Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[miles]

One answer I hear often here in Utah is that same-sex parents are ill-equipped to raise children.

Because I believe that a major part of raising children is making them watch their mother and father fuck.

I just can't understand that shit at all.

If you find that is true in every state, I suggest either reevaluating your values or your decision to remain in the US.

Ha, I'm actually doing the latter. SO LONG, BITCHES.

That's great.  Both comments, the article, just great.

And your signature is one of my favorite Morrissey lines.  You are a cool dude.

[miles]

Democracy should fundamentally protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Another one of Mill's.

The Bill of Rights was drafted to protect citizens from the encroachment on the rights by the government.  The problem of Democracy is exactly that--that it doesn't protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  Luckily we don't live in a Democracy, at least a pure one, so there are certain rights that an elected government can't strip away, without amending the constitution.

Which is what seems more and more likely to happen in the next few years.

And people say that this, the FMA, will be the first amendment to restrict rights, instead of restricting what the government can do.  But I guess prohibition did that.  Anyway, it's a complicated issue.

[V-Adore]

Democracy should fundamentally protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Another one of Mill's.

The Bill of Rights was drafted to protect citizens from the encroachment on the rights by the government.  The problem of Democracy is exactly that--that it doesn't protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  Luckily we don't live in a Democracy, at least a pure one, so there are certain rights that an elected government can't strip away, without amending the constitution..

This is true -- I apologize for my rustiness; it's been a few years since I did any of this particularly seriously. Anyway, I agree that democracy unchecked has the grave risk of subjecting the minority to the tyranny of the majority, but a properly-designed democratic government should take this into account and act in such a way as to discourage it.

[AlohaDawg]

I love you all too much to expect you to move to Zimbabwe.

My above point was twofold, if overly shrill:

1) If your community is completely and overwhelmingly involved in things that run counter to your values, you can try to change their minds, but your energy may well be better spent seeking out a community that shares your values. You will be happier and probably a lot healthier.  And your chances of fomenting change are a lot better.


2) If the juice is worth the squeeze, do what you can to make change happen.  But do it in ways that are meaningful and sustainable. I think the get-out-the vote efforts were awesome this election and for the most part the grassroots campaigning was pretty good. I think this election got a little personal on the candidates part but it also fomented more good discussion and honest assessment on both sides of the aisle than any election in a long time. I think a lot of people crossed lines on both sides, and that is a sign that the electorate is thinking. That is a good thing.

I didn't mean to suggest that you MOVE and then try to work in that community. I meant to suggest that you choose your battles and that your best bet is probably to work together in a community where people who think like you do can be found. Trust me, as a Conservative in Hawaii I'm not out there screaming at the top of my lungs. But I do intend to work for honest change at the local level because this place is FUBAR'd politically and I think I'm at a point now where I'm settled in enough to work on it.
There is a perceptible movement right here and I hope it keeps up at least long enough to balance things out.



I don't think push won on 'pushbutton issues'. I think he won because the US fairly overwhelmingly voted for security. I think Mr Kerry made a huge mistake when he mentioned a 'global test'; I think that most Americans are still not into the idea of polling the world before taking action to protect ourselves. Whether that idea is right or wrong I leave to you, but this election was incredible in terms of voter turnout and that used to be good for Democratic voters. It seems to me that Mr. Kerry was genuinely unpalatable for a lot of people who would have voted democratic - because new voters are usually either young or minority voters. It's something to think about.

[Choop]

All of you, listen up:


You.


Are.


Rad.

[slink]

All of you, listen up:

I do like that basically every one here is agreeing to some extent. Most of the messages I've seen on other forums in the last few days have just angered me, and I don't like that much.
So you're all good, and I feel particularly sorry for the outcome for any of you living in the US (and the rest of us).

Anyway, I just wanted to point out two quotes I saw on /. that I thought were actually quite good.

"Bush got more votes than any American in history.
True. So, now when the American government makes aggressive and belicose blunders in the middle east the rest of the world won't just despise and deride the president, they'll hate the American people too. [We've] completely alienated ourselves from all our former allies and friends and earned the distrust and emnity of the rest of the planet."

"It's stramge, but too many Americans no longer understand the strengths of the US contitution, and fail to realise that those strengths actually allow the country to function in a time of war, and change presidents.
Well, guess what? They will have to do that in four years..."

Regarding Wil Wheaton (who I have a hell of a lot of respect for now) sayiong he has just learnt that he lives in a country that is very different to what he thought a night before, I guess I have felt like that here for a long time. There are too many attitudes in the UK, of the majority, that I just cannot understand... Maybe I am just more sensitive to it, in my left-wing way, I don't know.

[jough]

I was very much surprised that Bush won by the margin that he did, but Kerry wasn't a very strong candidate and his refusal to take a stand on issues that were important to people, his wishiwashiness, and self-contradictions really hurt him, I think.

Yes, a lot of young people were being urged by the democrats to vote.  A lot of new hispanic citizens were too.  And guess what - many of them voted for BUSH.  

It came down to a religion issue - Kerry was raised Catholic but is not very religious (he does not attend church services regularly) - Bush is whatever he is, and has spoken regularly about his faith.

When Kerry's camp learned that Bush was winning in the polls based on values and religion Kerry started to play up how important his faith is to him, but he sounded like a John Kerry Come Lately rather than a man of character who was expressing his views.

