All of they "they're ignorant, your stupid" shit should stop. It's ridiculous. Were Bush supporters misinformed? A majority of them yes. But that doesn't make them stupid or evil. It also doesn't mean that everyone that voted for Bush was misinformed. A friend of mine voted for Bush because she is Pro-Life. She didn't like anything else about him, but that was her deciding issue.

Even if you do think middle america is stupid (I was born in Kansas so I would take that a bit personally) they still get to vote, so what the Dem party needs to do is figure out how to win their vote. And it isn't through pandering.

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

No, but "thou shalt not kill" predated Christ by a few thousand years. If anyone has an earlier reference to a law that condemns murder, by all means, please post.

Hammurabi?

It's ridiculous. Were Bush supporters misinformed? A majority of them yes. But that doesn't make them stupid or evil.

Sloan...'stupid' and 'evil' isn't the same as 'ignorance'. Please don't put words in other people's mouths.

It also doesn't mean that everyone that voted for Bush was misinformed.

Of course not.

they still get to vote, so what the Dem party needs to do is figure out how to win their vote. And it isn't through pandering.

Well...that *is* the key issue. But pandering is how the right got them. How do you convince a person that thinks gays shouldn't have rights because the bible says so that they are wrong? I'm not sure if there is any solution to that.

05 Nov 2004 | Joshua Heyer said...

Josh,

Well said.

05 Nov 2004 | Benjy said...

Those voting for the GOP are not ingorant... just misinformed and mislead. That may sounds condecending, but it's really more true than anything. I think too many people, who are only passively interested, dont' seek out the full story and rely simply to what's presented on TV, radio, etc. For all the claims of a "liberal media" the fact is that the media's turned pretty conservative in recent years. If the only side one gets is from FoxNews, then they're not making an informed decision. Also, many are following the lead and voting how their pastor, etc. tell them to based on one issue. While they may benefit from a Democratic gov't in terms of their job security, when they hear anti-gay right and anti-abortion rhetoric week in and week out, and tales of damnation and being denied communion, etc. then people tend to follow that influence over others.

The sad fact is that the GOP currently has the better channels to distribute information, and people are thus consuming it in larger doses.

05 Nov 2004 | Phil said...

indi, you describe the "vitriolic hate" displayed by Democrats towards Bush. Multiply that hate by 10 and you get the amount thrown at the Democrats by the conservatives. Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh et al complain about the mainstream media. The ARE the mainstream media! Have you ever tuned into the steady stream of hate speech coming from these people? The can't say a sentence about liberals without using the words "treason", "traiter", "America hater", "bin Laden lovers", etc.

The Conservatives invented and refined this hatred. I only hate them because they started hating me first. Why do they hate me? Apparently because I am educated, open-minded and share the values of the founding fathers of this country.

05 Nov 2004 | paul said...

Sloan,A friend of mine voted for Bush because she is Pro-Life.

ignorance

1. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

2. (Theol.) A willful neglect or refusal to acquire knowledge which one may acquire and it is his duty to have. --Book of Common Prayer.

Single issue voting may not be ignorant, but not considering the bigger picture is not, by any stretch of the imagination, sound judgement.

Not to mention, if your friend had really done her homework, she would have discovered that abortions increased %15 over the past four years during Bush 2's administration. Under Clinton, abortions dropped 17.4% during his eight years in office.

And, yes, pro-life groups have disputed the findings.

My contention is this, if there were no findings to dispute, there wouldn't be an issue.

Then again, according to the Bush administration, global warming is sham.

05 Nov 2004 | Hagbard Celine said...

re: Thou Shalt Not Kill

Just an observation: millions of Buddhists, Hindus, animists, etc. got along pretty well for a very long time without ever having heard of the Judeo-Christian-Islam commandments.

Also, last time I checked the commandment in question didn't say "Thou Shalt Not Kill Unless Thy Commander-In-Chief Bears False Witness Against Thy Nation's Neighbors."

05 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

Those voting for the GOP are not ingorant... just misinformed and mislead.

Could it be that those voting for the GOP aren't misinformed and mislead? Maybe their criteria for deciding who to vote for in simply different. Not misinformed. Not mislead. Not ignorant. Different.

Also, many are following the lead and voting how their pastor, etc. tell them to based on one issue.

Like Pastors Jackson and Sharpton. Again, don't pick on one side.

The sad fact is that the GOP currently has the better channels to distribute information, and people are thus consuming it in larger doses.

Democrats can use the internet too, right? And TV? Michael Moore did okay with that "movie thing." Both my parents and my in-laws have a TV, but neither watch FOX NEWS. Some of them voted for Kerry, some for Bush. Somehow their decision was not influenced by Bill, Shep, and Sean.

05 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

However, Bush won partely due to a very ignorant, core base of voters

Those voting for the GOP are not ingorant... just misinformed and mislead

Absolutely unbelievable.

This is why the Democrats lost the White House (again) and continue to lose seats in Congress (something like a 10-year trend).

They are out of touch with reality.

Get a clue by getting off of your intellectual high-horses and taking a look in the mirror.

Both Clinton and Bush were able to win elections because they were more 'regular guys' than their opponents. They identified more closely with people who drink coffee in the morning than those who go to Starbucks.

The election results have nothing to do with the 'moral majority' or the 'religious right,' but with common sense. Take the marriage amendments as an example. They had nothing -- I repeat -- NOTHING -- to do with gay rights. The media spun it as a gay rights issue. We live in a litigation-happy society where lawyers are paid to look for loopholes. Well, the biggest loophole in getting benefits is the definition of marriage. The thing is, if marriage isn't defined, then what's to stop you from getting married to your dog and getting benefits? That's what it would come to.

I know a lot of people who sided with Bush for 2 reasons...gay marriage and religion...This is very ignorant on the behalf of those who voted for him, because they are not seeing the facts...

Have you stopped to think that maybe it is you who is wrong? That statement borders on bigotry (as do many of the statements made in this forum today). Perhaps all of you left-leaning, 'well-educated' people aren't as smart as you think you are. Obviously you are in the minority. All you have to do is look at a map.

05 Nov 2004 | feeling blue said...

The thing is, if marriage isn't defined, then what's to stop you from getting married to your dog and getting benefits?

And that about sums it up. Gays are just one notch above pets aren't they? Hell, if they let gays get married, the entire moral fiber of the country will deteriorate and the whole world will laugh at us.

Your bigotry statement borders on hypocrisy.

05 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

Just an observation: millions of Buddhists, Hindus, animists, etc. got along pretty well for a very long time without ever having heard of the Judeo-Christian-Islam commandments.

Very true... but where do you think our Founding Fathers pulled the concept from?

Also, Phil (above) says, "The Conservatives invented and refined this hatred. I only hate them because they started hating me first. Why do they hate me? Apparently because I am educated, open-minded and share the values of the founding fathers of this country."

While were talking about the Founding Fathers (and then I REALLY need to get back to work it's been real, yo)... Phil says he shares the values of the founding fathers... I pulled from Benjamin a while ago, how about Sam Adams this go round (yes, they named a beer after the dude). Sam was a founding father, and while Governor of Massachusetts, he wrote a little proclamation one day, declaring a day of prayer and humility for the State of Massachusetts. A portion read:

I HAVE therefore thought fit to appoint, and with the advice and consent of the Council, I do hereby appoint Thursday, the Second Day of April next, to be observed as a Day of Public Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer throughout this Commonwealth:-Calling upon the Ministers of the Gospel, of every Denomination, with their respective Congregations, to assemble on that Day, and devoutly implore the Divine forgiveness of our Sins, -To pray that the Light of the Gospel, and the rights of Conscience, may be continued to the people of United America; and that his Holy Word may be improved by them, so that the name of God may be exalted, and their own Liberty and Happiness secured.-That he would be graciously pleased to bless our Federal Government; that by a wise administration, it may be a sure guide and safe protection in national concerns, for the people who have established, and who support it-That He would continue to us the invaluable Blessings of Civil Liberty;

How's that for separation of church and state?

I've posted the entire document, in PDF format, should you like to read the rest of what Samuel Adams wrote that day:

Sam Adams Proclamation for Prayer and Humility (32k)

We've come a ways, haven't we?

05 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Darrel, some people are saying Rep = Evil/Stupid here. Paul, if that person feels that one issue overrides all other issues, then it is your opinion that it is poor judgement, not necessarily reality. In her good conscience she couldn't vote for the legality of abortion. Do I agree with her decision, no. Do I have a right to tell her she's wrong? No. I can debate the issue with her and point out numbers that say abortions are on the rise because there are more teenage pregnancies because Bush only promotes abstinence...

What I think is telling is that this isn't a discussion about how Kerry was this amazing leader that everyone is missing out on, it is compeltely focused on whether Bush is good or bad (in my mind, terrible). Because Kerry was never a well defined candidate those that were in-between really had the choice of someone they thought they knew (Bush) and someone that said he was someone that they might like (Kerry). Because of all of the noise on both sides and by our crappy media, that was the choice a lot of people made. Did you watch the debates? Did you see the "analysis" on TV AFTER the debates? What a load of crap.

Hammurabi was 1700 B.C., the ten commandments was supposedly before that though no solid date is given. Other similar laws existed in Egypt, Persia... throughout the region and similar ideas developed in China and India without the ten commandments. It is all based on developing a system for mutual good and buidling civilizations. I don't remember the quote exactly, but the Dali Lama basically put it as this: Christian, Jew, Muslim... they're all very similar, have similar ethics. The problem is that they focus on the religious parts when really, there is a universal set of secular ethics that most people of the world agree with.

Bush's administration claims that global warming is a natural trend and that human development has had nothing to do with it. The science so far has shown that it is a combination of our pollution AND the cyclical warming of the earth that are making it happen much more quickly than geological time would suggest it should go. They aren't saying it is a sham, they just aren't taking responsibility for it. (sound familiar?)

05 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Randall,

With all due respect,

1. Read the PIPA study.

2. The marriage amendments had everything to do with gay rights. If the media spun the gay rights issue to associate it with the FMA, then why did Bush, Cheney, and all their pundits use the word gay and marriage in the same breath in virtually every stump speach? The Christian Coalition of Georgia pushed this amendment based solely on their hatred of gays, and won.

3. Get off YOUR "high horse" and consider that YOU may be wrong.

4. Look at a map? Great argument.

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Get a clue by getting off of your intellectual high-horses and taking a look in the mirror.

Josh, you are a broken record. There is no intellectual high-horse.

Take the marriage amendments as an example. They had nothing -- I repeat -- NOTHING -- to do with gay rights.

It had everything to do with denying a segment of the population equal rights.

The thing is, if marriage isn't defined, then what's to stop you from getting married to your dog and getting benefits?

So, define marriage as a relationship between two human beings. Duh.

Not to mention the insanely obvious fact that a dog isn't able to consent.

Have you stopped to think that maybe it is you who is wrong? That statement borders on bigotry (as do many of the statements made in this forum today).

Spin, spin, spin, spin...

You hate me beacause I hate fags!? Well, then you're a hater too! Neener neener neener!

Very true... but where do you think our Founding Fathers pulled the concept from?

Common sense.

As for your founding father quotes, they're pointless. Some were religious. Some were athiest. All knew one thing: that freedom was important and whatever government we came up with, it should be flexible enough to adopt to changes in society over time.

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Sloan...yes, some folks are blanketdly calling all republicans things like 'stupid'. I agree that that is just stupid in and of itself.

Nice post, BTW.

05 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Randal, we don't define a law for every situation for every possibility. Marrying dogs? That is really your argument? You really think it had anything to do with finding loopholes for getting married to get benefits? Seriously, what is that idea based on? What did these propositions do to close loopholes for same sex couples that were trying to defraud the system?

Josh. Was quoting a "founding father" a promotion of church in the state? I wasn't clear. But what is clear is that many of them were christians who understood that religion was manipulated all the time and should be left out of government. They also were flawed people in their own right. Hell, slavery is part of our constitution. Being a part of the communist party was illegal because of McCarthy and still considered a slur. Traitor is thrown around for having differing opinions or questioning the decisions of the president.

Fanatacism of any sort, whether it is religious, political, secular... is a threat to democracy. That is why we have checks and balances, that is why minority groups are protected. That is why quoting founding fathers is a good as quoting me as far as what I believe. I mean, come on, Franklin wanted the turkey to be our national bird!

That is why people on this site that keep throwing out hate speech to one or the other, calling each other names is frightening... because it is a reflection of the state of our society. Few people seem able to have a debate about a subject without lowering the discourse to "you're an idiot". I hear people talk about all of the advances we have made as a species and yet, threads like these make me wonder just how far we will get before we destroy each other.

05 Nov 2004 | lost in the heartland said...

I think Bush supporters deserve the rap and I'm actually surprised by how much the media has focused on what's wrong with Democrats. How about what's wrong with 59 million Americans? The entire planet knows the Bush administration is destructive and incompetent. This election was as close to right-versus-wrong as an one can get and a slim majority of Americans simply picked the wrong side. It's sheer insanity and the whole world knows it. Why must we be tactful?

05 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

As for your founding father quotes, they're pointless.

Sadly, they're not pointless. Phil, above, says he's educated, open-minded, and that he "share[s] the values of the founding fathers of this country..."

I was just wondering what values those were.

The vast majority of the Founding Fathers were religious. Franklin and Jefferson were your token atheists, but they were certainly not ignorant when it came to religion. They were extremely aware of Christianty's influence in the country they had helped found, and as a secular hero, you'd better believe Jefferson has that in mind when he ran for President.

05 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Remember, the worst terrorist attack on US soil before 9/11 was by a fanatic american.

05 Nov 2004 | Ritz said...

Those voting for the GOP are not ingorant... just misinformed and mislead.

Are you saying nothing the GOP stands for is beneficial for the country in any way and that any one who voted for them was scammed? There's a lot of BIG things I think both parties are doing VERY wrong. Does that mean they are all a bunch of retards? For the most part yes! :) But to think that a few differences of opinion can lead someone to belive everyone else has the wool pulled over their eyes is pretty presumptuous.

Not trying to be overly general here but what if someone believed less government was better. Does that makes sense to say people who want more government control are stupid? There are tons of benefits for both. We all make our own decisions.

No one even seems to be trying to understand viewpoints... It's just picking a big issue and calling someone stupid for thinking a different way. Then assuming that was the sole reason for thier vote.

This is ohhh so sad...

05 Nov 2004 | Benjy said...

Not trying to be overly general here but what if someone believed less government was better.

But if people believe that, and yet still voted for Bush, then they were clearly misinformed. Bush is the one running up the deficit like there's no tomorrow with out of control government spending. He's the one trying to legislate people's personal lives. He's the one grabbing state powers over education and marriage and trying to make them federal responsibility.

And I never said that GOP supporters are stupid. The smartest people cannot figure things out without accurate and adequate information. What I was stating is that too often, only half the story is presented and people make their mind on that half.

Look at the way Sinclair showed that anti-Kerry documentary, or parts of it anyway. I saw Michael Moore on Leno, who offered TV rights to Sinclair to show "Farenheit 9/11" for free, but was turned down. Now shouldn't voters have as much right to see a documentary critical of each candidate?

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

The vast majority of the Founding Fathers were religious.

So what? What, exactly, is the point you are trying to make?

Ritz...I'm not calling a republican who votes republican based on sound republican stances ingorant. I know plenty of highly intelligent (much more so than I) republicans. We're talking specifically about Bush here. And we're talking specifically about those folks that voted for Bush without a defendable argument for doing so. I'm sure there are plenty of folks who voted for Bush based on defendable arguments. Granted, I haven't heard many.

(BTW, if someone voted for Bush thinking he's for smaller government, well...;o)

05 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

So what? What, exactly, is the point you are trying to make?

The point is that the Founding Fathers did not write off those who believe the Bible (and perhaps vote accordingly) as "ignorant."

The point is also that several above have identified themselves as standing for what the founding fathers stood for. My point in quoting both Sam Adams and Ben Franklin (again, considered the most secular of them all), is that the founding fathers of this country had a much better grasp of the moral influence of the Bible in American society, than we do todaywhether you agree with that influence or not.

05 Nov 2004 | Thomas A said...

Thats funny.
I was just talking to Jesus a couple of evenings ago (he comes down and raids my fridge almost every Wednesday night around 2:00am). While he was unwrapping my leftovers, I complimented him on his new sandals and asked what he thought about the US election results. He said he doesnt pay much attention to that sort of stuff, then made a sad face and reminded me how much he likes pork chops -- This chicken is good, but the pork chops you had last week were to die for.

05 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

If anyone here is ignorant, it's anonymous posters. Where's the fun in that?

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

The point is that the Founding Fathers did not write off those who believe the Bible (and perhaps vote accordingly) as "ignorant."

There's a gigantic difference between 'believing the bible' and passing laws based on randomly selected passages.

05 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Josh, if you look at voting rights at the time you might reconsider whether they felt the masses were ignorant or not, but then, that probably wasn't a reflection of how they viewed religion. I do think that understanding morals and ethics is something that should be explored. Right now it seems to be relegated to the sphere of religion when really, it doesn't need to be. Morals don't have to come from religion, but religion is where a lot of people get their moral basis from... so you can address moral issues with religious people that do self exploration to understand why they believe what they do.

The trouble is that a lot of religion is based on repitition, ceremony and memorization. Very little discourse goes on. It is mostly a couple of people each Sunday preaching to a following, telling them what to believe and many see questioning a religious leader as evil. Not only do I believe that a lot of reform needs to happen in politics and government, but also in religious institutions. Does anyone think it is right for churches to hide and protect child molestors/abusers? I cherish the discussions I had with my priest, trying to understand the churches views on issues. We disagreed from time to time, sometimes he disagreed with the official church view, but it was the exception, not the rule. Both religion and politics suffer from lack of open discourse. What the world needs is more understanding through learning from each other, continuing to say anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot makes things worse.

Thomas A... does Jesus at least turn some water into wine and make your leftovers enough for 2 weeks?

05 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

"but it was the exception, not the rule"
I meant people actively discussing beliefs... not how often he and I disagreed.

05 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

There's a gigantic difference between 'believing the bible' and passing laws based on randomly selected passages.

I totally and completely agree. And in all this, I am not defending the GOP (or member of it, catering to special interests). I am, however, defending those who choose to make an educated vote based on their beliefs, be it rooted in Atheism, Christianity, Islam or whatever.

Which leads us to the Middle East...

With all the talk I hear of leaving the USA for Canada and Europe, etc., let's remember that we do live in a country where you are free to vote your beliefs. This is not Saudi Arabia.

05 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

whoa:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20041105/ap_on_re_us/textbooks_marriage

05 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

Sloan, on your last posttotally agree with you. Well said.

05 Nov 2004 | Mark said...

"...The smartest people cannot figure things out without accurate and adequate information. What I was stating is that too often, only half the story is presented and people make their mind on that half..."

That's a great point, Benjy.

In fact, it was on this very site not too long ago, (perhaps I'll try to find the link later) I brought up the question about Kerry's experience. I sincerely wanted to know and sought "accurate and adequate information" about this man running for President.

The answer I was presented with - right here on 37svn - was along the lines of "it's not about Kerry's experience, it's about getting Bush out."

So, you're right. Only half a story was presented, and the people made their mind up based on that.

It just wasn't the outcome that some expected.

05 Nov 2004 | Thomas A said...

water into wine

I dont drink, but I dont think he would anyway. One time I was going ask him if he would make a sandwich for me too, and just as I was thinking it he turned to me and gave me that havent I done enough for you already look of his.

05 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

Randal, we don't define a law for every situation for every possibility.

But we had to in this case. Sorry, but that's the reality of the situation. Go ask any HR director. Companies are getting pressured by employees to extend benefits to partners, etc, because there is no clear definition of marriage.

Even if it's defined as two people, that's better than no definition at all.

This is going to be a continuing trend, due to lawsuits.

Few people seem able to have a debate about a subject without lowering the discourse to "you're an idiot".

Ah, but you see, those things are being thrown about the moment someone says they are a Christian, lean to the right or are clearly a conservative.

If I'm as ignorant and dumb as some folks here seem to believe, then I'll gladly stay this way.

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

defending those who choose to make an educated vote based on their beliefs, be it rooted in Atheism, Christianity, Islam or whatever.

If someone votes based on beliefs only, then that is ignorance. If they have a belief, then back it up with some logical reasoning and justification, then I'm all for it.

let's remember that we do live in a country where you are free to vote your beliefs.

Right. We just wish more people would vote based on their reasoning.

Ah, but you see, those things are being thrown about the moment someone says they are a Christian, lean to the right or are clearly a conservative.

Where?

05 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

... changing the definition of marriage in text books...

WHOA is right.

The tidal wave is beginning to take shape.

Hyperbolic? I don't think so. This is truly frightening. Legislating bigotry. Editing our textbooks. How soon will right-leaning school boards start rewriting history texts? Or, allow religion to be taught in schools like the Madrasses in Iran?

I won't be in the least surprised if another attempt is made to delete Darwin's Theory of Evolution from Georgia text books.

Did anyone NOT see this coming? Not even a week after the election. God help us.

05 Nov 2004 | Todd Warfel said...

Darrel said...
There are ignorant voters on both sides, obviously. However, Bush won partely due to a very ignorant, core base of voters.

Well, I'd have to disagree. I one of the many reasons Bush won is lack of ignorant, core base of voters, or rather a core base that refused to swallow the disinformation that the liberal left, democrats, and media kept trying to push.

For example, they (being the liberal left, democrats, and media) kept saying Bush lost 2 million jobs, when in fact he hasn't lost any jobs at all, but rather during his administration there's been a Net job loss of around 600k according to CNN and FoxNews. The fact: jobs were lost during his administration, but not due to anything he did(not) do. The spin: it's Bush's fault.

Now, before those in the liberal camp get bent out of shape, keep in mind that this isn't my opinion, but rather the plain and simple truth - just the facts. No spin, just the facts.

Another example: the economy is in terrible shape. Well, with 1.9 million jobs created (2.2 million as of October), GDP up 8%, and unemployment lower than when Clinton ran for his second term, is the economy really as bad as they would like you to believe? Well, not according to the facts.

I think another obvious reason Kerry lost this election was for the lack of a clear message with support. He had messages like "We'll make a better, stronger America," but didn't have any details on how. The one exception was on Health Care. He did actually have some details on that one. But other than that, he didn't seem to have a plan or a real message. And when push came to shove, according to many of my liberal friends who ended up voting for Bush, their conscious got the better of them and they just simply couldn't vote for Kerry, because according to many of them, it wasn't clear what his message was.

Now, with Bush getting a record number of popular votes, a majority of popular votes, additional seats in the House and Senate, I think it's clear that the media, liberal left, and democrats are out of touch with mainstream America.

That being said, I really hope this time around, Bush can take down a bit of the deficit, improve healthcare (as he plans to do by 2006), revamp our tax system, continue to produce jobs, do some actual work on the environment this time, and put together a better plan to get out of Iraq and put them on their feet.

signed - a non-ignorant moderate

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Todd, those are all valid points.

Except the clarity part. Neither candidate was clear on any issues of substance if all you based their messages on was media reports and the debates.

I think it's clear that the media, liberal left, and democrats are out of touch with mainstream America.

Do tell us what 'mainstream America' is. Are you saying 49% is out of touch with the other 51%? Doesn't that argument swing both ways?

improve healthcare (as he plans to do by 2006)

Whoa...he has a plan? I missed that one.

05 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

If someone votes based on beliefs only, then that is ignorance. If they have a belief, then back it up with some logical reasoning and justification, then I'm all for it.

Notice I said "educated vote."

This is truly frightening. Legislating bigotry. Editing our textbooks. How soon will right-leaning school boards start rewriting history texts? Or, allow religion to be taught in schools like the Madrasses in Iran?

Hello? People, truly... you need to educate yourself regarding America's past government. Why is this so shocking? Have you ever seen the New England Primer by John Hancock (yes, that John Hancock)? This is how kids learned to read in Massachusetts public schools in 1777. Darwin is the new kid on the block, yo.

05 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

do some actual work on the environment this time

Your joking right?

George Bush has rolled back virtually every protection legislated in the past thirty years. I don't know what kind of work you think he has been doing on the environment, but it certainly has not been anywhere near the realm of protection.

A simple Google search will reveal thousands of threads describing his current "environmental" policies.

You want to read what he has done? Pick up Crimes Against Nature by Robert Kennedy. Yeah, he's a liberal. But, he is also the leading environmental lawyer in the country. He doesn't have a political agenda other than saving what's left of our natural heritage.

As for your other comments... there just isn't any point in arguing.

05 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Well, it is history repeating itself. In Florida they still have laws dictating that twice as many good points are given about democracy over communism. A law. There are already laws in some states preventing the teaching of evolution.

Randal, I think you just made my point about the marriage issue. It only needed to be defined as two people, but was made a man and a woman due to a religious bent. In California, domestic couples have the right to healthcare. The lawsuits you are describing don't sound like it was people trying to "work" the system, but rather asking for equal rights. Besides, legislation shouldn't be made to restrict RIGHTS in an attempt to reduce litigation, it should be made to REDUCE LITIGATION.

I liked Edwards reply about medical malpractice, don't restrict a person's right to sue someone if they are negligent, reduce the ability of lawyers to file frivilous lawsuits by having an arbitrator review the cases first and after having 3 thrown out, you can't even go to the arbitrator anymore. Punish the offenders, not the victims.

05 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

Ah gee, sorry folks... edit: New England Primer was not written by Hancock, only advocated. Isaac Watts wrote most of it. Was the most widely used textbook in American schools ever, and was in use from about 16801900.

05 Nov 2004 | Jason Wall said...

1.5 million innocents die each year, largely because it is inconvenient to let them live. The total number of casualties in the Iraqi and Afghan wars combined don't equal this number.

Abortion is hardly a small issue. Few if any issues in this election have so great a consequence.

I find it ironic that a group who remains largely ignorant of the state of foreign policy and the real motives and reasons for what we do as a nation would insist so vehemently that any one position is absolutely right. There are probably only a couple hundred men in this nation who had access to the same information the president had when he made his decision to go to war. No one, not the red or the blue or the green or the rainbow colored are in much of a position to judge anything. Both candidates supported the war. Congress approved it.

Whats even more ironic is the belief that the President has much of any actual control over the economy, and trying to use that as a valid reason for removal from office.

Bush won this election due in no small part because evangelical Christians supported him. The defining issue? Abortion. Because, like I said above, far more deaths result from that practice each year than have occured in both wars total, including military and civillian casualties. We aren't ignorant, we simply have different priorities. We value life just as much as you do, we simply prefer to attack the biggest problems first.

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Or, allow religion to be taught in schools like the Madrasses in Iran?

Actually, teaching of religion in the schools would be a good thing. In the schools, there's room for open discussion and comparison.

I say teach religion, and teach biology. Let kids get both views before their opinions are hardened by their surroundings.

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

We aren't ignorant, we simply have different priorities. We value life just as much as you do, we simply prefer to attack the biggest problems first.

Of course, a thoughtful person would realize that making abortion illegal won't do anything to stop people from having abortions. Instead, they may look at the reasons behind abortion. Find out why people have abortions. Perhaps think about ways to provide better alternatives for the women in the position where abortion is an option.

Ie, like Terrorism and the drug war, maybe attack the source of the problem...not the symptom.

05 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Josh -
What exactly are you arguing?

227 years have passed since the New England Primer was used to educate our children. 227 years.

You are using a relic from a by-gone era to argue I shouldn't be concerned about that fact that in today's society of edcuated people textbooks, history, or laws are rewritten to satisfy the religious ideology of a group of people. Every time this happens our society takes a step backward. This is not the notion or ideal of a progressive society. It is regressive. Period. Which, by all accounts, is frightening.

And, you don't make convincing argument's with insults, you only lend credence to other's opinions.

05 Nov 2004 | indi said...

Sloan, though I don't disagree with gay marriage, I do wonder how the gender neutral language got into the textbooks to begin with. I mean normally we are talking about a union between a man and a woman. Somebody somewhere decided on the neutral approach. But at least they didn't take that extra step and make it species neutral or quantity neutral :-)

BTW, I'd like to mention that here where I work we have a good mix of republicans and democrats. Leading up to the election I heard a lot of political discussions. Sometimes they were animated but they never approached being abusive or insulting. I am mentioning this to counter the suggestion made by some that we americans are incabable of talking to others with varying beliefs and ideologies in a civil manner.

05 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

I say teach religion, and teach biology.

Now that I agree with.

05 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Todd. Not that I think it is Bush's fault, but the recession began in March of 2001. The loss of jobs? I think that can be put partly in his court for not doing enough to stimulate the economy. The job growth we are seeing does not even cover population growth into the working sector. There is a reason why whoever is in office always uses job numbers (hundreds of thousands of jobs!) instead of percentages, what sounds good and what IS good are two different things. Unemployment rate is another skewed stat as is poverty.

GDP increase of 8% is nice, but you put that in the context of the debt and deficit and it is a considerably poor indicator of economy growth on its own. Is the economy as bad as they were trying to make it out to be? It depends on your view. If you're employed and have decent health coverage and can buy a home... great (just remember if you have a flexible rate you can end up screwed, big wigs in NYC are prospecting on people overextending themselves and buying homes based on the current rate's mortgage payment). If you are looking to the next 5 years based on the deficit, the borrowing we have to do, the state of social security, the number of jobs going overseas, the types of jobs that are being created... you might not see it so rosey.

The stat "a record number of popular votes" is a bit of an odd argument as then Kerry would have had the second most...

He is proposing an incredibly expensive (and in my opinion, dangerous) privatization of social security, claims he wants to improve healthcare, continue large spending in the war because he won't allow allies to get reconstruction contracts, and yet he's not increasing taxes at all... so how will he reduce our deficit and debt? And don't get me started about how he has abused the environment or outing an undercover CIA agent. Bush is first, and foremost a politician. Just like everyone else. He makes promises but either doesn't deliver or does the exact opposite. Clear skies? Does the exact opposite.

Neither side could provide details of thier plans, that's to be expected. You have to do a shitload of planning in order to produce something real and it isn't realistic to expect it. The exception to that I think, is the current administration's planning of the war... that should be clear and it isn't. Other than that, you can make clear what your priorities are and then you're stuck saying "I don't know what I will have to cut, or where I will get the money from now, but here are my priorities."

In the end, people trusted Bush not because he had a great track record, but because he was clearer.

05 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

If someone votes based on beliefs only, then that is ignorance. If they have a belief, then back it up with some logical reasoning and justification, then I'm all for it.

Darrell, I can't help but think you're holding people to an impossible standard.

How does anyone, religious or not, vote on their beliefs and their beliefs only?

You believe that logic, reason and rationality take precdence over all. That is your belief, and you evaluate candidates and policies through that lens. You are voting based on your beliefs. Using your logic, you too are ignorant.

As is every human on the face of the earth.

Rationalism is but one of many belief systems. You come across to me as a fundamentalist on behalf of rationalism, in that you do not acknowledge that any other belief system is valid or worthwhile. That's the classic stance of fundamentalism.

All I ask is that people be able to explain why they believe what they believe. If Christianity or Hinduism or Zoroastrianism is what makes sense for them and provides clarity and understanding to the world, then all I ask is that they be able to explain how their stances on particular issues fits with that worldview. In other words, being able to explain the whys behind what they think, rather than platitudes like "So and so said it, so I believe it." I don't need to agree with their underlying belief system. I just hope that people are able to articulate why they think what they think, and that it follows their own internal logic.

Saying that people should not vote based on their beliefs is asinine, and impossible. And yes, I know you said "only," but I cannot see how you separate out belief from any other step in the process. After all, your insistence on empiricism and rationalism is but one belief system. I happen to agree that it's the best belief system we have, but it's still a belief system.

05 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

The job growth we are seeing

It should also be noted that of the jobs that we are growing, much of them are hardly living wage jobs.

Well, weekend's here. Enjoy!

05 Nov 2004 | Heather said...

Religion and Biology are already taught hand-in-hand in schools with religious affiliations. Having been a product of an Catholic education, I have to admit, I would have liked to have learned about evolution without a teacher, and I use that description very lightly, who did not feel it necessary to inject every discussion with his own fervent opinions regardling the abject stupidity of Darwin.

Therein lies the real issue, in my opinion. I would have preferred to leave religion out of my education. For a child, making a decision about your own opinions regarding religion is difficult when you are being pushed in one direction every day.

My public school friends who attended Sunday School on a regualr basis had the opportunity to make an independent educated comparison.

06 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

"There are probably only a couple hundred men in this nation who had access to the same information the president had when he made his decision to go to war."
Jason, the problem is that they didn't know the context of Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld pushing the CIA for more proof of something that wasn't there nor the likelyhood of what was being accused. The fact remains that there was NEVER any proof of WMDs. Just accounts from defectors that were on the CIA payroll, intelligence that was determined to be weak before his state of the union address and pictures of sites that didn't prove anything. The fear of a mushroom cloud after 9/11, when it was KNOWN that they had no nuclear capability was simply wrong. Bush started planning the war with Iraq in February of 2001, he admits that.

"1.5 million innocents die each year"
It depends on whether you view a group cells less than a millimeter long as a "death". Is IVF abortion because only two or three eggs are reimplanted and the other inseminated eggs are thrown out? It is a complicated issue and a real discussion about it should happen, not simple rhetoric.

"I do wonder how the gender neutral language got into the textbooks to begin with. I mean normally we are talking about a union between a man and a woman."
Yeah, but not always. There are states that allow gay marriage and civil unions, so why would a book that you want to sell across the country limit its appeal?

"Actually, teaching of religion in the schools would be a good thing."
They do teach it. At a high school and college level because frankly, it is too hot a topic at younger ages. Maybe in the future you could do this at younger ages, but just look at the current climate and it doesn't seem wise.

06 Nov 2004 | Andy said...

I'm actually looking forward to the next couple of years. Gas will keep going up; we're going to skulk out of Iraq and claim 'victory' when we're sick of losing soldiers and the rest of the 'coalition' has deserted us; the economy will tank when the cheap stimulus provided by the tax cuts evaporates and the deficit starts to drag us down... should be interesting. Enjoy your Hummers while you can, folks!

06 Nov 2004 | Mark said...

Hey Andy -

Sorry to throw a parade on your little gloomy rain shower, but here's some items that made headlines today

1. Job Growth report show biggest payroll gains since March
2. The Dow posted a 4-month high today, closing at 10387.54
3. Oil prices declined 4% over the course this week
4. Pump prices are lower in some areas

Smile, dude - forget about those with the Hummers and enjoy your weekend instead.

06 Nov 2004 | Mark said...

Besides, you'll need to save your worry energy for the day when the masses start trading in their kiddie toy Hummers for these babies.

; )

06 Nov 2004 | Phil said...

The founding fathers of this country were religious. So is John Kerry. More importantly the founding fathers, Kerry, and myself are liberals, or as I prefer, progressives. These are the values I was referring to earlier. Sam Adams was a Puritan, an extreme form of religion and I don't think his rants represented the tone of the values with which this country was founded. Even though the founding fathers views seem religious and conservative by todays standards, they weren't back then. This is clear by the concepts of separation of church and state and the freedom to worship whichever religion you choose.

Fortunately our progress didn't stop at just changing the views commonly held at the time of the Revolution. Slavery has been abolished, women can vote, etc. Progress is the key word in "Progressive". I hold this value dear because I feel we can always better ourselves. The neocons are anti-progress. They want to roll back the freedoms we've gained and promote exclusivity and paranoia. Their message is clear, if you aren't rich, straight, and Christian you aren't welcome.

Like it or not, our country is getting less white, less straight, and less Christian. It's better to accept the change and celebrate the strengths than fight them and cling to outdated ideals.

06 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Phil,

AMEN.

06 Nov 2004 | hartmurmur said...

Darrell wrote: "Of course, a thoughtful person would realize that making abortion illegal won't do anything to stop people from having abortions. Instead, they may look at the reasons behind abortion. Find out why people have abortions. Perhaps think about ways to provide better alternatives for the women in the position where abortion is an option.

Kinda sounds like the whole gun debate, huh? Yep, sure does. Swap out the word abortion with the word gun and see that, and as Arnold says, "You are a Republican."

Well, as ignorant as I may be, my stocks are up, my gas is going down (interpret that however you like!), and I'm glad we have a guy in office who loves his wife as much as W. does. You may think that has nothing to do with leadership, but in my eyes it tells me a lot more about this man than any of the labels people have stuck on him. It won't have much impact on how he runs the country. However, it is admirable and respectable.

06 Nov 2004 | hartmurmur said...

Phil wrote: The founding fathers of this country were religious. So is John Kerry.

John Kerry is religious? Because he can say he is a Catholic and was an altar boy? Hey, I'm German, but I've never been to Germany. I can speak a little German though.

When someone has to throw in the "Look, I was an altar boy", that's not too convincing (what, was that like 40 years ago?). Live out your faith a little (or preferably a lot). That's more convincing.

06 Nov 2004 | Some Guy Who Would Rather Just Leave It At That said...

They want to roll back the freedoms we've gained and promote exclusivity and paranoia. Their message is clear, if you aren't rich, straight, and Christian you aren't welcome.

Like it or not, our country is getting less white, less straight, and less Christian. It's better to accept the change and celebrate the strengths than fight them and cling to outdated ideals.

Dude, you don't get it. Christians get that it's getting less white, less straight, less Christian. Heck, most of them (including myself) haven't consider the US a Christian country for years.

And, honestly, that's fine with most of us. Historically the faith has taken off when we're out numbered, and especially persecuted. Just look at China for a modern example. There are more Christians there today than in North America, and the faith there continues to explode. Same in Africa. Because, at it's core, the Christian faith is an extremely hopefully story. But anyways...

So we're really not scared of losing our culturally influence or something nutty like that. It might come across that way sometimes, but it's not. Most authentic believers feel they're going to answer to God someday for how they lived their lives, including how they vote. So when it comes down to voting against something like gay marriage, they think to themselves, "Well, gee, of course I'm going to vote for this. If I'm really following the Jesus I see in the Bible, then I'm not going to support gay marriage." They see it as a choice of either pissing off God or pissing off the liberals. What would you do? If you truly believe there is a God, and he was pretty clear on a certain issue, and you claim to be following him, would you you do?

Of course, that line of thinking really pisses people off. "How dare you impose your beliefs on me!" Or, "How can you claim to know God, or know what he thinks?" But that's basically saying, "You can believe what you believe, but don't actually follow out on your beliefs. As long as you keep them to yourself, I'm cool with you." WTF? That's like asking an mother to love her child, but don't actually demonstrate that love in any tangible way. "Look, but don't touch" politics, so to speak.

And, at the end of the day, that's why most of the Red Staters scratched their head over Kerry and couldn't vote for him. We didn't hate him, or his message, like a lot of bloggers suggest. He raised a lot of really important questions. He's a smart guy. But we just don't get his desire to separate his personal beliefs from his public life. "I'm against abortion, but I'm not going to impose my beliefs on the country." Again, WTF? Our spidey sense went off pretty hard at that. I mean, if you're pro-choice, sure, we can talk. But if you're pro-life, but not willing to fight for it, what are you?

Now, if you liberals didn't have rocks for brains, you'd realize the same arguments can be made against Bush. "So, if Christians are supposed to be peacemakers, then what are you doing in Iraq?" But you never took that argument to Bush, or the red states.

So, here's my advice for 2008: Learn to understand what true Christianity is all about, and not the fluffy, crappy stuff you see on TV. Not just the obvious stuff you think you know about us: anti-abortion, anti-gays, etc. Learn about our call to environmental stewardship (Genesis 1:28); Learn about Christians being call to be peacemakers. Learn about communal responsibility and love (Acts 2). Learn about hating the sin but loving the sinner. Learn about our responsibility to the poor and sick (Matthew 25:31-46). Learn about it, see how well it fits in when most of your "progressive" beliefs, and then confront the reds. If you can do that, you'll win. Easily.

06 Nov 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"So, here's my advice for 2008: Learn to understand what true Christianity is all about, and not the fluffy, crappy stuff you see on TV. Not just the obvious stuff you think you know about us: anti-abortion, anti-gays, etc. Learn about our call to environmental stewardship (Genesis 1:28); Learn about Christians being call to be peacemakers. Learn about communal responsibility and love (Acts 2). Learn about hating the sin but loving the sinner. Learn about our responsibility to the poor and sick (Matthew 25:31-46). Learn about it, see how well it fits in when most of your "progressive" beliefs, and then confront the reds. If you can do that, you'll win. Easily."

That's a nice little sermon, made me feel all warm inside that. But imagine for one moment if Kerry had taken those arguments on.

"We're all Christians, so why are we killing people in Iraq?"

"We're all Christians, so how come we give huge tax breaks to the rich and leave millions of kids behind in poverty and barely tend to our sick?"

"We're all Christians, so we must stop driving SUVs because of Genesis 1:28!"

"We're all Christians, and we suffered a great sin on 9-11. But we must learn to love the sinner!"

Karl Rove would've had a field day with that material. Face facts, the GOP didn't turn out the Christian votes by appealing to the *many* excellent things about Christianity. They appealed to the baser motives (bigotry) or the 'instinctive' motives (right-to-life), the issues that wrung out every last vote from the already sodden Republican districts and counties. And it worked a treat - that Rove chap has a diabolical genius!

By the way, despite my flippancy I actually agree that the values you set out are very much worth fighting for. I sometimes wonder what Bibles some of you Americans are reading, because the extremely tolerant and peaceful message of the New Testament is most certainly not the message your most prominent religious leaders and politicians put across. If you truly believe in those messages, if you're truly "willing to fight for it", then please do something about the likes of Falwell, whose immediate message post 9-11 was "blame the gays, blame the abortionists", or the recently elected Senator Tom Coburn who believes in capital punishment for abortionists.

06 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Wow ... this thread has exploded! A lot of emotions here.

I'm very fundamental in my Christian beliefs, to the extreme that I choose only the King James 1611 Bible as "my Bible".

Yet, I'm not ignorant, nor intolerant. Why is that?

BTW, I voted for Kerry because of Bush's deficit.

So how is it that I'm not intolerant? Please explain.

06 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Kinda sounds like the whole gun debate, huh? Yep, sure does. Swap out the word abortion with the word gun and see that, and as Arnold says, "You are a Republican."

Umm...what's your point?

It won't have much impact on how he runs the country.

So, you voted for a person to run the country based on attributes that have nothing to do with his ability to run the country?

Yet, I'm not ignorant, nor intolerant. Why is that?

Because I don't think you're as fundamentalist as you think you are. ;o)

Or, if you are, unlike the more common fundamentalists, you tend to be a bit more picky as to which items in the book you decide to take literally. ;o)

06 Nov 2004 | Phil said...

I'm not an expert in this area, but I believe Kerry goes to church most Sundays. Bush rarely goes. So if anyone won the "Look at me I'm religious!" prize it was Bush.

I'm not a 100% on this one either, but I believe Jimmy Carter is a born again Christian. Carter has done so much for peace he won the Nobel Peace Prize. I admire Carter a lot.

My point is, I don't judge a person for their personal religious views. Carter and Kerry didn't use religion as an excuse to back up their political decisions. This is what freaks me out about Bush. He will use anything, including the fear of God, to get what he wants.

06 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

"I'm very fundamental in my Christian beliefs, to the extreme that I choose only the King James 1611 Bible as 'my Bible'."
How does the King James bible make you very fundamental? I thought it made you more of a literature nut! :-)

06 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

"I'm not an expert in this area, but I believe Kerry goes to church most Sundays. Bush rarely goes. So if anyone won the "Look at me I'm religious!" prize it was Bush."

Going to church no less makes one a Christian, than going to the ballpark makes one a baseball player. Christianity is not tied up in Church on Sunday, in the same way Buddhism is not tied up in some monastary in Tibet.

It has nothing to do with a building and everything to do with a living, breathing person.

06 Nov 2004 | Josh Williams said...

Sam Adams was a Puritan, an extreme form of religion and I don't think his rants represented the tone of the values with which this country was founded. Even though the founding fathers views seem religious and conservative by todays standards, they weren't back then. This is clear by the concepts of separation of church and state and the freedom to worship whichever religion you choose.

Umm, they were by and large all Puritans. There was a reason the orginal colonists left Great Britain. They were fleeing religious persecution.

As for slavery, it needed and had to be abolished... John Adams and James Madison were both very aware of that. However, there was also a realization at that time, that if abolishment of slavery had been included within the U.S. Consititution, there would have been a Civil War before there was a Revolution.

The founding fathers of this country were religious. So is John Kerry. More importantly the founding fathers, Kerry, and myself are liberals, or as I prefer, progressives.

Were all Founding Fathers "liberal"? Did everyone happen to hold the same beliefs? Everyone seems to be saying what the Founding Fathers were and were not. Where is the support for the idea that all Founding Fathers were liberal? I hate to even use the term liberal because it tends to sterotype, but it would be interesting to see what others out there can find that the Founding Father's said to support their position.

Frankly, most of us don't have a clue about what they said.

06 Nov 2004 | Brian Jeffreys said...

Frankly, Josh, judging by most of your comments, you seem to believe you have a better handle on our Founding Father's thoughts, beliefs, and political ideologies than the rest of us.... so, take a moment and enlighten those of us without your knowledge of our nation's history.

Also, your ridiculous assertion that John Kerry may not be "religious", despite his lifelong record of church attendence, simply because he "says he is religious" is insulting.

George Bush is a "born again". Born again, meaning he came into his faith at a point in time when he "discovered Jesus".

By your logic... talking the talk, does not mean walking the walk... therefore Bush may not be a true Christian either.

Maybe Bush came into religion as way to help his political career? Perhaps Bush uses religion as a political tool? Maybe he doesn't. If your going to throw accusations around, let's be equitable and accuse both men of using religion to advance their agendas.

07 Nov 2004 | Jose Rui Fernandes said...

People here are forgetting that voting for most of the people has more to do with intangible feelings than facts, knowledge and the record of the candidates. I guess lots of the people voting Bush are die hard republicans, lots are christian fundamentalists (fueled by the constant "God this and God that of Bush" -- I wonder what bible he reads...), lots are people afraid of terrorism that think Bush is a better choice to protect America... These are not exactly fact and knowledge based votes. So, for me "ignorant" is not entirely accurate. Besides, marketing was over the top for both sides this time, maybe the Bush machine was better (the stickers are better...).
But I think lots of people will see they were wrong voting for this guy again. He's just irrational. The elections in Iraq are set to the end of January. Let's see how he'll handle that. Can anyone imagine how it is to vote in a country (?) like that?

07 Nov 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

Its worrying that everyone who voted for the removal of the president seems to feel marginalized. I feel a bit of pain for them. Can a president really stuff almost half a country into the margin? If so how many people think that its right to do so? I wonder well see.

07 Nov 2004 | Phil said...

Josh Williams, the fact that you hate to use the term "liberal" speaks volumes. That word has been hijacked by the right-wing noise machine and turned into something negative. There is nothing wrong with it and I am proud to be liberal.

By today's standards, the founding fathers would be considered liberal. The conservatives back then were called Loyalists, the people who were monied and owned land and didn't want to rock the boat with England. They'd rather keep the unjust system than risk losing their land.

This is why it annoys me so much when the Limbaughs and Coulters out there say liberals hate their country. If it was up to those idiots we'd still be voting for members or Parliament, not our own president.

07 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Liberal is a four-letter word in todays political discourse, yet it is defined as:

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

While Conservative is defined as:

Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

By definition, what group of people is more open-minded?

---------------------------------

It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are? Quote from conservative pundit David Brooks.

I appreciate a conservative viewpoint as much as I appreciate a liberal one. But this statement by Brooks is so ridiculously partisan it smacks of exactly the same close-mindedness of which he is accusing liberals.

This attitude is prevalent on both sides of the political debate. For anyone to even suggest that Liberals are more close-minded is base hypocrisy.

These past four years, I, a liberal, have been demonized for being liberal. I have been called by the President, various members of the Bush Administration, conservative pundits, and a few of my Republican family members and friends a fascist, a traitor, elitist, terrorist-sympathizer, opportunistic, morally bankrupt, fucking idiot, and a host of other wonderfully open-minded terms.

Fact is, statements such as these, statements that are used for the express purpose of ending debate, rather than facilitating debate, need to stop being used to divide people. Brooks makes some good points, but by ending his lucid opinion by talking down to the people he is trying to understand/explain, he is doing nothing more than calling the kettle black.

07 Nov 2004 | hartmurmur said...

Darrell likes to twist what people say:
It won't have much impact on how he runs the country.

So, you voted for a person to run the country based on attributes that have nothing to do with his ability to run the country?

I never said I voted for Bush because I like how he loves and respects his wife. Nice job taking my comment and placing it out of context. It was a comment and was not preceeded nor followed by "I voted for Bush because...". I said I respect and admire that in a man/husband.

I don't get why you are trying to accomplish in this thread. People certainly don't have to explain why they voted one way or the other. Voting is personal and everyone has their own reasons. What you care about the least may be the most important for someone else. If someone votes for a single issue, that is their prerogative. Who are you to judge? Are you trying to win over people here? Rattle their beliefs? Good luck. I don't get the hatred (from many of the Kerry-backers). It certainly isn't healthy.

07 Nov 2004 | Phil said...

"I don't get the hatred (from many of the Kerry-backers). It certainly isn't healthy."

Bush and his neo-con army started the hatred. So if you don't "get" the Kerry-backed hatred you really must not get the neo-con hatred. I agree it certainly isn't healthy, but for some reason people tune into Rush for their daily dose of hatred.

If you don't feel you have to explain your vote then why are you participating in this discussion? I'm proud of my vote for Kerry and I'll explain to anyone who asks.

"If someone votes for a single issue, that is their prerogative." It may be there perogative but it's also stupid and worthy of a discussion. If Bush won because people voted on a single issue like gay marriage or abortion then our country truly is in a sad state of affairs.

08 Nov 2004 | indi said...

This country is only really divided when it comes to politics. The rest of the time we work and play well together except for the handfull of extremists on both sides. The media has really played up this "divided country" thing. Don't buy into it. Half the country will not be marginalized.

08 Nov 2004 | Paperhead said...

both sides, repeat ad nauseam:

I guess there's just two kinds of people, Miss Sandstone: my kind of people, and assholes.

Pink Flamingos/John Waters.

08 Nov 2004 | matthew said...

"If someone votes for a single issue, that is their prerogative." It may be there perogative but it's also stupid and worthy of a discussion. If Bush won because people voted on a single issue like gay marriage or abortion then our country truly is in a sad state of affairs.

so, if kerry had one, wouldn't that "single issue" had been "he's not bush".

08 Nov 2004 | matthew said...

"If someone votes for a single issue, that is their prerogative." It may be there perogative but it's also stupid and worthy of a discussion. If Bush won because people voted on a single issue like gay marriage or abortion then our country truly is in a sad state of affairs.

so, if kerry had one, wouldn't that "single issue" had been "he's not bush".

08 Nov 2004 | Phil said...

"so, if kerry had one, wouldn't that "single issue" had been "he's not bush"."

No.

There's a whole other "he's not Bush" thread so I don't care to repeat it here. Kerry was extremely clear on every issue vital to this country. Republicans invented the whole "flip flopper" thing. Bush won because apparently the majority of this country can only digest three word sound bites.

08 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

I don't get why you are trying to accomplish in this thread.

I'm trying to find out why people voted for Bush. Were they based on rational reasoning? Gut reactions? FUD? What?

I'm simply trying to understand. But few Bush voters are either unable, or unwilling to explain their vote. So, I'm just left scratching my head.

If someone votes for a single issue, that is their prerogative. Who are you to judge?

Of course that's their prerogative. That's a rather short-sighted way way to elect someone, IMHO. That's not judging, unless you feel the label of 'ignorant on the issues' is someone seen as an indictment.

I don't get the hatred

I don't get why people keep spinning 'confusion' on our part as us hating you.

Now *I* am sounding like a broken record, but here, in a simple of terms as I can put it, is how the national conversation seems to be going:

B = Bush followers
D = Democrats

D = We don't understand. Why did you relect this man?
B = Why do you hate us? You whining haters.
D = Umm...?????????????

so, if kerry had one, wouldn't that "single issue" had been "he's not bush".

'not Bush' encompasses a WIDE range of issues...Foreign policy, the war, religous overtones in legislation, ties to Haliburton, questionable tax reform, record national debt, very weak healthcare plan, dangerous pandering to the drug companies, etc.

This is the first time in my memory where we've had a President that was SO polarizing that the 'not him' argument actually holds a significant amount of weight.

08 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Indi, while I understand your sentiment when you say, "Half the country will not be marginalized." I don't think that this is Bush's view of reality. During his press conference he talked about having a mandate and political capital, capital that he plans to spend. He is more confident today than in the past couple of months... The real kicker is, he has ALREADY marginalized over 10% of the country. The gay community. So I don't think it is realistic to think he won't continue to divide the country based on his actions or his words.

08 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

Learn to understand what true Christianity...

Yes, that would be a good idea for everyone who has spouted off about religioun in this forum.

I've got news for everyone -- Christianity isn't warm and fuzzy and all that.

If you want to know about it, pick up a Bible and start at the beginning. Read the whole thing, and then tell me how warm and fuzzy the Word of God is.

The division in the US isn't between the right and left, it's between rural/suburban areas and cities. Just take a look at the county-by-county vote. The liberal areas are vastly more concentrated around cities or college campuses.

08 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Bush won because apparently the majority of this country can only digest three word sound bites.

Speaking of sound bytes, I thought I'd attempt to siphon off a little frustration from this debate by sharing a few of my favorite Bush catch phrases.

It just so happens, that our fearless leader is a marvelous speaker. His articulate use of loaded phrases inspired 51% of our electorate to cast a ballot in his favor.

What, I think it is fair to say, most of these people don't know is that many of his sound bytes are plagiarized.

Here are a few of my favorites:

Flip-Flopper This term was first used by President Ford to describe Jimmy Carter during the '76 election. Carter was America's first Flip-flopper.

A shining city on a hill This phrase was bandied about during the Republican National Convention by many speakers. It is often attributed to Reagan... who stole it from JFK. However, the original quote came from John Winthrop, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

And, certainly not the last or the least,

Win the hearts and minds How many times did we hear this phrase used in justification of our plan to win the peace? This phrase made it's debut in the early 70's, as our involvement in Vietnam escalated. The original quote comes from Robert S McNamara, then Secretary of Defense. He said in a televised interview, "(our goal is to)win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people".

Not only is Bush a man of few words, his words aren't even original... well, except for "strategery".

08 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

The division in the US isn't between the right and left, it's between rural/suburban areas and cities. Just take a look at the county-by-county vote. The liberal areas are vastly more concentrated around cities or college campuses.

No kidding Randall!

What does this tell you about the value of education?

Unless, of course, your argument is that education is the cause of the moral decline in this country?

I think it is safe to say that many of us know the true nature of religion... some of us call it hypocrisy.

Some of us were capable at the age of fifteen to question why, if god is our father, we should have to fear him? My parents could not answer that question and therefore did not force me to attend church from then on.

It may do you well to present an arugment rather than simply spout some BS about our collective religious ignorance.

08 Nov 2004 | Levi said...

Darell, I feel for you man. The world is a screwed up place but you know what? John Kerry wouldn't have helped anything. You don't like Christians because you don't understand us but we understand the world. We understand the world in a way that you don't.

And you can point at me, call me ignorant. Put my qoutes in Italics and cut me apart. Fine. I wouldn't expext anything else. That's what makes you secure.

You want explinations but when we give them to you, you don't understand. It's not your fault. You couldn't understand because you haven't experienced what we have. To you it sounds like ignorance.

I don't hate you. I see somone who is angry, scared and disparing - somone very much like me. This world does that to you. And even if everyone voted Democrat it wouldn't change.

Leo Tolstoy said, "Everybody thinks of changing humanity, but nobody thinks of changing himself."

Understand yourself before you try to understand the world.

08 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Darell, I feel for you man. The world is a screwed up place but you know what? John Kerry wouldn't have helped anything.

You SAY that, but you don't EXPLAIN why.

You don't like Christians because you don't understand us but we understand the world.

Don't you dare assume that all christians are one and the same. I don't 'hate' christians at all. I am confused by a subset of christians that seem to vote based on irrational, random, fundamentalist phrases from the Bible.

You want explinations but when we give them to you, you don't understand.

There's nothing to understand. I haven't gotten any logical explanations to any of this. This *isn't* a christian thing at all. There are plenty of ignorant bush voters that could care less about the christian angle. I'm simply seeking answers, and no one is willing to provide them. Instead, they prefer to spread the 'we all hate each other' idiocy/spin.

So be it.

08 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

And even if everyone voted Democrat it wouldn't change.

Oh...and you are very right about this. The only way things will change if is people start engaging in a dialogue. The frustration is that I don't see that about to happen in this country. It seems as if the core base of Bush voters is willing to embarce the division rather than engage in any sort of discussion about it...just like the biggest issues with Reagan were commies and the biggest issues with Clinton were blow jobs. We're so easily distracted in this society.

08 Nov 2004 | Stephen Fellows said...

Levi,
Your response above is one of the most arrogant, self-righteous bits of baloney I have ever heard.

Why don't you explain how the world works for you or how it works in the mind of a moralistic individual, before you go off accusing someone of being, essentially, a jackass.

You're calling the kettle black without providing any argument whatsoever.

And, in doing so, supporting the theory that religious people really did not have a logical reason why they voted the way they did.

Maybe, and perhaps you can explain this, the reason why some people find the "morals" vote ignorant is because it DOES NOT even come close to considering issues that affect EVERYONE. Perhaps, the morals vote was nothing more than laziness... Pehaps, people were simply too lazy to learn about the issues and how those issues affect everyone in this country and around the world.... so, they opted out and voted for a man who seeminlgy shares their "values"... Because it was easier.

So, tell us, what do you understand about the world the rest of us do not? And, be specific. Because I'm betting your experiences are pretty damned close to ours.

08 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

This country is only really divided when it comes to politics. The rest of the time we work and play well together except for the handfull of extremists on both sides. The media has really played up this "divided country" thing. Don't buy into it. Half the country will not be marginalized.

I disagree that our divisions come only from politics. Neighborhoods are more and more segregated as time goes by. Not necessarily by race (although that's still a huge factor) but by class. Upper middle-class neighborhoods will fight tooth and nail against opening up apartments or affordable housing developments, because they are convinced crime and other things will go up just by virtue of these people being renters or not living in expensive houses.

There have also been numerous demographic studies recently showing that political polarization on a county-by-county and neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis is increasing. In other words, people are moving to be in locations where most everyone thinks like them.

That is de facto division, and it's more than just politics. You can't really understand other people's points of view if you're never around them.

Add in the increasing fragmentation of media and entertainment, and you have a country full of a billion niches instead of large communities. About the only thing people still rally behind universally are local sports teams. And we'll probably lose that at some point.

08 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Learn to understand what true Christianity is all about

Nice sentiment, but there's a huge devil in the details: What is "true Christianity"? You can't even get people who identify themselves as Christians to remotely agree on that, and they've been trying to figure that out for a good couple thousand years now. I grew up in an evangelical/not-quite fundamentalist environment. Their concept of "true" Christianity was vastly different than the Episcopalean tradition I shifted to in college.

Now, I would argue (and I suspect you would as well, judging by your posts here) that the American fundamentalist vision of Christianity does not match with what Christianity is all about (the world espoused by Christ and actually lived out by the Apostles looks almost communist, for example). But that's my opinion. Others have vastly different opinions, and we could both marshall all sorts of evidence to support.

So, if Christians can't figure out what true Christianity is about, how are people sitting outside that world supposed to figure out what it's about and address things on those terms? It's a fool's errand.

08 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

"You don't like Christians because you don't understand us but we understand the world. We understand the world in a way that you don't."
Levi, again, I have included my email address because on the Vote thread you said you didn't want to take the time to explain how the Bible clearly details that homosexuality should be condemned but other parts of the Bible are ignored. You have said that those that aren't Christian somehow don't understand the world works... kind of the same mentality you were speaking against... if you aren't with me, you just aren't intelligent enough.

I was born in Kansas, grew up in the south and have lived in New York and LA since... I've seen all sorts of different forms of Christianity practiced so for you to try and group all Christians into your corner is, I think, a bit off. Seriously, email, I'd really like to understand your point without you leaving it to me having to "trust you".

08 Nov 2004 | not american said...

Are you proud to be an American?

I propose the sane half of America leave. Why don't all those who aren't rabidly gun loving, fundamentalist, born again, homophobic nut jobs move to Canada.

08 Nov 2004 | not american said...

The wake begins and ends here:
http://www.distopia.com/wake

08 Nov 2004 | not american said...

The wake does end here:

http://www.distopia.com/wake

08 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

That is de facto division, and it's more than just politics. You can't really understand other people's points of view if you're never around them.

In all of the debate this past week, I think that is the only bit of logical evidence I've seen that can explain it all. With Manhatten having the GIGANTIC lean towards Kerry...even though they were the very target of Bush's 'terrorism, terrorism,terrorism' spiel I think the 'diversity' issue proves itself (at least until someone else starts showing some other evidence). If you live in a part of the country where you need to interact with more types of folks, you tend to be a bit more inclusive in your decision making process than if you live in the middle of rural America, where you just aren't exposed to to much in the way of different types of thinking.

We can't change the minds of the greedy wealthy. They're always going to go for a Bush-like person for obvoius reasons. Can't even entirely fault them for that. Can't change the minds of moderate, intelligent republicans. They have plenty of logical reasons to support fiscal and social conservative issues and they are a much needed part of the political spectrum.

So that leaves us with the religious/rural bush followers. How do we change their minds? I propose we start the 'diversity corps'. If you are non-white, non-straight, non-middle class, non-vehement-christian, non-fox-news watching person, sign up. You will be sponsored and sent, with a few of your fellow corps-members into a randomly chosen small town in America and/or a generic suburb.

Then, mingle.

It's our only hope. ;o)

08 Nov 2004 | Paperhead said...

* gets wooden spoon *

The Register's open letter to the Red States

* ducks *

08 Nov 2004 | The Englishman said...

The British response

Not that this will lead to any meaningful discourse, but they are entitled to their opinion.

08 Nov 2004 | The Englishman said...

oops.

the British response

08 Nov 2004 | hartmurmur said...

I'm trying to find out why people voted for Bush. Were they based on rational reasoning? Gut reactions? FUD? What?

Probably all the above...and I don't think any of them are wrong. To each his own. I can't tell someone that their methodolgy is ignorant because I don't walk in their shoes, think their thoughts, or see through their eyes. You (not *you* specifically, but in general) assume people who voted for Bush didn't look closely enough at the issues...but if they had it would be clear to them Kerry was the right choice. That's ignorant...saying only *if* they did the research they would have chosen correctly...which in your eyes, Kerry was the only logical choice.

I'm simply trying to understand. But few Bush voters are either unable, or unwilling to explain their vote. So, I'm just left scratching my head.

Maybe it's because we were called ignorant (and a whole host of other labels) from the get-go? Nobody needs that.

And when I asked what is with all the hatred, I didn't mean democrats hating republicans. I meant Kerry-backers hating Bush. I don't remember such hatred from anyone when Clinton won his terms or was impeached. Mudslinging, yes. Hatred, no.

So here's why I voted Bush (not in any particular order, but I mention the first because this is who I am):
- I believe in Jesus Christ and value that George W. Bush is open about his faith. I'm glad he is not making decisions based on his own judgement, but he prays about those decisions and for those in this country. This is not morals, but morals stem from these beliefs.
- He is humble.
- I believe in his character, i.e. the strength of resolve to maintain the course no matter how hard or unpopular that may be... to make the tough decisions and stand by them.
- I believe he has integrity; a commitment to doing what is right.
- I believe he can relate to all people in a transparent and real way.
- He surrounds himself with people of integrity who have the skills and desire to achieve common goals.
- I believe in the right to life
- I think Laura Bush is more representative of First Lady than Tuh-rayza Heinz would have been. Yes, the spouse does not run the country (unless you are Hillary), but how he treats his wife (with utmost respect and class) speaks volumes on how he treats others.
- Past experince in public office.

Why I didn't vote for Kerry:
- No "real" plans came from his mouth other than portraying that everything Bush did in his first term was wrong. Not once did I hear him say that Bush did something good (other than his first speech after 9/11).
- I don't believe in a bigger government (he denied this, but I don't see how you can take over health care and some of the other *promises* without growing the government. Note I didn't say plan, because a plan means a way to get to the result.
- I don't believe the rich should be penalized because they are rich (fewer tax breaks). That stiffles hard work, creatvity and desire.
- I think they economy is picking up. I *know* the recession started before Bush took office and 9/11 had a huge deal to do with it tanking. But overall, it was a quick recession and things are moving again.
- I think the job loss was a result of the economy (duh). I don't think Bush can be held responsible for what a company does as far as outsourcing. Technology replaces people...it always has. It's business.
- Kerry said he was Catholic and an altar boy. Most people can see right through this. Not a reason to vote against him, but why bring it up other than to try and reach the Catholic population? I prefer living out your faith rather mentioning it to gain votes. Oh, and by the way, Separation of Church and State is nowhere in the constitution. This is a huge fallacy. The reason it is mentioned is to not restict who can run for public office based on religion. It's is impossible to separate your belief system and make your beliefs private and everything else public.
- I don't necessarily approve of the situation in Iraq, but I do believe we need to stay there until things are better. Pulling troops out in 6 months without is not a plan. Iraq doesn't need to be back where it was shortly after we leave. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a grave threat and we are in a much better position to help the Iraqi people after remiving him and his regime from power. Cleanup is never fun. Loss of life is never fun. People don't join the military for kicks. They join to defend their country and in that, loss of life is a result (soldier and yes, civilian). It's terribly unfortunate. Kerry's non-plan is no guarantee of lives saved or a more peacuful world.
- 20 years in the senate and not a whole heck of a lot to show.
- Ideologies tend to blow with the political breeze.

If you read this long, kudos to you. (And this is the short list.)

In some of the above reasons for choosing Bush, I am not saying Kerry does not exhibit any of these qualities. I just feel Bush exhibits them in a stronger way.

08 Nov 2004 | Paperhead said...

I believe in Jesus Christ and value that George W. Bush is open about his faith. I'm glad he is not making decisions based on his own judgement, but he prays about those decisions and for those in this country. This is not morals, but morals stem from these beliefs.

Yay! Sleep safe, the country is being governed by George's invisible friend.

</snark>

08 Nov 2004 | lisa said...

I'm trying to find out why people voted for Bush. Were they based on rational reasoning? Gut reactions? FUD? What?

I voted for Bush for 2 reasons.
1. I don't want higher taxes. At a minimum, Kerry's "plans" would have increased my tax base $200-300 a month, and I believe in SMALLER government.
2. I got the feeling listening to Kerry that he would have said anything to get elected and was more interested in that than actually running the country.

I am a firm believer in gay rights and truly did not believe that Kerry would have been able to make any bit of difference in that arena had be been elected.

08 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

I can't tell someone that their methodolgy is ignorant because I don't walk in their shoes, think their thoughts, or see through their eyes.

Yes you can. This isn't about 'feelings' or 'faith' or some abstract feel-good vibe. It's simply about showing your work...basic crticial thinking skills. These can, and are measurable.

didn't mean democrats hating republicans. I meant Kerry-backers hating Bush. I don't remember such hatred from anyone when Clinton won his terms or was impeached.

What do you mean you don't remember? HE WAS IMPEACHED FOR ORAL SEX!? If that's not arbitrary, misguided hate, what is?

Anyhoo, at least those that hate Bush tend to have logical explanations for it. At least I can appreciate the thinking behind the conclusion.

As for your arguments for voting for Bush, THANK YOU, for eplaining them. I find them all devoid of logic, but at least you explained them. You appeared to vote for a person based on their made-for-media persona. Which, well, is what Rove knows best. Another point for him.

You arguments for NOT voting for Kerry were quite erroneous. But hey, at least I understand your viewpoint. Thanks.

1. I don't want higher taxes.

THAT is a rational, logic reason. Thank you lisa.

and I believe in SMALLER government.

Well, GW is about as 'big government' as you can get. Not sure why you felt that would change in his second term.

I got the feeling listening to Kerry that he would have said anything to get elected and was more interested in that than actually running the country.

Oh Geez.

I am a firm believer in gay rights and truly did not believe that Kerry would have been able to make any bit of difference in that arena had be been elected.

So you went with the candidate that actually tried to ammend the constitution to discriminate?

Can you folks see where the left is really dumfounded with these lines of reasoning?

08 Nov 2004 | ek said...

You know what I'm beginning to think here is that Darrel is either an agent of Carl Rove or the grand wizard himself.

If not, it doesn't seem right that you're doing so much to further the cause of the Right without at least getting paid for it.

I mean, you so perfectly match the picture of what a liberal is as painted by the man behind the plan that you're almost a caricature.

Do you honestly think that you're doing anything here to further your cause? From where I'm sitting, it looks like you're achieving exactly the opposite (that is unless you actually are Carl Rove).

08 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

If you believe in SMALLER government, that is a basic republican stance, but it is not reflective of Bush's administration. Bush is not humble, he pretends to be. I truly believe he is the greatest faker at being humble. Numerous instances of his behaviour proves otherwise, and I think the debates showed that.

Hm. Integrity. He mislead about the level of Saddam's WMDs, completely and knowingly (we can go into details, yet again if you wish), Saddam was completely contained, had no WMDs and in no way was a threat to the US. The argument went from he IS a threat to he COULD be a threat again in the future for a reason. Bush was against the creation of the 9/11 commission because he was afraid how bad he would look. He is currently repressing the CIA's internal 9/11 report. His administration constantly runs campaigns with illegal, ugly tactics such as phone jamming and lies about McCain's family. His administration outed an undercover CIA agent. The investigation into Abu Gharib prisoner abuse was stagnant until the public learned about it... was anyone higher up held accountable? No. Rumsfeld visited Saddam shortly after he gassed thousands of his own people in the 80s with chemicals we gave him and answered criticism during the war with quotes like "in a free society people are free to riot and loot". Halliburton received no-bid contracts and continues to get paid while under investigation, something that is illegal.

Bush only talks like he has integrity and character. I think if you watch the debates, how he handles situations where he is being held accountable, you see a very different man. One that is childish, immature and angry to be questioned in any way. There is a reason why this man has had the FEWEST question and answer sessions with the press in known history. He looks bad because he always resorts to his mad little man schtick.

As for your comments about Mrs. Kerry-Heinz and Mrs. Clinton... are you that afraid of strong women? Do you think a woman's job is to "stand by her man" and shut up and have no opinion? Is that what you honestly think is the role of a first lady?

Obviously I'm not defending Kerry. I think he, and the DNC were spending too much time trying to win instead of making a stand. In the end, that is probably what cost them.

08 Nov 2004 | hartmurmur said...

Great post Paperhead. You've proven my point.

Darrell,
People hated Clinton because of his adulterous actions? Hate is pretty strong. It was more of a disapproval. Those who hated Clinton hated him before that scandal.

Plus, it wasn't only the republicans that impeached Clinton. Our leaders should be held to a higher standard. Cheating on your wife does not fit that bill. It was the right thing to do. But we're beyond Clinton (but Gore will always live on in my heart because without him I wouldn't be able use these internets...double jab.).

Oh, and speaking of Gore, if he was the favorite last election (and won as you all say), why didn't he run again? Surely he would have beaten Bush twice, no?

But Darrel, there you go again saying the reasons I voted were not right (devoid of logic, as you put it = lacking reasonable judgement). Fancy that.

08 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

EK, "You know what I'm beginning to think here is that Darrel is either an agent of Carl Rove or the grand wizard himself."
There are plenty of stereotypes flying around. And I think again, that's a major issue... if you want to get into it then Dems should start calling red state supporters commies, pinkos and the red menace right? I mean, there are plenty of old anti-red slogans we can pull out (anyone else hear that bit on NPR).

If you are so narrow minded to say a republican is a right wing religious fanatic or a democrate is a left wing hippie dope head, then you really are just a pawn of someone else pushing you and your vote to one extreme or the other. Pull your heads out of your asses and realize that while we as a species have a tendency to group together for common causes, in the end, we are each individuals that (unless brainwashed) are reasonable animals, able to handle real discussion and discourse... but right now, that is not what is happening.

Are we less polite today? Is that the problem? People with differing opinions are shouted down and out without equal time to be heard. It is ridiculous. If it keeps going this way all you will continue to have as choices are one corrupt group versus another. You can try and blindly support Bush or Kerry, but the truth is neither is worthy of the presidency nor our support because neither is what a leader should be.

Left or right we all need to stand up for campaign finance reform, clean election processes so that we are sure they are free from doubt, a free media that is not simply part of one giant corporation or another and put down these shows where yelling at your opponent gets you the political win. What we have at stake as a continually evolving nation is too great to risk to these media hacks that are making money off our political decisions.

08 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

"Cheating on your wife does not fit that bill. It was the right thing to do. But we're beyond Clinton (but Gore will always live on in my heart because without him I wouldn't be able use these internets...double jab.)."

Cheating on your wife is not an impeachable offense nor was his lying about it. So no, it was not the right thing to do, nor was it appropriate to spend millions of our dollars on it when the country had more important things to work on.

08 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Darrell, there's a difference between not agreeing with something and its being illogical. I don't agree with heartmurmur's reasoning on almost every point - he finds W humble, I find him to be amazingly arrogant and cocky, just to cite one example (and this isn't the time or place to go dissect each and every point) - but it makes sense to me in terms of his evaluation on whom to vote for. Just because I don't agree with his conclusions, or even with his presumptions in making those conclusions, does not mean he didn't logically come up with a list of pros and cons based on what he views as important and that reflects his view of the world.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You're holding people to an impossible standard, and it's apparent that anything or anyone that doesn't agree with your conclusions will pass muster with you as "logcial" (even when you say Lisa is logical, you immediately turn around and say her conclusions are illogical). You'd honestly have more credibility if you simply said that everyone should vote the way you do and reach their conclusions the way you do, and nothing else makes any sense to you. And I'm someone who happens to agree with your conclusions. Imagine what your inflexibility looks like to someone who doesn't agree with your conclusions. And people on the left wonder why so many people on the right find the left to be patronizing and condescending.

08 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Do you honestly think that you're doing anything here to further your cause?

I have no cause. I seek understanding. If no one wants to share, so be it.

08 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Heartmurmur, there are a few erroneous statements in a couple of your posts that I couldn't let slide.

The recession did not start before Bush took office. The government's own official accounting places the start in March 2001, and the end in November of that year. He was in office. Was he to "blame"? That's a subjective issue. But factually, it started when he was in office.

Gore never claimed to invent the Internet.

Impeachment is spelled out in the constitution as being for high crimes and misdemeanors. Adultery is neither. It's not even a crime in most states anymore. One could argue if perjury fits, but he did not deserve to be impeached based on adultery.

08 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

But Darrel, there you go again saying the reasons I voted were not right (devoid of logic, as you put it = lacking reasonable judgement). Fancy that.

There is no 'right'.

I give up. Bush's base of blind followers are upset because they think some other folks are calling them names when they're actually just looking for some signs critical thinking.

If they're upset about the name calling, so be it. At least they can find solace in the fact that we're not trying to pass legislation to remove their rights, or pollute their backyard, or invadin their country, or indoctrinating them with our religion.

Darrell, there's a difference between not agreeing with something and its being illogical.

Of course.

does not mean he didn't logically come up with a list of pros and cons based on what he views as important and that reflects his view of the world.

That's like telling your professor 'just because I didn't show my work doesn't mean I just found the answer off the internet' ;o)

How can they tell?

08 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

...and as I always say, these conversations would be much more productive over a few beers. Blogs are such a bad way to come to any conclusion...

08 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

"Bush's base of blind followers are upset because they think some other folks are calling them names when they're actually just looking for some signs critical thinking."

Yeah, but over a few beers someone might beat the crap out of one another with the lack of respect being shown to one another. Blind followers isn't exactly a compliment.

08 Nov 2004 | Mark said...

Darrell -

I think this article from CNN might lend some of the answers you seek -

"The political genius of George W. Bush"

08 Nov 2004 | Paperhead said...

Great post Paperhead. You've proven my point.

oooh fantastic, stating which post and what point would be good. Was it the bit about George's invisible friend? Am I not allowed to refer to it in those terms?

I'm not religious, so this is how I see it:

Mostly, you voted for George because you both have an invisible friend.

</hunt_for_logic>

08 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Yeah, but over a few beers someone might beat the crap out of one another with the lack of respect being shown to one another. Blind followers isn't exactly a compliment.

But it's easy to counter it with a simple verbal rebuttal. I'm pretty sure fists wouldn't be needed. ;o)

Mark...I agree with that article...other than the title (It's Rove that has the true talent. ;o)

08 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

It is simple to counter with a verbal rebuttal, just as it is simple to not make inflammatory remarks in the first place. I was simply saying, include beer into the equation and you have something a little more flammable.

As for the article... I think it misses some major points like his low approval rating and right track, wrong track. I don't think his winning was a result of political prowress, but rather DNC ineptitude.

In the end, the DNC made the argument Bush vs. Not Bush and that was a pretty weak message. And I think the DNC problem is the same as this thread, not enough listening to why someone thinks the way they do, but judging it and reacting to it. The DNC tried to react by making policy to gain the most undecided voters and it didn't work. They didn't make a discussion out of the issues and we all know the "debates" weren't designed for debate on issues either. This whole election was a piece of crap from the voters point of view. We were robbed of a real campaign.

08 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

In the end, the DNC made the argument Bush vs. Not Bush and that was a pretty weak message.

Of the people that said 'I voted for bush because I didn't think Kerry was (whatever)' also end up showing that they supported for Bush based on a variety of other issues...fear of terrorism, their shared bible, silly acceptance of BushRove rhetoric, etc.

Kerry wasn't that inspiring, because he was fairly centrist (in terms of public persona). A lot of folks wanted someone like Dean, who was certainly more exciting, but also farther away from Bush in the political spectrum. Do you really think someone like Dean would have swayed more voters to not Vote Bush? Maybe he would of. I don't know.

08 Nov 2004 | said...

He [Bush] is humble.

As many posters have already argued my own beliefs based on reason and logic, allow me to make a purely emotional, subjective comment...

I find it nothing short of mind-boggling that anybody could see that smarmy fratboy as humble or "one of the boys" as he is often called. He is such a transparent conman. I can accept (though I don't agree) that people share the same values as Bush, but to actually think this man is in any way humble ... there are no words.

(And before anyone says Kerry is just as much a conman, may I point out that nobody ever says HE's just like "one of us.")

08 Nov 2004 | indi said...

For the love 'a Mike ... Clinton wasn't impeached for cheating on his wife or for lying about it to the public. He was impeached for perjuring himself before a judge. While that is illegal I personally don't feel it rose to the high crimes and misdemeaners level required for impeachment proceedings. That was definitely a wrongheaded and wasteful witch hunt.

FWIW at this point, here are some of my reasons for voting for Bush:

1. He lowered taxes for everyone who actually pays taxes and isn't likely to raise them. He has also stated he will seek to reform the tax code. I don't beleive you can grow an economy by raising taxes on anyone, especially those who create jobs. I'll admit I haven't fully considered the growing deficit and it's ramifications for the future ... but by the same token raising taxes to try to pay it down might seem to work in the short term but I think the long term hit on jobs and productivity would end up having more of a down side in the long run. But I'm not an economist ... must read more :-)

2. He made a strong stand against terrorists and nations who support them. While I don't fully support what he did in Iraq I do support his ability to take action when the UN was stuck in a useless cycle of resolutions and gamed inspections.

3. He is an honestly religious person. He is not afraid of what it would look like to admit he prays for guidance in making tough decisions. In my opinion sometimes both sides of an issue have equally valid aruments in their favor. Either you can make no decision, make one randomly or look for inspiration.

Reasons why I considered not voting for Bush.

1. Environmental policies were weak. I don't think the reasons given for dropping Kyoto were good enough. Whether or not man is helping the warming trend is moot at this point ... we need to do something to slow it down.

2. Pushing the ban on gay marriage was obvious pandering to the religious right in an election year .. I really don't like it when politicians do that.

3. Didn't pursue health care issues in his first term other than the Medicare prescriptions for seniors thing.

Some reasons why I didn't wote for Kerry.

1. I really didn't know much about him other than he was in Viet Nam and helped bring the MIA/POW search to a conclusion in association with John McCain.

2. I honestly couldn't take anything he said at face value because though his supposed flip-flops often weren't really flip flops, he did seem to change aspects of his positions based on prevailing public sentiment. I really felt in my gut that he was much more of a politician's politician that would say anything to get elected. I really don't trust that kind of "ends justify the means" thinking.

2. He really doesn't seem to have done much with his position in the Senate for the past 20 years.

3. Seems to have only been nominated because the former democratic front-runner (whose name escapes me) had a melt-down

4. Was on record as being heavily pro-UN, to the point of putting our troops under their control. In the debate he said he would have a sort of global test for our actions, but also said he would not let out own defense rest in other's hands. He seemed to be too obviously playing both ends against the middle.

08 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

"Kerry wasn't that inspiring, because he was fairly centrist (in terms of public persona)."

I don't think it was his persona or his policy that was centrist, I think it was the DNCs plan to try and appear centrist. In the end, his record didn't match what he was trying to appear to be, so few could really get behind him. That was Dole's problem when he ran, he didn't really support the platform he was running on so he didn't get the support. If political parties continue controling the agenda you will continue to see this crap put out as platforms for candidates. They aren't "allowed" to run on their beliefs, they act as front men for their parties. Bush happened to be a strong believer in the majority of his platform with a few false promises mixed in.

08 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

169 posts into the conversation and someone finally throws out some fairly valid arguments for their Bush vote. I can sleep now. ;o)

09 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

"But I'm not an economist ... must read more"
That's why lower taxes always sounds great. It never becomes an issue of public services versus raising the dollars for all that we enjoy in this country. It is also a falacy to equate taxing higher income individuals as to restricting job growth. O'Reilly made the claim that if he was taxed more he would have to lay off people from his show. How does his personal income affect the company payroll? It doesn't. There are separate taxes for personal and business incomes. If he wants to claim that his greed will cause him to fire people to cut costs so that he can keep his salary, that is another case altogether.

What does affect job growth is a weak middle class. The definition of middle class is so broad that it includes a huge portion of realistically poor all the way to well-off but not rich. The gap between the top and bottom of "middle class" is widening, but not as greatly as the gap between upper-middle class and the rich. We have a huge disparity of wealth distribution in the US. To chalk it up to hard working people doing better ignores the reality of how the system works in the US and the value of lower income workers.

If Bush really made a strong stand against terrorists and nations that support them he would have stayed in Afghanistan with sufficient troops to keep control. He would have worked harder with/against Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Phillipines, etc. Instead, he went after an oil rich nation with an asshole dictator that we supported over the years. He made a grand statement about nations that support terrorists, but he hasn't followed it up with even a small amount of real pressure where terrorists thrive.

"I do support his ability to take action when the UN was stuck in a useless cycle of resolutions and gamed inspections"
Useless? They worked didn't they? He had absolutely no WMDs and very little military ability. What they didn't do was get rid of Saddam. But that was never the goal. If we wanted to get rid of Saddam the first President Bush should have kept his promise and backed the uprising in the North. But we didn't, and let Saddam massacare thousands. This Bush claimed it was to get rid of WMDs, but there was no proof, just low quality circumstantial evidence. How can you know there ARE stockpiles of WMDs but not be able to know WHERE they are? There is a reason the UN only supported resolutions and we had to go it mostly alone...

Bush's environmental record isn't weak, its disgusting. He is a complete stooge for polluting companies.

You not knowing enough about Kerry is pretty much your own fault isn't it? You could have learned more... not that it would have swayed you, but that seems like an odd argument to make.

Kerry didn't have much of a record in the senate? Did you see Bush's record as a politician before 2000? Hm, compare those two and you might think differently.

09 Nov 2004 | indi said...

Sloan, I thought it was pretty much agreed that the reason Bush I didn't follow through in Iraq was that merely supporting an uprising to take out Saddam would leave a power vacuum that Iran would have been happy to fill and would create more problems in the area than it would solve. We had also agreed that we wouldn't go in to take out Saddam as a condition of the alliance with Arab countries in the area.

"You not knowing enough about Kerry is pretty much your own fault isn't it?"

Yup, never said it wasn't. But my point was there wasn't much noteworthy about his record from what I could gather ... face it, he didn't even bother bringing it up in his nomination acceptance speech. If there was something really cool and helpful he brought about while in the Senate I never read or heard about it, other than the Viet Nam MIA/POW thing with McCain.

I did know, on the other hand, that Bush defeated a popular Governor of Texas and was reelected, plus I was not totally unhappy with his first four years as president. At least I had something to go by in Bush's case.

I fully expect things to get better in the next four years, not worse. All I had to look forward to with Kerry was higher taxes, even bigger government, more deference to a corrupt UN, attempts to engage the big name allies in areas they have already stated they would not be engaged ... but hey, maybe we wouldn't be as reviled in the world ...

09 Nov 2004 | steve said...

He really doesn't seem to have done much with his position in the Senate for the past 20 years.

Allow me to clarify something, Kerry's record in the senate is no different than 99% of all the other Senators. VERY FEW Senators EVER get legislation they write passed. This is fact. Ted Kennedy, for example, who has been a Senator since the Stone Age, could also be accused (or vilified) as not having much of a record. Does this automatically mean a given Senator has been inconsequential? No, it does not. It is the nature of the business.

How many of you know who wrote and proposed the ORIGINIAL version of the Homeland Security Act? The original bill was written and proposed by Joe Lieberman and Max Cleland. That's right. Two Democrats. It was vetoed by Bush prior to 9/11 and renamed and approved by Bush AFTER the towers fell. Dont believe me? Look it up.

Needless to say, Lieberman and Cleland DID NOT get any credit for writing the initial bill. The Republicans and Bush took full credit for the idea.

Higher taxes. I love this argument.

Bush lowered taxes. Really? How many of you actually sat down with your accountant and figured out how much you saved with the tax cuts? The OMB estimated that the average tax refund for those earning less than 200 grand a year averaged out to $217.00. Gee, what did you do with your windfall? While the average tax cut for those in the top 2% of wage earners amounted to $94,000.

I actually sat down with my accountant to figure out how much Bush saved me. I am a very hard working, self-employed, middle class American. I pay my taxes and I treat my neighbor as I would like them to treat me. My tax savings for 2003... $321.00. My tax rate increased. My health insurance increased. My property taxes increased.

Tax cuts sound great and politically they are a no-brainer. But before you go off voting for the candidate who gave you that fanciful $1000 tax break, you may want to have a heart-to-heart with your accountant. Another interesting fact, The Bush administration likes to claim that the tax cuts gave the most benefit to our lowest paid wage earners, those under $20,000 a year. What they dont mention is that these individuals pay little to no income tax at all. In other words, the tax cuts dont do squat to help them.

Not only did Kerry specifically state in front of a national audience that he would NOT raise taxes on the middle class, but he explained in painstaking detail that he would ONLY REPEAL, REPEAL, REPEAL the additional tax breaks Bush gave to those who earn OVER 200 grand a year.

NEVER ONCE did he say he would raise taxes. Yet, Bush has amassed the most egregious debt in the history of our country and no plan has been offered as to how our president is going to reduce the debt. Sorry folks, but you cannot blame the national debt on 9/11. 9/11 is no longer an excuse. Bush may not raise taxes, but you can damn well be sure the next president will be forced to... and, if a Democrat gets elected... who do you suppose the Republicans will blame? Surely, not themselves.

09 Nov 2004 | paul said...

I'm sorry, but I can't help but get irritated with people who say, "I just didn't know that much about Kerry".

How much research did you do in 2000? Or, were you bamboozled by Bush then as well?

This is laziness, pure and simple. Especially, considering how RIDICULOUSLY EASY it is to find the resources necessary to learn about ANY candidate.

The Kerry/McCain Vietnam thing... was fucking huge. It was the single greatest factor in reestablishing relations with a nation we bombed into oblivion AND, just as important, helping families of POW/MIAs reach a semblance of closure with the war.

Anne Richards. She is one of my personal political hero's. How many of you are familiar with the campaign Bush waged against her? How many or you are familiar with the campaign Bush waged against McCain during the 2000 Republican Primaries? How many of you are familiar with the Republican campaign against Max Cleland's 2004 Senate reelection bid?

Anne Richards was accused of being a lesbian (and, people bought the lie, despite her husband). She lost her reelection. McCain did not win his party's nomination in 2000 because he was accused of fathering an illegitimate black child. Cleland lost his reelection in 04 because he was labeled unpatriotic, despite having lost 3 of 4 limbs in Vietnam... oh, did I mention McCain's patriotism was also questioned.... And, he was also accused of being a little loopy, you know, from spending 7 years as a prisoner of war in the Hanoi Hilton.

I have to wonder how many people actually believed the Swift Boat Assholes accusations, even after they were all proven false? Did any of you actually go the extra mile to find out who John O'Neill was? John O'Neill, the ring leader of the Swift Boat Veteran's for Truth, has been the thorn in Kerry's side since the Vietnam War. O'Neill was Hired by the Nixon administration to rebut Kerry's testimony to congress after he returned from the war. O'Neill has always been a hired gun. He has accused Kerry of having a political agenda, yet his entire career has been geared toward advancing his own career.

Speaking of which, How many of you actually know the history of Kerry's anti-war participation? How many of you have actually made the effort to listen to the famed speech he is so heavily criticized for?

His speech to congress in 1971 was one of the greatest in history. It was a speech he would never be able to duplicate... until his concession speech. If any of you question Kerry's integrity, his nature, or his humility, watch his election concession speech and ask yourself one simple question... would George Bush (the Republicans) have done the same had the vote been different? Or, would they have taken the 2004 vote back to court, just as they did in 2000?

Our country and our people, I firmly believe, missed an opportunity to elect a truly exceptional leader.

Do your homework.

09 Nov 2004 | indi said...

Steve, why is it that it is so easy to raise taxes but so hard to lower them? I have voted for increased sales taxes and bond measures, etc. in California. And you know what? It's never enough. Anything back is good. So I get 1000 dollars back in taxes ... but the guy who makes millions gets back 93,000. So what? He's still paying a hell of a lot more taxes than I am ... he's even paying a higher rate. The top 20% of income earners pay 80% of the taxes ... that's not enough?

"The Bush administration likes to claim that the tax cuts gave the most benefit to our lowest paid wage earners, those under $20,000 a year. What they dont mention is that these individuals pay little to no income tax at all. In other words, the tax cuts dont do squat to help them"

OK, so what is your point? That people who don't pay taxes don't a get a tax break? What is that all about?

09 Nov 2004 | indi said...

"Allow me to clarify something, Kerry's record in the senate is no different than 99% of all the other Senators."

Yeah, ever notice how few Senators actually get elected president?

And hey, I happen to like Lieberman and might have voted for him over Bush. But no, the dems wanted someone much more liberal.

I did watch the frontline piece highlighting Kerry's service to our country and was impressed by his patriotism. I didn't have the knee jerk reaction many had to his anti-war appearances. That was just his concern for our country. I appreciated what he did for the MIAs/POWs while in the Senate with McCain. But then they just jumped to his current campaign speeches. What else happened in between? And yeah, I took note of Bush and Rove's campaign tactics ... I didn't like them, but I was also hearing a lot a of anti-Bush vitriol at the same time in the media and figured that's just an unfortunate side of politics.

At the end I was left with a President that I liked as a person and with whom I knew what to expect versus a Senator with little to recommend him other than his debating style, patriotism and liberal voting history.

09 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

"Sloan, I thought it was pretty much agreed that the reason Bush I didn't follow through in Iraq was that merely supporting an uprising to take out Saddam would leave a power vacuum that Iran would have been happy to fill and would create more problems in the area than it would solve."
Indi, no, it is not pretty much agreed. The problem is that we pushed them to revolt with the promise of supporting their revolt and then backed out and let them get slaughtered. Bush senior originally wrote an article for Time saying that he didn't take out Saddam for the reason you stated, but that wasn't the reality of the situation because he tried to have Saddam overthrown but backed out.

"I did know, on the other hand, that Bush defeated a popular Governor of Texas and was reelected"
And David Duke won office. That isn't a good way to determine worthiness.

"OK, so what is your point? That people who don't pay taxes don't a get a tax break?"
The point is that they, in the end, are hurt by tax cuts for more well off. Programs as simple as mass transit have gotten the shaft over the last four years as well as programs that help low wage earners afford to continue working by putting their children in child care and covering some health care costs. The sad thing is, that by continually giving tax cuts you make it harder for lower wage earners to do anything but barely get by.

The issue becomes what is a livable income and what is the basic standard of living that a hard working person should be able to expect. Right now, the shift has been wholly against low income workers. That is what a tax cut DIRECTLY relates to. The basic concept of a graduated tax system is that those that have benefited the most from our society should also have a greater responsibility back to that community. This shouldn't be simply the land of opportunity for just you, it should be equal opportunity for all. As for your stat about 20% of income earners pay 80% of the taxes, well, that just shows how incredibly uneven the distribution of wealth is in this country doesn't it? If you look at the top 5%, you see they cover 67% of taxes... oh WAIT... That's right, those numbers cover just income taxes! Whoops. But really, that is the great way to deceive people. Take into consideration payroll and other taxes and that number is nowhere near as large. So you could look at total numbers and see how the burden of supporting this country is oddly shifted to lower income earners who are getting less out of their hard work (i.e. a higher percentage of their income goes to living expenses vs. a wealthier person that can afford savings and high return investments).

As for all the stupid propositions that made it onto the California ballots... what are our legislators for if not to make budget decisions? All of these bond measures, half cent sales tax increases, etc, etc... a normal person can't possibly see why these programs aren't being funded through the standard budget process... so why aren't California state senators, assembly members, etc. doing their jobs? Its ridiculous.

09 Nov 2004 | Steve said...

OK, so what is your point? That people who don't pay taxes don't a get a tax break? What is that all about?

If you recall, the whole point of the Bush tax cuts were to, in his words, "put more money into everyone's pockets". This was a blatant misrepresentation of his policy because the tax cut that was supposed to put more money in the pockets of the people who need it most did exactly the opposite. Along with a tax rate decrease for the wealthiest earners in this country, he also gave them the largest share of the relief.

Secondly, the whole attitude of "anything back is good" is a fairy-tale. You and I and our children will be saddled with the burden of repaying a tax cut that HAS NOT BEEN PAID FOR. Our tax cut has been made possible because for every $100 returned to you, our government is borrowing $40 from foreign banks $40 from Social Security and $20 directly from you. Japan is our biggest lender... Japan is paying for our tax cuts.

Bush, as of February 2004 had borrowed $500 billion... You tell me how he is going to pay for the additional $1.7 trillion he signed just before the election and the additional, if I'm not mistaken, four tax cuts he is proposing for his second term?

The tax cuts made it look like the government was doing more to get out of our lives. Right? That's part and parcel of why people love tax cuts.

Bush has shifted costs to states and communities, who then pass them on to you. Across the country, people are seeing their property taxes, sales taxes, and college tuition skyrocket. States and local government have cut vital services, and were all having to pay more for less.

"The Bush tax cut is largely to blame for the fiscal crisis that has forced states and communities to raise taxes and slash services. According to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), A conservative estimate suggests that federal policies are costing states and localities about $185 billion over the four-year course of the state fiscal crisis. Bush has shifted health costs to states and forced states to pay for unfunded mandates for homeland security, election reform, and No Child Left Behind. As a result, states and communities have had no choice but to raise taxes and cut services."

As a direct consequence of his tax policy, over six years an American family of four will take on $52,000 more in its share of the national debt.

If you need further information, Google for it.

09 Nov 2004 | indi said...

Sloan, do you really feel confident that higher taxes will directly benefit those in most need? Or is it more of a case of if more taxes are paid then those in the most need might be helped.

BTW, thanks for your thoughtful and thought provoking responses.

09 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Indi, that is the tough part. Those in need are not necessarily benefiting in the end. I have a friend, a single mother, that worked to get off welfare and lost her health coverage for her and 2 year old daughter. That just seems wrong. But then, I believe few would choose their tax cut over helping a single mother working 2 jobs so that she isn't on welfare and is able to continue setting a good example for her daughter. She wants nothing more than to prove she can do it herself, without welfare, without handouts, but the system is simply wrong headed.

The best way I think to help make sure that our money is being spent more wisely is to start to hold our politicians accountable. Check out the Patriot Act, the bills to fund the war, and you will see such incredibly stupid pork barrel funding that will make your head steam. We need to get rid of add ons to bills that have nothing to do with the legislation as back doors to pay off supporters. We need campaign finance reform. And with these two things alone, we will see an enormous return increase on our dollars.

We cannot rely on our mega-corporation owned media to act as watch dogs. They've proven over the last couple of years that they are incompetent. So we need to demand new oversite and make our own agenda and force whichever party is in power to make it happen. We have the vote, we must make our voices heard.

09 Nov 2004 | indi said...

We cannot rely on our mega-corporation owned media to act as watch dogs. They've proven over the last couple of years that they are incompetent.

I couldn't agree more. I also agree about the wrong-headedness of how a lot of the system works in not rewarding people trying to set a good example. Too many people are rewarded for not trying. I personally grew up in a very poor family. My grandmother worked long hours to put food on the table and pay medical bills. We were on partial welfare for a while but she found the paperwork too troubling ... too prying for the small anount we received and made due without it. I have honestly seen too many people take advantage of the system. Even though they are not the majority it makes me angry that the money is wasted on people who can scheme the system. I recall very vividly as a kid waiting at the social services office to be called to talk to a social worker. I could see out the door that this guy drove up in a new Cadillac. He walked in and went to the counter and loudly started complaining that he hadn't received his check yet that month. I have heard other more honest people being told by their friends not to make too much money or they will lose their welfare.

So I do have a heart for people in need but am wary of the beauracracy that can let your friend lose her health coverage just because she tried harder ... of allowing a situation where people can fall into that chasm of earning too much to qualify for help but earning too little to make ends meet.

09 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

For Paul, who said:

3. Get off YOUR "high horse" and consider that YOU may be wrong.

Some of us were capable at the age of fifteen to question why, if god is our father, we should have to fear him? My parents could not answer that question and therefore did not force me to attend church from then on.

First off, Paul, I never said that I was necessarily right. You are just so vehemently defending positions which were obviously not supported by the majority of people -- either nationwide or at a state level -- that it is dumbfounding.

I have been capable since the age of four to understand the Grace of God. Stop belittling people who have faith in religion and allow it to help steer them in their daily lives. To berate these people is for those reasons is bigotry.

If you want to believe in God, fine. If not, fine. But I'm not sitting here saying that you are wrong because you (apparently) don't believe in God. I am saying that you need to realize that your opinions are those of the minority in this nation, not the majority.

For Sloan, who said:

Randal, I think you just made my point about the marriage issue. It only needed to be defined as two people, but was made a man and a woman due to a religious bent.

Oh? Common sense had nothing to do with it? Why is it that every time a decision on an issue leans to the right, it's branded as having to do with religion?

09 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

My experience has been that what everyone ends up fighting over is 1)each other's caricatures and 2)semantics.

Chris, you are so right.

I spent two years at an extremely strict Baptist college, Cedarville University, and then three years at one of the most liberal places on the planet, Ohio University. I have seen it from both sides. I have close friends on both sides. And you know what? The one thing that I learned in college that has been the most defining in the way I make decisions and have lived my life was a comment made by one of my professors at Cedarville. He was a very reasonable man, one of the few at the school, and he said to the class "There is truth everywhere. Not just in the Bible." That's a good thing to adhere to, no matter which side of the fence you sit on.

09 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Indi, hopefully someday people will have a bit of outrage and report the people they know are working the system. We shouldn't have to worry about whether good programs are being abused by a few or not.

"Oh? Common sense had nothing to do with it? Why is it that every time a decision on an issue leans to the right, it's branded as having to do with religion?"
I would argue that common sense would say anyone that was in a committed relationship should have the right to legalize that commitment with the government. If your bias against same sex couples comes from somewhere else, so be it. But the discussion began based on verses from the Bible in the Vote thread. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is natural and includes 10% of all human beings, so there is no common sense that I know of that precludes same sex couples.

Both sides have had their groups hijacked a bit by nuts. On the left you have Michael Moore and Ralph Nader and on the right you have Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell to name a few. Do we really want these groups representing the majority of us? No, I don't think so. But it is the extremists that get coverage and make the most noise and with only 2 parties, we get the fringes latching on.

09 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

If there was something really cool and helpful he brought about while in the Senate I never read or heard about it, other than the Viet Nam MIA/POW thing with McCain.

With all due respect, Indi, that's *is* a sign of the ignorance out there. If people are only voting on what the newspaper and the candidates TELL them, then they are ignorant on the broader issues at hand.

I think the media should do more to remedy this, and I agree Kerry could have done more, and I'm not saying these folks are stupid or lazy or anything...just that ignorance DID help bush win. There's a lot of half-truths that Rove was able to capitalize on. Marketing at it's finest (and worst) ;o)

I think it's interesting that most of the people I hear bash religious conservatives for "hating" homosexuals (or another group) don't spend a lot of time around large groups of religious conservatives

That seems obvious to me. So, if you don't hate homosexuals, please provide one logical (NOT RELIGIOUS) argument for not allowing them the right to marry. Now, I agree that the loudmouths on both sides are the minority, but, obvoiusly, more people swallows the rhetoric, at least on the gay marriage issue, spewing from the ultra-right.

Anyhoo...some really good back-and-forth discussion in these past 20 posts or so...too bad that wasn't the tone/goal PRIOR to the election. ;o)

Clearly, one of the biggest mistakes the Dems did was allow for the 'debates' to be held the way they were. There should have been more debates with no rules. Open discussion rather than scripted rhetoric.

09 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Thanks Randall,

I appreciate your insult and apparent need to marginalize my intelligence and my opinion.

1. I don't recall telling anyone they are wrong, only to consider the possibility.

2. Simply because my views on religion are in the minority does not make the majority correct. Is it not my right to question things I want to question? Even if the question involves the majority?

If you want to believe in God, fine. If not, fine. But I'm not sitting here saying that you are wrong because you (apparently) don't believe in God.

No, you are just calling me a bigot... and apparently, an idiot, because I choose to question the masses.

So thank you Randall, you have opened my eyes.

09 Nov 2004 | lazybeard said...

What definition of wisdom is Jason Fried using that doesn't permit the identification of ignorant people as ignorant?

09 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Clearly, one of the biggest mistakes the Dems did was allow for the 'debates' to be held the way they were.

Actually, The Dems did not have a choice.

Fact is: Bush flatly refused to debate unless certain rules were put in place.

What resulted was a 32 page document called the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding. Download the PDF Of course, the Dems did not hold back from including their own rules.

More Info:

Rigging the Debates with Bill Moyers: An interesting discussion of how Presidential Debates have been corrupted by our politicians and the corporations that sponsor them.

Commission on Presidential Debates
"The CPD claims to "provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners," and it purports to objectively determine who will participate in the debates and under what conditions. In reality, however, the CPD is a corporate-funded, bipartisan cartel that exists to strengthen the Republican and Democratic parties at the expense of voter education. Every four years, the CPD awards virtually absolute control of the presidential debates to the Republican and Democratic campaigns, resulting in uninspiring debate formats, the exclusion of popular non-major party candidates, and the avoidance of pressing national issues."

Open Debates
"Open Debates works to ensure that the presidential debates serve the American people first."

09 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

The rules for all DEBATEMemorandum of Understanding are set and enforced by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

It's a real document that has been in use ever since the CPD was formed. you can simply Google 2004 Memorandum of Understanding for more info.

09 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

I have been capable since the age of four to understand the Grace of God. Stop belittling people who have faith in religion and allow it to help steer them in their daily lives. To berate these people is for those reasons is bigotry.

And that statement is pure spin.

No one can understand God. We can only assume to.

God. I am saying that you need to realize that your opinions are those of the minority in this nation, not the majority.

Being 'in the majority' really has nothing to do with 'being correct'.

Oh? Common sense had nothing to do with it? Why is it that every time a decision on an issue leans to the right, it's branded as having to do with religion?

Well, if we're still talking about gay marriage, it's because the right hasn't given us a reason OTHER than religion.

09 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

No, you are just calling me a bigot... and apparently, an idiot, because I choose to question the masses.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the masses, Paul. There is everything wrong with questioning the ability of a person to make decisions, just because they use the Bible as a reference.

No one can understand God. We can only assume to.

I said I understood the Grace of God.

I don't know why I even bother.

09 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Well, if we're still talking about gay marriage, it's because the right hasn't given us a reason OTHER than religion.

That's because marriage in its essence is a religious institution pre-dating Western secular society. I also haven't heard a sound, logical reason from the other side why marriage should be redefined, either. At least not one that makes good sense to me.

I mean, you can vote to change the meaning of "up" to "down," but you haven't changed the law of gravity. So with marriage.

Local governments are free to pass laws legalizing gay marriage. What have you done to get it passed in your neck of the woods? Is it important enough to you to actually do something about it, or is it just fodder for you to fling at the right?

The federal government really has nothing to say on the marriage issue, I'll give you that. That's a local issue.

Frankly, I don't understand why gays would want to marry and subject their relationship to even more jurisdiction by the state.

The purpose of marriage licenses in secular society is to guarantee a paper trail so that the husband/father cannot abandon his wife/children, and was instituted to protect the mother/children, and also society, since a wife/mother/child abandoned by the male of the family often became a burden of the state. Women and children at that time had no real standing as indviduals. Times are much different now.

I suppose if individual localities or even states voted to redefine marriage, that should be their perogative, but localities are subject to their state government, so you'd pretty much have to accomplish that at the state level. Then a version of the free-market would take over, with individuals who prefer that flocking to those states that allow it, and those who can't live with it, leaving.

I spend most of my political thought and energy trying to get the government out of my life...I simply can't understand why gays or anyone else would want to turn more of their lives over to the government.

09 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

I'd say the debates went downhill once the political parties gained control from the league of women voters. If Dems agree to such ridiculous rules, adding quite a few pages themselves of mindless dribble, then again I think we are trouble.

The political parties should not be determining what we can and cannot ask of our representatives. Its ridiculous. Its our country, our votes, our decision, we should have the right to real debates and make the politicians accountable.

09 Nov 2004 | Kyle said...

"-Even though they are not the majority it makes me angry that the money is wasted on people who can scheme the system

So, if you're angry that someone on welfare is scheming the system for hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars and think they should be cut off, why is everyone not insanely outraged that politicians and corporations are playing the system on a much grander scale (millions or billions) and fighting to kick them out on their ass? Which of those parties do you think has more of an effect on your taxes and the deficit?

"...we end up doing nothing more than sniping at each other's caricatures.
No substantial communication takes place, and no progress is made.

Actually, discussions like this, even though they get into snipes initially, do lead to greater understanding on all sides ( ex 1, ex 2)...these types of discussions need to continue ad infinitum if there's any hope of fixing the system.

09 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Marriage is a legal status with rights in the US, whether it was based on a heritage of religous status is what I think muddies the discussion. Again, I think the government should get out of marriage altogether, gay or straight, and simply recognize unions as a legal entity. Let marriage be what it was originally, a distinction of a religion.

Why would someone who is gay want those rights? Sure, there are responsiblities associated with them, but I think that is the whole point. The want the CHOICE to commit to one another WITH the consequences that happen when breaking that committment in return for the rights given to straight couples such as shared health care, the right to give property, adopt children, share burdens and successes. Rosie O'Donnel (or whatever her name is) had to leave the state of Florida in order to adopt her children because Florida law prohibits gay couples from adopting. A single, heterosexual is able to adopt, but not a loving gay couple...

Leaving the rights of individuals that are recognized at the federal level to local and state governments is exactly how minorities are oppressed and the way slavery was dealt with. You may not understand why they want those rights, but why would you prevent them from having them?

09 Nov 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"The political parties should not be determining what we can and cannot ask of our representatives. Its ridiculous. Its our country, our votes, our decision, we should have the right to real debates and make the politicians accountable."

On that point, what do people think of the way that for the entirety of the campaign Bush addressed ticket-only crowds of card-carrying Republicans? Of course all politicians are stage-managed, but has their ever been in the history of 'free' elections an instance where the incumbent's advisors were so scared to death of dissent that they placed their candidate in front of adoring partisan crowds only?

And you fell for it! You think he's 'humble' and 'honest'! People, the real George Bush was in evidence in that first debate. A petulant boy-prince who cannot conceive of arguments against his 'faith' based decisions.

09 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Sloan, you're missing the point. Marriage is legislated at the state/local marriage as it is, and as I said, I think states should be free to decide that for themselves. I don't think it should be legislated by federal law. I would be against any amendment addressing marriage, but if a referendum were called and my country asked me to vote on it, I personally think it's wrong and would vote against it every time.

09 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Sorry, meant "state and local level as it is." My fingers are scatterbrained.

09 Nov 2004 | 200! said...

200!

09 Nov 2004 | scottb said...

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.gp.org

For Immediate Release:
Monday, November 8, 2004

Contacts:
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624,
cell 202-487-0693, [email protected]
Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator, 207-326-4576,
[email protected]

GREENS CHARGE KERRY'S CONCESSION BROKE HIS
PROMISE THAT EVERY VOTE BE COUNTED, WARN OF
DEMOCRATIC SURRENDER TO BUSH'S 'MANDATE'

Will Zell Miller be the model for Democrats in
the next four years?, ask Greens.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Greens joined numerous
Democrats in criticizing John Kerry's quick
concession to President Bush in light of
thousands of uncounted and obstructed votes and
wide discrepancies between counted votes and exit
polls.

"Mr. Kerry wanted to avoid a repeat of the 2000
Florida debacle, but in conceding quickly he
broke his promise to make sure every vote was
counted," said Ben Manski, Wisconsin Green and
co-founder of the No Stolen Elections! campaign.
"The widespread reports of election tampering,
voting machine breakdowns, intimidated and
blocked voters, electioneering phone calls that
spread misinformation, and voters misidentified
as felons made it necessary in 2004 to count and
verify every vote and make sure the election
wasn't compromised. Regardless of whether
Democrats retreat, Greens demand that every vote
be counted."

Noting that Ken Blackwell, Ohio Secretary of
State and a long-time Republican politician, had
already been the target of numerous complaints
about voter obstruction, Greens said that
partisan bureaucrats should be removed from the
responsibility of counting votes.

The Green Party of the United States has endorsed
measures to ensure fair and accurate elections,
including an auditable paper ballot trail for
every vote. The votes of at least a third of the
U.S. electorate are currently unverifiable,
because of the lack of a paper ballot trail.

A state-based index of news articles compiled by
Demos detailing obstruction of voters,
miscounting of votes, and voting machine
breakdowns can be found at
.

Greens said that Mr. Kerry's quick concession
portends other Democratic surrenders to President
Bush's supposed 'mandate'.

"Despite the rhetoric about 'healing', the Bush
Administration is already claiming a mandate to
enact its radical ideology," said Jody Grage
Haug, co-chair of the Green Party. "Equally
dangerous is that the leadership of the
Democratic Party will see the Bush victory as a
motivation to retreat even further from the
party's willingness to fight for working people
and issues important to progressive voters."

Greens recall that one of the legacies of the
Reagan years was the establishment of the
Democratic Leadership Council. DLC members Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, party chair Terry McAuliffe,
and others persuaded their party to abandon
national health insurance and other Democratic
positions, embrace Reagan planks like 'welfare
reform' and space-based missile defense, and make
numerous other concessions to corporate lobbies.

"The model for the Democratic Party's future
might be Zell Miller," said Nan Garrett, member
of the Georgia Green Party. "Greens are the only
party offering a sane alternative to bipartisan
consensus behind Bush's radical neocon agenda."

MORE INFORMATION

The Green Party of the United States
http://www.gp.org
1700 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 404
Washington, DC 20009.
202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN
Fax 202-319-7193

2004 Green candidates and election results
http://www.greens.org/elections

Beyond Voting Campaign
http://www.beyondvoting.org

November 3rd Democracy Movement
http://www.nov3.us/

~ END ~

09 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

"Marriage is legislated at the state/local marriage as it is, and as I said, I think states should be free to decide that for themselves. I don't think it should be legislated by federal law."
Yes, but WITH federal rights and priveleges. So it does matter and therefore should NOT be left up to states. Personal freedoms and rights are protected by the constitution at a FEDERAL level, so a federal designation/right should be protected for everyone. Slavery was orginally decided at the state/local level, in fact, I believe it was Alabama that still had slavery in its law books up through 1998 because they never bothered to take it off due to the federal mandate.

Steve S. You thinking it is wrong, doesn't mean that your belief should be imposed on someone else. That your belief should restrict the rights of another citizen of this country when it does no harm to another individual and is between consenting adults.

09 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Scott, he was trying to prevent a relapse of 2000... he comes off looking dignified and now other people can wage the political war in the aftermath... He is in a better position this way if the tide turns to unite the country...

09 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Sloan, nothing about marriage appears in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. There is no right to marry. It's not a federal issue at all. Gay people are protected by the Constitution just as the rest of us are. Just because they cannot marry each other legally doesn't mean the rights enumerated and guaranteed (though not granted) by the Constitution don't apply to them. They apply to all of us. There IS a right to be free of federal government intervention (see the 9th and 10th amendments).

You thinking it is wrong, doesn't mean that your belief should be imposed on someone else. That your belief should restrict the rights of another citizen of this country when it does no harm to another individual and is between consenting adults.

Actually, you're wanting to impose your beliefs on the anti-gay marriage crowd every bit as much as they want to impose their beliefs on you.

The only federal benefit to marriage is tax breaks, but the income tax is another imposition that should never have been allowed and should be abolished at the first opportunity. That removes the only federal benefit for marriage I'm aware of, and I've been married a while now.

09 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Sloan, nothing about marriage appears in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. There is no right to marry. It's not a federal issue at all.

There are federal benefits and legalese that pertain to marital status, so that makes it a federal issue as well. Should it be? That's a different question.

Gay people are protected by the Constitution just as the rest of us are.

My take is that the constitution GIVES them the right to marry. Our constititution says that we all have the right to not have other's religions indoctrinated on us. The proposal to ban gay marriage is one based on religion, therefor, shouldn't even be brought up.

But that's just my take. The courts may disagree. ;o)

Actually, you're wanting to impose your beliefs on the anti-gay marriage crowd every bit as much as they want to impose their beliefs on you.

Spin.

The anti-gay crowd only has unsubstatiated beliefs.

The anti-'anti-gay' crowd things like biology and studies to back their side of the argument up.

It's like saying the anti-slavery group was as guilty of imposing their beliefs on the pro-slavery group.

That removes the only federal benefit for marriage I'm aware of

But there are other nation-wide benefits inside and outside of government. Shared debt, adoption, wills, visitation rights, next of kin, social security benefits, paternal rights, etc.

09 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Of course, allowing 'civil unions' to hold the same legal weight would resolve all of this. If the anti-gay-marriage crowd wants to be seen as not being bigoted, then they should have pushed for a clearer amendement that would give all people civil-union status. Then they could have kept their precious definition of a word to themselves and most everyone would be happy.

09 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

"Actually, you're wanting to impose your beliefs on the anti-gay marriage crowd every bit as much as they want to impose their beliefs on you."
Actually, there's a difference. I am not asking that my beliefs remove rights from individuals. The right to pass on property, the right to visit each other in the hospital... There are constitutional reasons why denying gay couples the right to marriage (as it is sanctioned by government today) is not legal.

Article 4 of the constitution makes it a federal issue when one state tries to reduce the rights and liberties of its citizens in direct conflict with the rights and liberties guaranteed by another.

Article 9 of the amendments: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Article 14 of the amendments: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

09 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Our constititution says that we all have the right to not have other's religions indoctrinated on us.

Where? It says only, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...", a restriction to prevent the establishment of a state church.

How does biology help in the gay marriage debate? Seems to me it hurts it.

Actually, the anti-states rights group DID impose their will on the pro-states rights group, which is why the federal government is out of control to this day, and why the 9th and 10th amendments are routinely ignored. Ironically, it's that very expansionist federal power that liberals are crying about these days. Liberals want that power...but for their causes.

I still haven't seen a compelling, logical reason why gay marriage should be institutionalized.

09 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Sloan, no offense, but your argument is ridiculous.

I fail to see how any of those articles/amendments could possibly be construed to apply to something like gay marriage. Gays are perfectly free to pass on property, etc., to anyone they choose. Seems to me hospital visitation policy is based on the hospital, not enumerated as a federal protection under the constitution.

One could argue that the idea that marriage only applies to two people is similarly discriminatory, and that marriage should apply to any imaginative combination of men, women, and (hell, why not) livestock.

After all, who's to say monogamy is the only socially acceptable definition of marriage? While we're at it, let's lower the marriage age back to 12.

09 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

There is everything wrong with questioning the ability of a person to make decisions, just because they use the Bible as a reference.

Um, as a reference? Seems to me you have been trying to hammer home the religious issue in many of your posts, yet you have given us no answers... only condemnation. How do you expect anyone, even your "morals" voters, to get a clear idea of your views when you fall back on the same lame reasoning... "I understand the grace of God". This is not an explanation of anything.

Why is it wrong to question someone's ability to make decisions when that person uses blanket statements to whitewash simple reasoning? Why do so many "morals" people always fall back on the "it's God's will" statement instead of actually proffering substantial points to support their opinions?

What, pray tell, is the "grace of God"?

And, why do you bother?. I'd like to know. Because to reiterate my point, you have given VERY LITTLE reasoning to support any of your arguments or accusations other than telling me and other's that we "don't get it". What I (we) do not understand is, as I have already said, the notion that by deferring all your reasoning to your faith in a supreme being, you are somehow NOT obliged to support your conclusions.

Now, why don't you TRY to make an argument, instead of simply accusing me of "not getting it". Simply put Randall, you are not explaining your case, and I have to wonder whether you can.

09 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Because all of those articles deal with equal rights for all citizens. Saying that you are against gay couples having the same rights is exactly the point. Why should it be allowed only by heterosexual couples? Why shouldn't gay couples be given the same rights? In fact, everything in the constitution says they should. Passing on property... hm, they have to actually jump through hoops to give their partner legal entitlement without marriage. Hospital visitation rights are legislated, not a choice of the hospital in the extent we are referring.

Livestock? Wow, you really sound sane now. But the answer is that livestock cannot consent now can they? The age requirement was set again, because they are not considered mature enough to make those decisions. Hence the statuatory rape laws.

I'm not arguing for the institutionalization of gay marriage. I'm arguing against the institutionalization AGAINST gay marriage. I do think that adding race, creed, color, religion or sexual preference to the amendments would help make clear the constitutionality of the issue. That I do think is important.

09 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

That's because marriage in its essence is a religious institution pre-dating Western secular society. I also haven't heard a sound, logical reason from the other side why marriage should be redefined, either. At least not one that makes good sense to me.

Chris, I'd argue that the concept of marriage as a religious institution is a relatively recent one. It's long been more of a contractural relationship than a sacred one. Marriages were used to do things like signify treaties between territories, cement family and political relationships, and gain access to new land. In fact, until pretty recently, the woman was just another piece of property in a larger contractural transaction (where do you think the whole concept of dowries came from)?

Not to mention, the idea of the defintion of marriage having always been one man and one woman is easily shown to be highly erroneous. Again, it's a more modern conception. Several socities, namely Arabic ones, still practice polygyny (I'm not aware of any societies currently practicing polyandry). In the Judeo-Christian scriptures, there are many instances of multiple spouses - Jacob, Abraham, David, Solomon, just off the top of my head.

But let's even grant that it's a religious institution. Then what is government's concern under our constitution? It should not be involved in a religious institution. It is involved because there are civil aspects - wills and estates, familial responsibilities, etc.

The problem legally speaking isn't gays trying to get married. It's the state's involvement in the religious aspect.

My argument for a while has been that a system like Germany's should be adopted. There is a state marriage, and that's the only one that counts for things like tax rates and wills. If you want to get a church wedding, you can do that too, but it means absolutely nothing to the state. That's the way it should be here. If people want the blessing of their religious institution on their union, great. That's their perogitive, and no church, synagogue, mosk, whatever should be required to marry any people it does not wish to marry. But that should have no effect on consenting adults' wish to join together in the civil contract that establishes things like inheritance rights and shared financial obligations.

In other words, civil unions are the only thing the government should be doing, and that should be available to all consenting adults. Government should be totally out of the marriage business. Let the religions handle that on their own terms, recognizing that their marriages in no way confer any legal status whatsoever.

09 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Sloan

Uh, the livestock thing was a little humor, bud. Very little, I admit, but gee whiz.

Under your reasoning, does that also allow for marriage between, say, 10 people?

09 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

1/x Steves:

I'll pose the same question to you. Does your civil unions idea apply to polygamy or bigamy as well? Are we going to discriminate against those whose personal relationships are characterized by "multi-tasking"? If yes, why? If not, why not?

09 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

If you want to get a church wedding, you can do that too, but it means absolutely nothing to the state. That's the way it should be here. If people want the blessing of their religious institution on their union, great.

That's the way it is here, too, Steve. You can get married at city hall with no problem.

The problem with inheritances, estates, etc., is only a problem because of the federal and state government's tax laws regarding such things, which are similarly ridiculous. Without them, inheritance would be a much simpler thing, and, again, it is the fedgov making things more complicated and restrictive. But the solution to that is not more laws (pro or con, I give you that). The answer is reigning in a federal government that is out of control.

09 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

The much-balleyhooed balance of Red and Blue is an interesting one when you consider these enlightening cartograms. Election result maps

09 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Under your reasoning, does that also allow for marriage between, say, 10 people?

Ah yes....more spin. If we allow gay marriage, then we'll allow polygamy, beastality, pedophila, and people marrying ducks.

(our local representative used that argument...sans ducks.)

09 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

"You can get married at city hall with no problem."
Um. No you can't. That's the point. People went in droves to SF city hall to get marriage certificates and they have now been legislated to mere pieces of paper.

And Chris, the fact that you are brining livestock, 10 year olds and multiple marriages into the picture says a bit about your view of homosexuals. Why not many partners? Well, do heterosexual couples have the right to multiple wives/husbands? My issue is with equal rights. Yours seems to be simply you don't think gay couples should be able to marry and that you feel you should be able to prevent them the same rights as others.

09 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

That's not spin at all.

I'm asking where you draw the line, Darrel, or IF you do. Because no matter how many of you want to portray yourself, sooner or later you have to draw a line, or remove the idea from the argument.

Don't duck the question (sorry for the pun). Where do you draw the line...or do you...and why or why not?

Many of you are arguing that no one has a right to impose his morality on others (which, in reality, is a crock...and the refuge of those who don't have the heart to make a tough decision). I just want to know if we can do this, and why?

09 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Sloan

Don't duck the argument. Why shouldn't polygamy be allowed so long as it is among consenting adults?

09 Nov 2004 | ek said...

Hmmm, this is interesting.

Let's take bestiality and pedophilia out of the equation since there would be non-consenting animals and minors involved.

On the basis of what Sloan, Darrel, et al have been saying, what basis would there be for keeping polygamy illegal so long as it's between consenting adults?

Although, here's another question — in a polygamous marriage, aren't all parties involved married to each other, in which case, wouldn't you necessarily have same sex marriage?

09 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Chirs, I didn't duck the question. I said what is legal for heterosexuals should be legal for homosexuals. Period. It is bigotted legislation that is limiting the rights of a minority group that I have the problem with.

09 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Sloan

Er, I asked you a question you consistently refuse to answer. That's called ducking. It's what happens whenever anyone backs themselves into a corner using a logical premise they can't fully commit to.

Think of it this way if it helps you...since heterosexuals can marry each other, why can't 4 homosexuals marry each other in a polygamous relationship?

Yeah, I know we're starting to get into the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" territory, but I figure that's not relevant since we have to keep religion out of it.

So how about it, bud? It's a reasonable question given your premise and the context of our discussion.

09 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

I'm asking where you draw the line, Darrel, or IF you do.

It's an equal rights issue. Being gay is just an arbitrary unrelated issue...it's simply discrimination.

Allowing gays to marriage does nothing to change what marriage is in the legal benefits sense. Allowing multiple partners certainly would.

I guess if I had to draw a line it'd be after two consenting adults.

09 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

On the basis of what Sloan, Darrel, et al have been saying, what basis would there be for keeping polygamy illegal so long as it's between consenting adults?

In the legal sense, a direct fiscal issue. Employers would have to pay for 10 spouses benefits*. A paternal suit would have 10 plaintiffs. Wills would become nightmare legal issues. etc. Allowing gays to marry doesn't change any of the pre-established legal and civic rights of married folks. Polygamy certainly would.

In otherwords, it's a logistics issue.

*Granted, if we had single payer, universal health care, that wouldn't be an issue either. ;o)

Anyways, this is what you call spin. You're distracting from the issue at hand.

09 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

granted, after 200 posts, I'm not sure what the topic at hand is anymore. ;o)

09 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

But that doesn't make sense, Darrel, if we're talking about equal rights among consenting adults.

Given your logic that there's no substantive difference between a man and a woman marrying, and two men or two women marrying, how can you argue in all honesty that there's a difference if it's one man and three women? Or three men and one woman? As long as they're consenting adults.

Allowing multiple partners might make inheritance issues more complicated, but according to your pattern of reasoning I don't see how that should be used to discriminate just because it's three people instead of two.

It may be that your argument is quite as rooted in science, logic, and reason as you want it to be. Or it may be that you haven't considered all of the ramifications. Or it may be because, for reasons you're not clear on yet, you really are wrong after all. Or, hell, maybe I'm the one who's wrong.

Without choosing (or even imposing) standards, there's no way to know. The trouble is, whose standards are you going to choose? I know what my standards are...do you really know what yours are?

All arguments beg the question at some point. It's the only way to make a decision, ultimately.

The answers you get depend on the questions you beg. But to claim you don't beg the question at some point is simply inaccurate.

09 Nov 2004 | ek said...

Huh, now there's a logistical basis for denying people equal rights under the law?

So homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but polygamists should not because it's inconvenient? What the hell kind of rationale is that?

And how is this spin? As you've been demanding everyone else to explain themselves to you, I'm asking you to explain yourself to me. What are the consequences of this decision that you want to have made for everyone else in this country?

Based on the utterly weak rationale you've outlined above, I don't think you're really thought them through.

09 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Given your logic that there's no substantive difference between a man and a woman marrying, and two men or two women marrying, how can you argue in all honesty that there's a difference if it's one man and three women?

As I said, two gays marrying does nothing to change the logistics of marriage. More than two does.

So homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but polygamists should not because it's inconvenient? What the hell kind of rationale is that?

If you want polygamy, go for it. It's just that you're going to have to change a lot of other laws, most likely our healthcare system, etc.

Its simply a 'bigger' issue in practical terms than the gay marriage one is.

What are the consequences of this decision that you want to have made for everyone else in this country?

Huh? What decision?

09 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

"how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"
I've never heard that one. I like it.

I am fully committed to my logical premise that descrimination against gays is wrong. How does asking about a polygamous relationship have anything to do with the issue? Under law, 2 people can marry each other. It does not define man and woman. The issue is whether legislation should be passed to BAN gay couples from equal rights under that law.

Your example is worded in a way that seems you think homosexuals want polygamy... or was that just a poor example? I guess your whole point is to find out if I support the right to polygamy or not. I haven't thought about it to be honest. But at a glance I don't have a problem with it as a moral issue.

09 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

In otherwords, I am neither for or against polygamy. I'm just seeing that there are practical arguments for not allowing. I have yet to hear a practical argument for DENYING gays the right.

09 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

One of my favorite quotes regarding gay marriage comes from James Dobson, Focus on the Family's ultra religious fascist. Dobson is one of the national religious leaders fighting to amend the constitution to "protect" marriage. He is also one of the administration's closest "religious issues" advisors.

He says, "we are not against gays... we are just against giving them special rights."

Spin this nugget. What special rights are gays asking for? How is the right to marry a "special right" for gays, but a constitutional (god-given) right for straights?

Again, spin the discussion all you want, the argument boils down to discrimination. Religious persecution, at that.

The issues involved are deeper than the "idea" of "traditional" marriage. If Dobson and his ilk have their way, civil unions would also be outlawed. When gays speak of getting treated equally under the law, they are referring to ALL of the protections that marriage offers to families. These protections, noted above, include shared debt, adoption, wills, visitation rights, next of kin, social security benefits, and paternal rights.

The application of these rights do not affect us as a society family, they affect you as an individual family. Gay marriage has absolutely no effect on you or me, but it does speak volumes about the society we live in and the tolerance we have for our differences.

If these rights are not given to gay civil marriage families, ANYONE, including the state, or even your alcoholic wife-beating 3rd uncle, could, for example, sue for the right to raise the gay couple's child.

These are not "special rights". They are the right's of people living in a Democratic society subject to Democratic laws of freedom for all.

People have rights. People. Gays and Lesbians are people. I can't help but wonder how Lincoln would have responded to this nonsense. That's right, our revered Republican 16th President, the Great Emancipator, was gay.

09 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

I'll pose the same question to you. Does your civil unions idea apply to polygamy or bigamy as well? Are we going to discriminate against those whose personal relationships are characterized by "multi-tasking"? If yes, why? If not, why not?

Yes, I do believe that all relationships between consenting adults should be treated equally. You can marry or you can't. End of story.

Now, I say that realizing full well that the idea of polygamy presents a lot of complications in the civil institutions that are affected by marriage. If one person has three spouses, what is the default inheretance procedure? What if I have three wives, I go comatose, and there's disagreement amongst them regarding whether to pull the plug? So, while in the abstract I think that any and all relationships amongst consenting adults should be treated equally, I recognize that the system is ill-equipped to handle anything beyond two people getting married to each other.

As to your comment that you can go down to city hall and get married without problem, someone's already pointed out the problem with that as far as homosexual couples are concerned. It also is a bit of a red herring in comparison to my point. Under U.S. law, the government recognizes a church wedding as a civil wedding. My argument is that they should be completley, 100 percent, no ambiguity at all, separate. That getting married in a church confers zero to you in terms of the civil status of being married. The government should not be involved in the religious marriage business in any way, shape or form.

And the slippery slope argument is absurd. *Everything* has a slippery slope. If we allow any two men and women to marry each other, what's next? Two men? Two women? It's not gay marriage that started the slippery slope. It's marriage.

And most of the slippery slope arguments don't hold water. Children cannot consent. Animals cannot consent. Marriage is based on both parties consenting, and I believe most marriage licenses require the parties to provide legally binding signatures that they are entering the marriage of their own free will.

And that, to me, is the only thing that should be a factor. If people want to take on the obligations and responsibilities of marriage, then let them. They need to live with their choices. What any other people decide to do has no effect on the strength of my own relationships. And if "preserving the institution of marriage" is the goal - which I don't believe should be a civil goal, but I can see it being a religious one - perhaps the straights need to take a good hard look at themselves and realize that they're already doing a damn fine job of wounding the institution all on their own. After all, what's a greatery travesty: two men marrying each other and living the rest of their lives together, or Britney Spears marrying a man and then getting it annulled a few days later because the thing was just one big joke?

09 Nov 2004 | Jebediah James Smith said...

1st... I mean 235th post, woo-hoo!

10 Nov 2004 | ek said...

So what's the core argument here? That preventing homosexual couples from marrying is wrong? That the gov't being involved in marriage is wrong? That too many institutionalized "rules" are based on who your married partner is?

The opposition to this makes a lot of points, most of which are silly, but their main point is one of values: that the traditional definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman and that, should that structure should be altered in any way, it will fundamentally damage the moral underpinnings of our society (forgive me if I'm not spot-on, as I'm paraphrasing). That's the point that seems to resonate most with the most people.

So what's your one main point? Why shouldn't I believe this?

Somehow I don't think calling people stupid or bigoted is going to help your cause much — they need to understand why they should care and why they should feel the way you do about it. And you have to remember that a large chunk of the American public (probably the majority) still consider homosexuality to be a deviant "lifestyle." Maybe that's the problem that needs to be confronted first?

Its simply a 'bigger' issue in practical terms than the gay marriage one is.

If you want to speak in terms of practicality, it's pretty easy to make same-sex marriages illegal — especially given that the majority of Americans seem to want to make it illegal, so I guess I don't see that as being a very useful argument.

That's right, our revered Republican 16th President, the Great Emancipator, was gay.

Why is it that when history is rewritten, everyone is gay?

10 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Why is it that when history is rewritten, everyone is gay?

Only the President's who share their bed with and write love letters to their body guard.

10 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Maybe that's the problem that needs to be confronted first?

Maybe. There's still a large chunk of the population that is racist too. I guess you're right. No point in forcing people to accept equality as a basic premise of US society. I'm sure in a few hundred years they'll come to their senses.

10 Nov 2004 | Gene said...

The article this post started off about cited the republican party as a largely religious based party, refering to christian ideals to spin for their agenda... That in and of itself is true, I'd love to hear an argument that says its not.

Personally i'm sick and tired of hearing that because i'm not "christian" I don't have good moral values in my life. Since when does beign kind, caring, trustworthy and honorable have anything to do with the bible? Or my sexual preferences? Explain that to me, please...

The main reason Democrats can't win any major elections any more, is that they are operating under the guise that we are living under a democracy, we are not, this nation is a Republic and as such, when you think that you can actually control the people you put in office because your voice has been "heard" think again, they are there operating under their agenda whatever that is and once there they have no one to answer to for 4 to 6 years depending on what position they hold.

The truth is the "Religious Right" has in fact hijacked the GOP and helped everyone in the party get elected into office, and now it's time they paid for their office(s), that's why your seeing these "issues" being used on party platforms and woven into their agendas... Makes me very scared to live in the US and makes me embarrassed to say I live in SC...

10 Nov 2004 | indi said...

"If these rights are not given to gay civil marriage families, ANYONE, including the state, or even your alcoholic wife-beating 3rd uncle, could, for example, sue for the right to raise the gay couple's child."

I don't think you intended that to be funny but it was. Yes I know gay couples could conceivable (what the hell, pun intended) have children ... but they would have to get through some legal hurdles in the first place to do it. So a state that allows them to adopt would probably not let Uncle Milo at the little tyke either ... I hope.

Interestingly enough I have heard some gays take the position that the move for gay marriage has hurt their cause because it is a push for too much too soon. They wanted to do the civil union thing first and have that be accepted by society.

But the jinni is out of the bottle now and won't go back in Pandora's box until Shrodinger's cat makes up it's effing mind (should I stay or should I go now ... sorry, Clash flashback ...)

I agree that the basic issue is an equal rights issue and bringing polygamy or polyandry (I learned a new word tonight!) into it is a diversion.

I used to not have an opinion on this ... in fact I tried not to think about gay issues at all. I'm a raging hetero sexual and the whole topic made me ill (OK, I wasn't that bad .. but I have a point here ... ). But them I started listening to Karel and Andrew on KFI in Los Angeles. They were a gay couple who did a radio show together every night. At first I listened out of curiosity ... Karel was a self described flaming Queen. But ya know ... they were funny. They worked well together. They were such a natural couple. I found that the whole gay thing didn't really bother me as much as I thought. And then suddeenly one day Andrew died. Some sort of internal hemmorage. Obviously Karel was devastated. But the even sadder part was how he described that he wasn't even allowed to see Andrew in the hospital because he wasn't next of kin. And the hassle of arranging a funeral when you don't have any legal standing for control of your partner's remains ...

That put me over the edge of realizing that this just wasn't right. At the very least there should be civil unions for any two consenting adults (forget the poly issue for now). There are probably hetero couples who don't really want to use the "marriage" word as part of their union.

So anyway, that's why I support gay marriage.

10 Nov 2004 | indi said...

Hey Jason, what's the most posts ever on a topic? :-)

10 Nov 2004 | indi said...

Oh come on Gene, the vote was actually pretty close. The democratic party is having trouble getting elected because it doesn't have anybody compelling to vote for. I think that will change in 2008 when/if Hillary runs.

I liked those maps Paul pointed to (especially the one that looks like an alien taking a leak ... you have to turn your head sideways ...) because they show this country is not as segregated between Red and Blue states as the media would have us believe.

"Since when does beign kind, caring, trustworthy and honorable have anything to do with the bible? Or my sexual preferences?"

It doesn't. There are many moral people who aren't Christians. I am a Christian, but I have had close personal friends who are atheists and Wiccans. These are moral people. I miss them ... they were nicer than many so-called Christians I've known. Really, the two most important commandments in the Bible are to love God with all of your heart and soul and to love others as yourself. These people have half of that and the other half they would debate. As a matter of fact loving God is what he wants you to do, but he can't command it (you know, free will and all that).

10 Nov 2004 | ek said...

The democratic party is having trouble getting elected because it doesn't have anybody compelling to vote for. I think that will change in 2008 when/if Hillary runs.

I agree with the first part, but, man, if you really think that Hillary would win if she ran in 2008 you are in for a very rude awakening. The term "land slide" will take on epic new proportions.

Maybe. There's still a large chunk of the population that is racist too. I guess you're right. No point in forcing people to accept equality as a basic premise of US society. I'm sure in a few hundred years they'll come to their senses.

Okay Darrel, you do what you need to do. Whenever I read your posts, though, I'm always reminded of that old adage about the definition of insanity...

10 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

So a state that allows them to adopt would probably not let Uncle Milo at the little tyke either ... I hope.

Tess Fields, the lesbian daughter of psycho bigot, Sadie Fields, president of the Christian Coalition of Georgia, wrote a rebuttal in response to a hateful op-ed her mother published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution about exactly this topic. It is worth reading (You may have to register to read it).

I did, as a matter of fact, intend the humor. Thanks.

As for Hillary in 2008... I admire and respect her a great deal. She is an amazing woman. And, yes, I happen to prefer highly intelligent, independent women who aren't raised in Stepford.

Be that as it may, if the gay thing is any indication, this country won't be ready for a woman in the White House for another hundred years or so... I have to agree... Webster's would have to redefine the word landslide.

10 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

oops, here's the link I referred to above...

Reject my mother's bigotry

The pathetic addendum to this story is that 77% of the people who voted in GA, voted to embrace bigotry.

Oh yeah, and, there is yet another crack-pot school board attempting to delete evolution from textbooks. Georgia is as bassackwards as assbackwords can get.

10 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

So homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but polygamists should not because it's inconvenient? What the hell kind of rationale is that?

And there you have it. If you don't define marriage, this is what you will end up with.

Now, for Paul...

The much-balleyhooed balance of Red and Blue is an interesting one when you consider these enlightening cartograms. Election result maps

Which of course makes the map look more blue because blue is a darker color.

Um, as a reference? Seems to me you have been trying to hammer home the religious issue in many of your posts, yet you have given us no answers... only condemnation.

You are completely missing the point. Why I don't know, because it's pretty simple. Each and every one of us has a system of values, and we arrive at those values in different ways. To criticize someone because they base their values on the Bible, or any other book (be it religious or not), is flat out wrong. It's just as wrong as criticizing someone because their value system is not based on the Bible.

Why is it wrong to question someone's ability to make decisions when that person uses blanket statements to whitewash simple reasoning? Why do so many "morals" people always fall back on the "it's God's will" statement instead of actually proffering substantial points to support their opinions?

Have I done that? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think that anyone in this discussion has. I'm not checking back over 240+ posts to see for sure though.

If you want to question Jerry Falwell, go right ahead. Both of you are annoyingly loud, obnoxious and full of hate towards anyone who does not agree with you.

What, pray tell, is the "grace of God"?

Pick up a Bible and read the New Testament. I'm not here to preach on the topic, just to defend a person's right to base their values on it.

And, why do you bother?. I'd like to know. Because to reiterate my point, you have given VERY LITTLE reasoning to support any of your arguments or accusations other than telling me and other's that we "don't get it". What I (we) do not understand is, as I have already said, the notion that by deferring all your reasoning to your faith in a supreme being, you are somehow NOT obliged to support your conclusions.

I have not made any conclusions that I feel need supported. You don't get it because you don't try. What you don't seem to understand about religion is that it is about faith, which is exactly why people feel that it is enough to say, "Because God says so."

Now, why don't you TRY to make an argument, instead of simply accusing me of "not getting it". Simply put Randall, you are not explaining your case, and I have to wonder whether you can.

I don't need to make an argument, Paul. The argument is over. Your side lost, and lost a lot. Republicans control the White House and Congress.

Perhaps if you liberals would spend more time figuring out how to actually win an election, rather than trying to appeal to every minority group available, you would have more success.

I'll give you a hint, it's called the center. Figure out where it is.

10 Nov 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

I'll give you a hint, it's called the center. Figure out where it is.

(raises hand) Oh I know, I knowIts wherever one happens to be standing (and isnt it neat how the moon seems to follow your car as youre driving alongdoesnt it make you feelspecial).

10 Nov 2004 | mass debater said...

democratic party ... have slidden far to the left and are out of touch with a majority of the country who also tend to be more stable, down to earth, and responsible than a bunch of flaky hollywood types and Michael Moore.

dude ... I don't think the rest of the Fundy Youth are going to like you talking about Arnie and Ronnie like that.

10 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Okay Darrel, you do what you need to do. Whenever I read your posts, though, I'm always reminded of that old adage about the definition of insanity...

EK, your passive aggressive insults are always fun.

10 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

BTW, what *is* wrong with Hilary Clinton running? Are there that many insecure males out there?

10 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

The original GW was a smart man, but to assume morality requires religion is simply wrong.

Plus, that was 200 years ago. Times change. ;o)

But yea, good discussion. JF need to get a new post up there soon... ;o)

10 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Both of you are annoyingly loud, obnoxious and full of hate towards anyone who does not agree with you.

Once again, Randall, love, you are resorting to insulting me in an attempt to prove whatever point it is you are trying to make.

You don't get it because you don't try

Really? What do you think I have been trying to do over the course of these posts? After looking back over my posts, I am scratching my head trying to understand why I have become the lightning rod for your scattershot condemnation.

Pick up a Bible and read the New Testament.

I have read the New Testament. I have also read the Koran. I studied world religions as an elective during my undergrad career in Salt Lake City, the holy land of Mormonism. I think it is safe to say, I have done my homework.

Would I indulge you a little more... My mother is a deacon and Sunday School teacher in the Presbyterian church. My fianc's family is hard-core Catholic. Her mother quotes scripture as if it were a second language. One of my best friend's is Iranian and has taught me volumes about the Koran and Islam. I've dated a Christian Scientist, a Mormon, an AA Baptist, and an Indian (dot) in my past. My ancestors are Jewish. My grandfather married a goyim. My parents comprised by raising me in the Methodist church. I currently live in the nerve-center of the Bible Belt.

Doe all this sound improbable to you? Think again. Its called life experience. I firmly believe the more life experience you have the more you question the status quo.

Fact is: You don't have the slightest clue what my views on religion are? Yet, you have automatically labeled me as being "full of hate" because I question the logic of faith.

I don't need to make an argument, Paul. The argument is over.

Because, you can't. Not good enough Randall. Not good enough.

I read voraciously because I love to learn. I ask questions because I seek the "truth" you use as a smoke screen. I participate in discussions and debates because I want to understand.

Your side lost, and lost a lot.

I'm a Libertarian. I voted for Bush in 2000. I voted for Kerry in 2004. I don't have a "side". I vote on issues, not faith.

Again, Randall, Im not entirely sure why you singled me out, especially considering there have been plenty of other posts that have been far more vocal than me. So be it.

You arent worth any more of my time, because you have nothing to add to the conversation. Go shout someone else down.

Lastly, you, Randall, are simply not very nice.

10 Nov 2004 | ek said...

BTW, what *is* wrong with Hilary Clinton running? Are there that many insecure males out there?

I take this as a sign that Republicans will remain in control in 2008.

Man, you guys really don't see it, do you? Sometimes I think, "maybe it's an act," but, no, y'all are the real deal.

Someday, we'll go and look at you in museums and kids will recoil and ask: "Did people like that really exist?"

God save the Democrats, because at this point, they need divine intervention (and this is coming from an atheist).

10 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

Lastly, you, Randall, are simply not very nice.

What are you, 12?

10 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

Because, you can't. Not good enough Randall. Not good enough.

I read voraciously because I love to learn. I ask questions because I seek the "truth" you use as a smoke screen. I participate in discussions and debates because I want to understand.

And this makes you smarter? More educated? Dating a bunch of people from different religious backgrounds doesn't make you an expert. Neither does having a mother who teaches Sunday school.

For some reason, I don't feel the need to go into a discussion of my 'personal experience' in this area, because I don't feel the need to validate the simple fact that I am able to accept people's opinions for what they are, and not degrade them based on their value system.

10 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Man, you guys really don't see it, do you? Sometimes I think, "maybe it's an act," but, no, y'all are the real deal.

EK, oh wise one, so much superior to us because we "can't see" what you see can see oh so clearly. In fact, it's so impossible for us to comprehend your higher intellect that you don't even try explaining it. And why should you? As we are mere mortals and you clearly are on a much higher plane that us. We worship the ground you walk on. May I kiss your feet?

Anyone else care to answer the question? I'm genuinely interested in why Clinton would make a great or awful candidate.

10 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Hillary would be loved far and wide by democrats and would never win.

It has nothing to do with "being threatened by a woman." Heck, my wife threatens me all the time, I'm used to it, yuk yuk.

I'd vote for a good limited-government oriented conservative female just as I would a male.

Hillary's way left, more left than Bill. That makes her unacceptable.

10 Nov 2004 | indi said...

EK, I think you might be underestimating Hillary's ability to get elected. Her husband is still quite popular and will surely campaign heavily for her. She has been holding more centrist positions (as I recall, but I can't think of a single one at the moment). So even though she has the Senate jinx, I think that is more than offset by the fact that she has already been in the Whitehouse and is already well known across the country and around the world.

I really don't think the fact that she is a woman will hold her back either in this case because of people's familiarity with her ... they are used to the image of her in the White house - I think that subconscious imagery counts for a lot. I really think in the end it would be decided by who the Republicans put up against her. We already know Chaney won't run, so the usual VP getting the nod is not in effect for 2008. Jeb won't run for a while. Is McCain still thinking about it? Powell? Condi Rice?

I suppose we can revisit this again in 3 years or so :-)

10 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Which will come first, a woman, a non-white or an openly gay person as president? If the right to vote is any indication its a woman. The fact none of those 3 has happened yet in the "most free" society is more than a bit telling...

10 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Dear Randall,
with your insults, you have unwittingly answered my question.

Thank you.

10 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Hillary's way left, more left than Bill. That makes her unacceptable.

Just as the left sees Bush unacceptable?

Oh. OK.

The fact none of those 3 has happened yet in the "most free" society is more than a bit telling...

:o)

10 Nov 2004 | Scorched said...

I miss user interface design and links about web technology. I really do.

This is pointless.

10 Nov 2004 | MrBlank said...

This is still going on?? I echo Scorched. Please make a new entry on the main page so we can move on. :)

10 Nov 2004 | indi said...

Yeah ... it's probably time to move on :-)

Hey, speaking of design, does anybody have a good model for presenting a long online questionnaire to users that won't make them run for the hills in disgust? The one I am working on also has questions that are only displayed based on certain yes/no answers of previous questions.

I am actually trying to write the specification for someone to code this up (though I'm sure I could code it up if I didn't have a day job getting in the way :-)

10 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Reasons why I think Hillary Clinton would have very little chance of being a successful presidential candidate:

• Perception - accurate or not - that this is a way for Bill Clinton to circumvent the two-term limitation on presidents, and with that the question of who will really be running things
• With four years past, the memory may have faded, but Clinton was every bit as polarizing a president as Bush. By that I mean that the right was spitting piss and vinegar from the second he won to the second he left the White House, and the levels of pure hatred seen by some parts of the left toward Bush were equalled by the levels of pure hatred seen in some parts of the right toward Clinton
• That last point is relevant to Hillary because she and her husband will always be associated with each other, fairly or not. Unless they divorce. And, let's face it, if they haven't divorced yet, it's not terribly likely they're about to.
• No amount of moderating that she's done in the Senate is going overcome the widespread perception amongst many that Hillary was more liberal than her husband
• Cries of "socialized medicine" - her legacy is still the health care task force of 1993-94
• There indeed are a great number of people - and it's not just men - who have difficulties with strong, assertive women
• She's an intensely polarizing figure. So's W, but the 2002 and 2004 elections seem to indicate that the pole on that side of the aisle is a bit stronger than the pole on Hillary's side
• The U.S. is a center-right country. That means that any center-left candidate is going to need to be far more center than left to win. Plain ol' left candidates have very slim chances

Those are just the reasons off the top of my head. I'm sure I could come up with more and better ones if I wanted to.

10 Nov 2004 | p8 said...

Fuck the South:

Federal taxes are paid for by blue states and go to red states
9 of the 10 states that get the most federal dollars and pay the least are red states. 8 of the 10 states that receive the least and pay the most are blue states.

Red states murder and divorce more
9 of the 10 lowest divorce rates are blue states. All 10 of the top 10 highest divorce rates are red states. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate.
The south has the highest murder rates in the nation.

The blue states founded the US

10 Nov 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Sorry for the giant text in the bullet list. There was nothing in the preview that indicated that was going to happen.

10 Nov 2004 | ek said...

We worship the ground you walk on. May I kiss your feet?

Ah, finally, we've reached an understanding, but the answer is no.

Anyone else care to answer the question? I'm genuinely interested in why Clinton would make a great or awful candidate.

Uh, because she would lose — what about that is so complicated? Male Vietnam veteran from Boston with a rich history of public service and funds up the wahoo loses to an incumbent with a largely lousy record, tepid approval ratings, right track/wrong track numbers on the wrong track and the Redskins losing their last home game prior to the election.

Why don't you tell me why a female carpetbagging junior senator from New York with no military background (not even quasi-National Guard service — and she doesn't even look good in a flight suit) and who is already reviled by many in the "red states" as an "East coast liberal" would do any better?

Indi, I agree that being a woman is not what will hold her back and I do think that, to an extent, the candidate that the Republicans put up against her will matter, but I really believe that unless it is a total lunatic who suffers a complete and utter mental breakdown on national television (even worse than W in the first debate or Zell Miller at the convention), the Repubs will win.

Sloan, I've often wondered that as well. I mean, a country like Pakistan, which doesn't have much of a record on women's rights, can elect a female premiere, yet it looks like we're still a ways away.

I think that if it does happen, it'll have to be someone from the right ala only Nixon being able to go to China (and ala Margaret Thatcher). I don't think that you could get middle America to trust a woman from the Democratic party on national security issues, no matter her credentials.

To Scorched and MrBlank, would you like some cheese with your whine? This is a blog you losers — deal with it.

11 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

EK...good points.

OOS...good points. Sad, but correct.

11 Nov 2004 | Gene said...

P8 - You make a good point, and i'm glad you raised it. I live in South Carolina and see it first hand... Please, Please, don't forget about us southern democrats, we still need love too... we are so alone down here......

Funny how no one can see how much the religious right has hijacked our country...

Indi, you are right about my ranting on this beign a republic, I was wrong, this isn't a republic or a democracy it's a theocracy...

And people, Bush doesn't really pray, c'mon you know he's just saying that shit to get elected, c'mon....

11 Nov 2004 | It's behind you! said...

Buddy understands the Grace of God too.

11 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

This pretty much sums up what we've seen in this discussion. Liberals think they are so smart; they think conservatives are dumb. It apparently does not occur to them that you can be smart and conservative.

I believe I mentioned "intellectual high-horse" earlier.

The blue states founded the US

You might want to check with Georgia, South Carolina and some others on that.

Sorry, don't mean to be mean, but your statement is not correct.

11 Nov 2004 | Gene said...

I had an interesting conversation with a gent that I work along side, that said that he thought Micheal Moore's "new movie about bush" was all just a bunch of liberal lies and bullshit. I then asked him about a particular part in the movie, to which he replied "oh, I didn't actually see it, I just saw what I needed to see in the previews to make up my mind on that."

This scenario reminds me so much of why we are in a war in Iraq that we have no business in, that's right NO BUSINESS. Going after Osama is justified, going after Saddam is not. Or if it is, why the hell are we ignoring the Sudan? Isn't that the right thing to do too? Heck it probably wouldn't take the US as much effort as Iraq has... but that's not the point is it?

Oh yeah, that link is from the BBC, I'd encourage folks to read news from other sources than US based news gladhounds, uh, I mean sources...

11 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

This pretty much sums up what we've seen in this discussion. Liberals think they are so smart; they think conservatives are dumb. It apparently does not occur to them that you can be smart and conservative.

So, you are upset because you assume all liberals paint conservatives the same way, but at the same time, you go ahead and paint all liberals the same way with the above statement. Hmm...

11 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

So, you are upset because you assume all liberals paint conservatives the same way,

Daryl, if I were to be upset over this, then I would need to reprioritize my life. I find it amusing, not upsetting.

I do apologize for painting all liberals into the same picture, I unintentionally did that.

11 Nov 2004 | p8 said...

The blue states founded the US

You might want to check with Georgia, South Carolina and some others on that.

Ok, 8 of the original 13 states are blue, but during the first three years of the American Revolutionary War, the primary military encounters were in the northern colonies. And the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were signed in the blue states.

Meanwhile, liberals return to sodomy, welfare fraud:

Jason Carvelli, an unemployed pro-hemp activist. "Now, my friends and I can finally get back to warming our hands over burning American flags and turning kids gay.

11 Nov 2004 | Heather said...

Randal, you are a scream!!! just like you unintentionally painted Paul a "hatefull obnoxious bigot like Jerry Falwell" because he asked a question about faith-based decision making you couldn't answer.

I have a hard time believing any of your weak ideological generalizations are unintentional, therefore, I can objectively and intentionally call you a hypocrit.

11 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

I have a hard time believing any of your weak ideological generalizations are unintentional, therefore, I can objectively and intentionally call you a hypocrit.

that doesn't even make sense.

so i'm a mean hypocrite. big deal. i can live with it, because i understand that not everyone thinks like i do, or has to. and if defending that makes me mean and makes me a hypocrite in your eyes, then so be it.

sticks and stones, heather.

11 Nov 2004 | Heather said...

Randall-- Sorry, I'll dumb it down for you. Replace the word "generalizations" with "opinions", or better yet, "accusations". All better now?

Your argument in support of faith-based decision making was "I believe, therefore you don't have the right to question me" and "you don't get it, therefore you are a hateful bigoted elitist snob".

-- this is a weak religious ideoligical defense that in your mind proves (intent) a generalization or stereotype of the typical person who disagrees with you (liberal).

"Liberals think they are so smart; they think conservatives are dumb".

-- Sorryeverybody.com is the basis for this comment? Weak, assumptive, and utterly silly reasoning on your part. I guess this means that the media has hyped world opinion as well?

Why is it acceptable for you praise the elections on your own wesbite and it is unnacceptable for other's to voice their disapproval on sorryeverybody.com? Can you say hypocritical?

All I am saying is that if you want people to take your opinions seriously, you need to be able to recognize the faults in your arguments. It also helps to have an argument you can back up with facts and solid reasoning.

Sticks and stones? I didn't call you a name... I called you out.

11 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

Sticks and stones? I didn't call you a name... I called you out.

-- Sorryeverybody.com is the basis for this comment? Weak, assumptive, and utterly silly reasoning on your part.

gee, i guess it was all of the signs that people are holding that clearly use the words 'idiots' and 'dumb' that threw me off.

Your argument in support of faith-based decision making was "I believe, therefore you don't have the right to question me" and "you don't get it, therefore you are a hateful bigoted elitist snob".

no, that is not my argument. my argument is that it's unfair to say faith-based decision making is wrong. just like it's wrong to say non-faith-based decision making is wrong.

Why is it acceptable for you praise the elections on your own wesbite and it is unnacceptable for other's to voice their disapproval on sorryeverybody.com? Can you say hypocritical?

i didn't say that the site was unacceptable. i said i found it amusing.

as far as rr.com goes, you seem to be overlooking the part where i said john kerry was a stand-up guy for bowing out. in fact, i pretty much kept my criticisms to john kerry himself, and his proposed policies. i also have not been shy about saying that i think bush has his flaws.

11 Nov 2004 | Heather said...

"gee, i guess it was all of the signs that people are holding that clearly use the words 'idiots' and 'dumb' that threw me off."

OK Randall --- Just out of curiosity, I randomly paged through about a dozen of the galleries on Sorryeverybody.com - of the 50+ images I viewed... ONLY ONE picture used the words "dumb" and "idiot".

1 out of 50 is not ALL.

So while I am sure there are other instances of this terminology - the VAST MAJORITY do not use these terms. FYI - this site also makes a point of telling people in their FAQ that they will not give voice to hateful opinions. Sure, a few negative opinions some got through.

Like it or not. This site is an overall positive statement about democracy and freedom of speech.

I can safely conclude that you are full of shit and only see and hear what you want to see and hear to support your stereotypes and flawed judgements.

11 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

OK Randall --- Just out of curiosity, I randomly paged through about a dozen of the galleries on Sorryeverybody.com - of the 50+ images I viewed... ONLY ONE picture used the words "dumb" and "idiot".

well, i randomly saw more than that. and i belive those words were used more than once in this forum itself. i have also seen them used in other places by those who are shocked and dumbfounded over the election results.

I can safely conclude that you are full of shit and only see and hear what you want to see and hear to support your stereotypes and flawed judgements.

??

i found that site amusing, and somehow that allows you to make a conclusion about me?

somehow i am unable to safely conclude anything about anyone in this forum. i can make conclusions on singular statements, but not really about a person as a whole. all people are different, all are entitled to their opinions.

except, apparently, me. 'cause i'm mean.

11 Nov 2004 | Heather said...

Yeah, Randall, you're the victim now...

You "belive those words were used more than once in this forum itself"... Are you referring to yourself?

You found the site "amusing"? Spin. why don't you refer to your post above where you linked to the site. I don't see any amusement in your comment. I do see more general condemnation. and, yeah, this gives me the right to draw a conclusion about you.

You can dish out the insults... but you can't handle the fire when people are calling your hyperbole for what it is... exactly the same thing for which you are accusing liberals.

Spin away.

12 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

Yeah, Randall, you're the victim now...

inevitably, 'discussions' like this always end this way.

and you know what? i'm sorry that i wasted everyone's time even bothering to get involved.

Spin away.

good idea. i have much better, more productive things to do.

12 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

i have also seen them used in other places by those who are shocked and dumbfounded over the election results.

But do you now see why? You're defending faith-based decision making. There's nothing tangible in the way of critical thinking when one picks up the bible and bases their decision on randomly selected passages. We might as well have elected a magic 8-ball if that's the type of decision making we're using.

The bible can certainly be tossed into the mix of a well-balanced decision-making diet. But, like Twinkies, it fucks you up if that's all you are digesting.

12 Nov 2004 | Gene said...

Does it make a difference when the President is "deciding" on what to do in regards to Palestine? Don't you think that someone who belives that Jesus is coming will certainly make biased decisions? Would that President even honestly listen to both sides of the argument?

12 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

I leave the conversation for a day to finish a project and you guys go and run off my favorite pseudo prophet. Now I've gone and done it, my first insult... You should be ashamed of yourselves. [chuckle]

Sadly, this type of "ending" is none too infrequent when trying to have reasonable discussions with ideologically driven individuals. Doesn't matter how gently you try to ask a question, share an opposing viewpoint, or point out the complete absence of logical argument, someone usually does cut and run. And, it's rarely me.

Sadder still, is that our conservative friend's run off without considering how their own actions have contributed to their exit. Not that we liberals are always tactful. But, "you don't get it" is a weak argument. Whatever the hell it means. Speaking of which, I should probably go pick up a bag of twinkies to roast on the fires.

Enough said.

Hey Darrel, hope you don't mind if I steal the twinkie line from you? Should have guessed you were a fellow Minnesotan.

12 Nov 2004 | Gene said...

So, could someone on the right please explain Michelle Malkin to me? And why god would put someone like that on our planet?

12 Nov 2004 | clubber lang said...

come on 300!

12 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

297!

Paul...use the twinkie line as much as you want. (Though I do have to admit that I haven't been daring enough to sample the deep-fried ones at the state fair yet...)

12 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Oh that's rich!... I hadn't seen the Matthews interview yet. I love that guy. I've seen a number of interviews with Michelle Malkin and my honest response is, "How do you respond?". She's a journalist, well-spoken, and comes off as an intelligent person, but she has this annoying habit of using absurd or unsupportable facts in support her arguments.

If you think she's a nut, you need to read or catch an interview with Anne Coulter. This woman is the queen lunatic of the Dark Side (extreme Right). She's off-the-charts wacko.

My personal opinion, based on interviews I have seen, articles I have read, and chapters of the books both have written, is that they are opportunists... I believe they both are intelligent women who recognized a pathetically easy way to make loads of money by pandering to a very ignorant base of Conservative voters who only want to hear garbage about the Left. They are essentially Rush Limbaugh with tits. Women who use their gender and the intelligence to bilk idiots for a living. (Coulter has been referred to as the "best pair of legs on the Right")

What I am saying is, they may not even believe the bile they spew... They are both all about the paycheck. Well-paid henchwomen of the right.

12 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

If intelligence is all that really matters, let's give a "means test" to every potential voter, and award a "weight" based on I.Q.

If intelligence is not all that matters, then you are simply pissing into the wind. You can never explain human actions sans spirituality, personality, morality, beliefs, etc etc.

(299)

12 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

What Don said.

Come on 300!

12 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

It's not an intelligence issue. It's an awareness of the actually issues (or lack thereof).

12 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Okay then Darrel, we give a "Current Events" quiz and that decides your voting power.

No ... wait ... we give a "morality" quiz.

No ... wait ... we base it on your income.

No ... wait ...

Seeing a trend? Believe it or not, some people DO understand the issues and vote "their" way anyhow.

This, from a Kerry supporter (me).

12 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Revive poll tests to determine voter eligibility, eh?

I'd rather base it on property ownership, myself.

As far as awareness of the actual issues...one could argue that people who refer to America as a democracy and don't understand the difference between that and a constitutional republic aren't capable of understanding any of the issues because they don't even understand the system they vote in.

That goes for liberals and republicans and whomever...

12 Nov 2004 | indi said...

"So, could someone on the right please explain Michelle Malkin to me? And why god would put someone like that on our planet?"

Hey, she lives on the same planet as Michael Moore and Terry McCauliff.

Wasn't protecting the election process from the uneducated masses one of the reasons behind the electoral college? As I recall the electoral college delegates didn't automatically follow the popular vote from their state early in our country's history.

I'm not saying we should go back to that ... One citizen, one vote (even indirectly) is fine with me. If ignorance currently rules then that is a result of our education system, media, pundits, spinmeisters, groupthink and pandering by all sides.

12 Nov 2004 | indi said...

Sadder still, is that our conservative friend's run off without considering how their own actions have contributed to their exit."

Hey, I'm still here :-)

Of course I haven't used the "you just don't get it" line yet, so maybe I don't qualify as a true conservative.

12 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Don...I have no arguments with what you said. You obviously can't test voters. My only agenda is a hope that we can, over time, push folks (and/or our media) to question their thinking more to get to the heart of the issues that truly do affect us as a nation, and spend a bit less time on the more irrelevant wedge issues. I in no way am trying to imply that a better understanding of the issues would cause people to vote specifically for one side of the argument.

I'd rather base it on property ownership, myself.

???

Wasn't protecting the election process from the uneducated masses one of the reasons behind the electoral college?

I apologize for my use of the term 'ignorant' throughout this thread. I was using the defnition of 'unaware or uniformed' not specifically 'uneducated'...which I now realize many folks were...hence assuming that I was trying to be insulting. Sorry about that.

Of course I haven't used the "you just don't get it" line yet, so maybe I don't qualify as a true conservative.

I'd say a true conservative is just that...someone that uses logical arguments to frame their POV instead of the 'you just don't get the bible' argument. ;o)

12 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Darrel

When America announced its independence from Britain, only property owners were allowed to vote.

In addition to literacty tests, poll taxes, states dropped them early on, and then later when the various amendments were passed to open up voting to anyone.

12 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

For what it's worth, I don't think most reasonable people use "ignorant" as an insult or take it as an insult. The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know.

It's just as arrogant for someone who belives in nothing to harangue someone who believes in a personal God as it is for a Christian or Muslim to harangue an atheist.

Likewise people who rabidly assert how everything they think is based on pure reason. To them I say, go read Kant. What they base their thinking on is their own pre-selected data set which absolutely requires the dismissal of anything that doesn't fit.

What they do is decide that all holes are round with a diameter of 2", and discard anything that doesn't fit.

Wise liberals do that as much as anyone else...they just couch their own beliefs in pseudo-scientific baloney that would make Descartes laboratory rats turn over in their little teeny graves.

12 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Ignorant - 'unaware or uniformed' not specifically 'uneducated' - apples to apples. By definition, "ignorance" means all of these things. Ignorance is not an insult, it simply describes a reality of much of the political debate outside of this thread. Period. If someone is insulted by the word, it's their issue, not something requiring an apology.

Thanks Indi - I appreciate the opportunity to listen to and be heard by the "other side" without being condemned as a hateful, elitist Jerry Falwell clone. I ask blunt questions and I want honest answers to those questions.

Unfortunately, I don't always get considered responses. I think my favorite (directed toward me) was when a friendly political debate with a "morals voter" turned to foot-stomping and screaming "3,000 dead!! 3,000 dead!!! What? Do you support the terrorists? Do you like seeing Americans die, you fucking sicko!!!" Direct quote from a friend's very serious friend over a beer one night back in August.

Base voting priviledges on property owernship? If by some stretch you are conflating "intelligence" with property owvership... Have you ever driven through the rural South? Or the mining towns of Northern Minnesota? or, the backcountry of the American West? Or the South side of Chicago? Or Detroit?

It is not a matter of limiting voting rights, it is a matter of our lousy educational system, our useless "ten-second sound byte" media, and a political system that has allowed our two major parties to push out a viable third party and utterly manipulate the way discourse filters down through the voting masses.

How does a political party (no insinuations) manage to somehow demonize rational decision-making and reduce electing the President of the most powerful country on the planet to a gut-level decision?

12 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Chris...you have good points. Basically, anyone basing a decision purely on 'beliefs' isn't necessarily thinking things through completely. Whether those beliefs are religious in nature or not is really irrelevant. And beliefs aren't necessarily* bad.

*see the twinkie reference.

12 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Damn, lighten up, Paul. Sorry if the dry humor doesn't come through but the point is that if you're going to mandate a litmus test for voting, property ownership makes much more sense than poll taxes and literacy tests.

I'm not at all equating property ownership with intelligence. Property owners were the only legal voters not because they were trying to "keep anyone else down" but because property owners are really the only demographic with a vested interested in preventing the government from going hog wild with taxation. That was the primary reason it was done.

But your elitism is coming through. I drive through the rural south every day because that's where I live. There's ignorance everywhere, but I find far less of it where I live than when I drive into the city (Birmingham) to go to work.

Now, admittedly, I have a master's degree and few of my neighbors do. Most of them are smarter than me.

12 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Chris - "fake scientific baloney"? Explain how wise liberals couch their beliefs in this? I'm not following your conclusion.

I do however, agree with everything you said up to that point. I would also suggest that regardless of how your own personal world is shaped, it is still possible to have the ability to explain oneself.

I find my spirituality outside of religion. What I have learned about myself in these instances and places is a very important piece of my peronsal puzzle... the thing is, I could, if asked, talk about it lucidly. This is exactly the reason behind my initial question, "why do so many christians (religious people) default to the 'it's god's will' defense" and believe that is all that needs to be said?

In my opinion, this is setting a very low bar for personal spiritual exploration.

12 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Darrel,

I hear ya.

But I'm diabetic, so I can't eat twinkies at all, really.

That's probably why I'm better than everyone else :-)

12 Nov 2004 | Heather said...

"[W]hen a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental--men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... [A]ll the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre--the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.

12 Nov 2004 | Gene said...

So Moore and Maulkin are the same? What else has Maulking done except anti Democrat slandering? Do you not agree with some of Moore's views on corporate america or with his film about Columbine? I don't want to turn this into a defend Moore post, but c'mon, you can't really compare him to the likes of Maulkin and Coulter can you, at least not down in your gut?

12 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Paul

First, half of the people in this thread who've argued the liberal line have asserted or implied at one point or another that their conclusions are based solely on reason and logic. That sounds good, but it ain't true...and it's fundamentally dishonest, because just as those fundamentalist Christians don't "know" everything, neither do you or any of us. One doesn't have to agree with them, but neither should you disparage them just because, at bottom, you don't understand their beliefs.

As for the last part, Paul...it's because most those people really believe in God's will. Perhaps, to use the epistemological/sense experience argument most liberals fall back on in arguments, they've experienced or seen something that you have not.

But at the very least that's no worse than people who comfort themselves with the idea that there is no God, hence no real standard or absolute beyond biology, hence what they do in the long run really doesn't matter.

12 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Mr S - Sorry, if I came off sounding like I had a power wedgie... dry humor doesn't come off so well in type.

12 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Paul

Hell, that's my fault. I'm a dry, sarcastic SOB...watched too many BritComs I guess.

It definitely doesn't translate well in type, except in skilled hands, which mine are not.

12 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

last time on 'sorry to fan the flames', daryl said:

But do you now see why? You're defending faith-based decision making.

someone has yet to point as to why this is wrong. other than by referencing stereotypes. in this country, people are supposed to be free to make choices and decisions in this country however they want.

you are also allowed to criticize those people, but to say that a person is ignorant, dumb or stupid because they have religion in their decision making is just as bad as saying a person is ignorant, dumb or stupid because of the color of their skin.

just so you all understand, this is why i can't stand jerry falwell.

The bible can certainly be tossed into the mix of a well-balanced decision-making diet.

i believe i said that earlier, quoting myself,

"There is truth everywhere. Not just in the Bible." That's a good thing to adhere to, no matter which side of the fence you sit on.

so see daryl, we actually agree on that point. and we always have. the fallacy in your argument, and paul's and heather's, is that you appear to believe that a large portion of the base that voted for Bush and against gay rights made their decision based solely on religion. that's simply not possible. maybe a few here and there did, but not as large a number as some seem to perceive. in fact, i know of exactly one person who voted strictly based on religion, and it wasn't me. just to be fair, i know of at least 30 people that voted for Bush and for Issue 1 in Ohio.

the marriage amendments passed by an average of 65% to 35%. now i don't think that Bush won Ohio by that wide of a margin. so, what does that mean? it means that a good portion of the democrat/liberal voting body also voted for the marriage amendments.

you know what bothers me the most about the article that started this whole 'discussion?' things like this:

Listen to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they arethey are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence.

once upon a time, people said these same things about african-americans. they said those things because they feared what would happen if they were allowed to be citizens, allowed to vote, allowed to own property.

12 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

someone has yet to point as to why this is wrong.

It's like basing your decision on Aesop's fables. They're good stories. Generally have a moral point to them, but they're just stories.

but to say that a person is ignorant, dumb or stupid because they have religion in their decision

I'm not saying that. There is a difference between 'having religion in their decision' and 'basing their decision solely on religion'.

Again...THE TWINKIE. ;o)

the fallacy in your argument, and paul's and heather's, is that you appear to believe that a large portion of the base that voted for Bush and against gay rights made their decision based solely on religion.

All Paul, Heather, and I can do is come to that conclusion. Why? Because the anti-gay folks have yet to provide any explanation outside of religion. (well, there's the slippery slope argument, but that is a red herring in any debate and doesn't have anything to do with the core issue)

Randal, I think your issue is that you think all of our critiques are aimed at 'republicans' in general. Or 'christians' in general. They aren't. They're aimed at a subset of all those folks. The very subset that the likes of Carl Rove markets to.

it means that a good portion of the democrat/liberal voting body also voted for the marriage amendments.

Yep, and we can assume they were either ignorant of the issue or voted based on their religion. We can assume something different once they explain otherwise.

once upon a time, people said these same things about african-americans. they said those things because they feared what would happen if they were allowed to be citizens, allowed to vote, allowed to own property.

Right. Who said that? The red states. ;o)

12 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

oops, i need to clarify my statement on falwell.

i can't stand him because, from my experience, he seems to discount anyone's opinion but his own.

12 Nov 2004 | ... things like this said...

Agreed, Randall. But let's not forget about the opposing hyperbole...

The Conservative Approach to Tolerance,
Beyond gloating

Declaration of Expulsion

And, an interesting take on Religion in Politics from Beliefnet.com,
Did God Intervene?

12 Nov 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

I'd rather base it on property ownership, myself.

Thats shear genius! Ive got a lot more property than my neighbors, and I could vote for them giving some of theirs to me.moreand morenobody could stop mEEEE, that sucksthere are some folks that have more property than me, and theyll probably vote in ways to increase the gap in their favorthats no fair! What would be great is if I could figure a way to get the people who have less than me to give me a bigger share (theyre just lazy and lose stuff anyway)now that would be genius!

Ive got a better plan. No votes just me as king of the world! Ill be a good king; youll love me (now all I need is a plan to convince the rest world). Just give me a bit of time to work on thismaybe I need another word for king.

12 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

oh, and i'm not accusing anyone of supporting slavery.

that statement from the article simply reminds me of the kinds of things that were said about giving slaves rights.

12 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Thanks for clarifying the Falwell comparison, Randall.

At least, you don't jump to conclusions about people.

12 Nov 2004 | indi said...

So Moore and Maulkin are the same? What else has Maulking done except anti Democrat slandering?

In the context of election propaganda they are similar. Moore is a skilled documentarian and he used it to push his political viewpoint. He also made a lot of money off of pushing his views. In reality he was better at it than she was. I'm not commenting on his other work, they stand on their own.

12 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

At least, you don't jump to conclusions about people.

i would hardly clarify it as 'jumping.' i have been to hear him speak and heard and read enough of what he has to say. how do you know that i haven't met the man?

Yep, and we can assume they were either ignorant of the issue or voted based on their religion. We can assume something different once they explain otherwise.

i'm sorry that you feel this way daryl. i tend to think that it is a dangerous train of thought. but, to sum up, you personally feel that a person is either ignorant or voted based on their religion because they voted differently than you did?

it's a simple yes or no, if i am understanding you correctly.

12 Nov 2004 | ... things like this said...

No. Religion didn't have anything to do with it...

Congratulatory letter to President George W. Bush from Dr. Bob Jones III

an excerpt:
"In your re-election, God has graciously granted Americathough she doesn't deserve ita reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate. We the people expect your voice to be like the clear and certain sound of a trumpet. Because you seek the Lord daily, we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly.
Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.

Had your opponent won, I would have still given thanks, because the Bible says I must (I Thessalonians 5:18). It would have been hard, but because the Lord lifts up whom He will and pulls down whom He will, I would have done it. It is easy to rejoice today, because Christ has allowed you to be His servant in this nation for another presidential term. Undoubtedly, you will have opportunity to appoint many conservative judges and exercise forceful leadership with the Congress in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norm regarding the family, sexuality, sanctity of life, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and limited government. You have four yearsa brief time onlyto leave an imprint for righteousness upon this nation that brings with it the blessings of Almighty God."

For all of you bible-vote defenders... sure seems like a lot of tolerance and compassion and understanding and desire to heal differences at one of Nation's most esteemd religous universities.

12 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Hm. I always read Kant as saying that morals and ethics were based on rationality... hence his categorical imperative based on a free will. But maybe that's just me... As for Descartes, partly he was trying to prove that a supreme being exisited, but ethics and morality still went back to reason.

Both saw a need for morals and ethics in a society. But there is argument whether a biblical God of some sort is needed for these to stand on their own. Hell, a lot philosophy is based on the idea that religion was created to explain the morals and ethics that we cannot seem to rationalize yet most seem to hold true. Secular vs. non-secular ethics... who cares, as long as reason accompanies them to keep us from going off the hilt...

12 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

For all of you bible-vote defenders...

the right has falwell and bob jones.

the left has michael moore and hollywood.

same difference.

12 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Well, Falwell saying he would kill any gay man that looked at him the wrong way on his show... that is a bit different. Both sides have their extermists...
http://newyork.craigslist.org/about/best/nyc/47785163.html

12 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

Both sides have their extermists...

exactly.

12 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

but, to sum up, you personally feel that a person is either ignorant or voted based on their religion because they voted differently than you did?

Randall....you just spin, spin, spin, don't you?

This has nothing to do with them disagreeing with me. It has to do with backing up an opinion with sound reasoning.

12 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Sorry...if that wasn't simple enough, the answer to your question was 'no'.

the right has falwell and bob jones.

the left has michael moore and hollywood.

same difference.

Uh...comparing Falwell to Moore? I don't think so. They both have agendas, of course.

12 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

ah...I will clarify. If they voted solely on their religious beliefs, then, yes, they were ignorant on that particular issue. You can disagree with that all you want, but if you want me to 'get' your POV, then you need to explain to me how voting based solely on religious doctrine is sound reasoning.

13 Nov 2004 | indi said...

BTW, I meant to mention this a while back ... most of the time when I've seen the word "ignorant" targetted at an individual or group it was meant to be demeaning. I realize the word itself isn't demeaning, it's the way it's often used. I think that is why I and perhaps others tend to take offense at it. Thanks for your clarifications (over and over :-) that it wasn't intended as a slam, just as a statement of lack of knowledge of the subject matter at hand.

13 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

New rule. No more referring to "spin", it makes me dizzy.

13 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

You can disagree with that all you want, but if you want me to 'get' your POV, then you need to explain to me how voting based solely on religious doctrine is sound reasoning.

point to where i said it was sound reasoning.

i believe i said that i respect people's rights to form their own opinions.

ah...I will clarify. If they voted solely on their religious beliefs, then, yes, they were ignorant on that particular issue.

my 'POV' is simply that each of us should respect another's right to make their own decisions, and form their own belief systems.

believe it or not, i can see your point. however, i think that it is a dangerous thought pattern to follow.

13 Nov 2004 | Gene said...

the right has falwell and bob jones.

the left has michael moore and hollywood.

same difference."

Holy Cow are you serious? comparing Moore and Hollywood, which i'm sure you enjoy going to the movies and soaking in all that leftist entertainment.... to Falwell and Bob Jones... are you serious... Moore seriously attempts to back up his argument in REALITY as does the likes of Franken... someone like Maulkin, Coulter, O'Reilly just spew hatred and "false wittness"!

"But do you now see why? You're defending faith-based decision making."

How can this be correct in any sense, look at the past when you mix "governmental" leadership with religion; the gallic wars, the crusades, the spanish inquisition, prohibition , mccarthyism; with Eritrea and Al Qaida happening right now today... (hell it drove our four-fathers to found america...) one could make a solid argument on all of these and could probably continue until blue in the face. None the less all are solid arguments for letting one's "beliefs" either spiritual or otherwise weight too heavily over reasoning and truth...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution

13 Nov 2004 | Gene said...

by four fathers I mean fore - i'm sleepy and angry....

13 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

None the less all are solid arguments for letting one's "beliefs" either spiritual or otherwise weight too heavily over reasoning and truth...

are you saying then that beliefs are separate from reasoning and truth?

if so, then how does one arrive at beliefs?

Holy Cow are you serious? comparing Moore and Hollywood, which i'm sure you enjoy going to the movies and soaking in all that leftist entertainment.... to Falwell and Bob Jones... are you serious...

yes, i'm serious. do you honestly believe that michael moore presents issues fairly? does jerry falwell?

i think that they are all extremely biased to a near-comical level.

13 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

I don't have time to read everything here, but I did see Jerry Falwell mentioned.

Talk about a hypocrit! He's all about keeping gays from having rights (think about that: PREVENT a *RIGHT*?? Is that even possible?), but he's fat. Yeah ... FAT.

"So what?"

Well, Dr. Falwell, the Bible mentions the sin of gluttony MUCH more than than any sexual sin. Meditate on that while you choke down your Thanksgiving dinner.

And while I'm ranting: Isn't there some kind of Christian/moral response to, say, the poor???? Hmmmmm ...

13 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

Comparing MM to Falwell and Bob Jones, isn't absurd, it's asinine.

Moore DOES NOT pretend to hold the hand of God when he makes his arguments. He also does not hold sway over "educational" organizations, as do both Falwell and Jones. He doesn't invoke the wrath of god to convince his followers to give him money and he doesn't teach students the sins of Liberalism.

Does Moore present his issues fairly? Gee wiz, editing for emotional impact aside, I guess actual video clips from the mouths of the people he is criticising isn't damning enough... Whether or not you disagree with his opinions, he isn't presenting lies. And, he doesn't back up his opinion with the "messenger of God" excuse.

If you want "fair and balanced", just keep watching Fox News, O'reilly, Hannity, or listening to Limbaugh and Coulter.

13 Nov 2004 | Paul said...

A final thought to my comment above...

A number of people have made the general statement that "most people believe in a supreme bieng".

Following this line of thought, is it not fair to say then that Falwell and Jones and the thousands of priests, preachers, and religious organizations and institutions nationwide who "spread the word of the Lord", WILL, not may, but WILL have significantly more influence over their followers than a filmmaker who can easily be marginalized?

13 Nov 2004 | Gene said...

"do you honestly believe that michael moore presents issues fairly? does jerry falwell?"

The differences between "being fair" and "being honest" are like comparing apples to oranges, of course Moore is baised that's not my point entirely, but honest yes! Well, i guess if you really beleive what you are saying is true then it is a form of honesty, in the case of Falwell. Although routed in crazy...

"are you saying then that beliefs are separate from reasoning and truth?"

Of course they are, when you refer to religious beliefs, particularly those that are Christian based, isn't that the point here?

14 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Randall...I think we're debating two different things.

I'm saying people shouldn't base life decisions solely on religious or other unfounded beliefs.

You are saying that people should respect other people's beliefs.

Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

14 Nov 2004 | Gene said...

What "faith" based decision making get's you: http://www.afa.net/othersp/

scares the crap outta me to discover stuff like this, what's next book burings of Leminy Snickett novels...??

14 Nov 2004 | indi said...

what's next book burings of Leminy Snickett novels...??

What? You didn't get the flyer? ;-)

As much as I seek to shield my daughter from "the world" until she is old enough to understand more about man's inhumanity to man (and man's inhumanity to small furry creatures for that matter), I deplore censorship. It is scary. I don't mind when a group notifies its members about a book they don't agree with and they might want to avoid, but I think it's outrageous to want to remove the book from circulation so no one at all can see it. Too much profanity on TV? My solution is to watch very little of regular broadcast stations. And when we do we always watch it with our daughter. Always. Inconvenient? Sometimes, but we are the ones choosing to keep our daughter shielded from certain things, so the burden is on us.

BTW, yes, she is smart enough to understand what she sees, there are just certain things I don't want her to have to understand yet. I still remember the look on her face when she found out we actually eat animals.

14 Nov 2004 | indi said...

Regarding Moore's truthfulness, have you seen "fahrenhype 911" ?

Are all those people also lying? I think you'd have to admit he did a bit more than edit for emotional content ...

14 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

One thing I like about Moore is that he expects you to at least share in the thinking. BFC didn't make a single significant point. He merely presented a bunch of POVs, and left it at that. He gives the audience some credit for assuming that they can come to their own conclusions.

Of all the 'lies' I've seen pointed out in F911, none seemed to be anymore than quibbles over statistical minutia. Nothing you wouldn't be able to contest in pretty much any article or movie if you dig long and hard enough. I guess the difference between Moore and say Falwell, is that Moore only comes across 'hoping' that his POV is right while Falwell believes that he is right.

I say Talk of the nation this morning...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

Carver and Matalin debated. Hell, if those two can stay married like that, then I guess the rest of us should be able to get along somehow. ;o)

14 Nov 2004 | Gene said...

The egg on his face part was kinda funny... Carver was also dead on about all those "Christian Fanatics" that "we" tend to generalize as the GOP, wanting a seat at the table... Is it time to pay up W or will you actually be open minded for a change?

15 Nov 2004 | Beerzie Yoink said...

I don't have the time or energy to read all of the responses, but in my mind, a lot of the problem is that both sides spend a lot of time engaging in name calling. This tactic is really just a simple-minded, cut-to-the-chase form of marketing, in which the name caller throws out a nearly meaningless stock word or phrase (e.g., "liberal", "redneck", "moral" etc.) in an attempt to promote their candidate or disparage their opponent. This results in reductionism that lets the candidates hide the fact that they have very little to say and are in many ways more similar than different than their opponent.

By distracting voters with focus group side issues, name calling, and trite buzzwords, the politicians of both parties obscure the fact that there is a dearth of new ideas and approaches to leadership, which is what the country -- and the world at large -- needs.

As for Smilely's assertion that "the big capitalists, who have no morals" are part of the destruction of the Democrats (by supporting the "Religious Right", another idiotic buzzword) goes, she may want to inspect the financial records of the Democrats and their candidates more closely. In general, big corporations support both parties fairly equally: these means, because people have been duped into thinking that third parties are a waste of time, that the status quo is preserved.

And as far as I can see, the status quo is the problem. Americans overconsume a disproportionate amount of the world's resources and bully the rest of the world into accepting this fact. This is neither moral nor sustainable, but I have yet to hear a Democrat or a Republican (since Jimmy Carter) say anything about that.

16 Nov 2004 | indi said...

wow ... I thought this thread would never die :-)

19 Nov 2004 | ROW said...

The rest of the world doesn't worry whether you think you are liberal or democrat or christian right or republican or red neck. You are bunch of Fucked Up Americans and if you would just stay in your own country and use your guns and bombs to kill each other instead of the thousands upon thousands of men women and children in the 3rd world whom you name call gooks and sand niggers if you fucks could just nuke yourselves we could have more Peace on the planet.

19 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

ROW is right! Here's a list of the countries we've conquered:

.

That's it! That's the list! (with apologies to Tony Kornheiser)

19 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Don:

We conquered pretty much every Native American nation. That list is fairly long.

Just saying.

;o)

19 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

D'oh!

19 Nov 2004 | indi said...

Ya know, the funny thing about the US is that we are one of the few countries in the world made up entirely of historically recent immigrants from ROW, even continuing today. What does this mean?

I'll leave that as an exercise for the student.