The real problem was that while Bush supports were voting FOR Bush, many people who voted for Kerry were not voting for Kerry, but AGAINST Bush.  I was one of those people.  I didn't really want Kerry to be president - I don't think he would have been good at the job - but I thought he may be better than Bush.  I mean, I KNOW what the Bush administration has done to this country - and in good conscience I couldn't vote for him again.

Bush said in his acceptance speech that he would seek to earn our trust.  Well, he already has mine.  I think Bush is basically a decent man, and I would trust him to watch my children, hold my wallet, etc.  I just don't think he's been a particularly good president.  He's not very smart, and knows it, and it seems like he takes bad advice from people who have their own agendas and just runs with whatever Karl Rove and Dick Cheney say he should do.

Bush won on the terror issue - and the sad fact is that the country will probably be safer from terrorism with Bush in the White House.  But at what cost?  Do we have to give up the freedoms that make this country great in order to be secure?

I see two things happening in the next four years: reinstitution of the draft to garrison Iraq, and citizenship papers that all Americans will have to keep on their person and be prepared to display on random and routine checks in major cities.

It's just an extension of the new abilities the Patriot Act gives the government.  

Will they make Jews wear a star of David on their armbands?  I don't know.  Maybe it'll be Arabs or Muslims wearing a little moon.

[arkabee]

popular vote:

link to cspan election numbers

Bush        59,150,654      51%
Kerry             55,592,568      48%

fifty-nine million one-hundred-fifty thousand six hundred and fifty four votes.

that is, indeed, a helluva lotta people who voted for george bush.

3,558,086  three million five-hundred fifty eight thousand and eighty six more people voted for Bush than voted for Kerry.

that is, indeed, a helluva lotta people.  over three and a half MILLION people.

i have a hard time counting the people in line at Kroger's, let alone that
staggeringly large number of people.

i am not being facetious nor sarcastic.

the number of people who voted for Bush is signifigant and large.

the number of votes that Bush recieved in excess of Kerry is staggeringly large as well.

fifty-five million five hundred ninety two thousand five hundred and sixty eight people voted for Kerry.

this number is not quite as large as the number of people that voted for Bush.

does that mean it is not a staggeringly large number?


electoral vote-
link to cspan electoral college map

blue on the west coast.  blue in the nother east.  blue in the NFC north division (i thought about saying "midwest" or "great lakes" but those are not correct withouth ohio, indiana, etc.  odd, though, that the NFC north states would be so aligned.)

a "sea of red" in the middle.

yet, in every single blue "state", even DC, people voted for Bush.
and in every single red state, even utah, people voted for Kerry.



accept that president bush has been reelected?
of course, certainly.

"accept" that president bush has has a mandate of the people?
"accept" that senator kerry, his campaign, and his party had no support?





edit-
here's a neat link.
someone tookt he red vs blue EV map and "blurred" it apparently based on percentage etc.
apparently red plus blue equals purple.

[Limmo]

Bush has a mandate, if you define "mandate" as "A claim made by a victorious candidate that the electorate has given him or her special authority to carry out campaign promises."  If you define "mandate" as "We won, so why don't you remaining 48% get on the bandwagon", like Bush and Cheney did in their speeches yesterday, then no.  48% means "no support"?  You're selling yourself toupees.

3% is not a landslide victory, like Nixon's 1972 win.  ( And we saw how well that turned out, didn't we? )  But it wasn't a squeaker either, like in 2000 when Gore won.

Interesting election results from the pages of history.

[AlohaDawg]

The real landslide was Reagan v Mondale - a 49 state blasting of the man from Minnesota. He did win his home state and DC. Reagan went on to more-or-less bring the USSR to it's knees and force its destruction, as well as cause the Berlin wall to come down.

I think the potential 'Mandate' stems from the legislative gains as well as the number of states that approved measures supporting 'tradtional' values in terms of marriage. Added together, it seems that the country was rejecting the far left agenda of Senator Kerry - I think that had Senator Kerry been a more centrist candidate - like, say, Bill Clinton - he could have won. I agree with Limmo (Edit: Read "Limmo" as "JOUGH") that his sudden religious epiphany brought about by reading polls was rejected by a large portion of the public as insincere at best, and he had already lost a broad swath of Catholics due to activism within the Church in response to his views.

[Limmo]

I agree with Limmo that his sudden religious epiphany brought about by reading polls was rejected by a large portion of the public as insincere at best, and he had already lost a broad swath of Catholics due to activism within the Church in response to his views.

Where exactly did I say that, AD?

[AlohaDawg]

I agree with Limmo (edit: That's pronounced Jough, the Limm is silent and the J is invisible) that his sudden religious epiphany brought about by reading polls was rejected by a large portion of the public as insincere at best, and he had already lost a broad swath of Catholics due to activism within the Church in response to his views.

Where exactly did I say that, AD?

You didn't.

It's the drugs. Actually further up Jough said that. And in spite of that, I still agree.  :twisted:

[slink]

Where exactly did I say that, AD?

I think he's referring to Jough's comment about Kerry jumping on the religion bandwagon to gain votes.
I'd CJ it, but I'm too lazy.

[Pedro Picasso]

I've probably posted this before, but just in case:  very good post on the Biblical origins of "gays/shrimp are an abomination," and their overturning, here.

This guy gets it wrong.  In Acts of the Apostles, there was a big fight over whether or not gentiles -- who were allowed into Christianity by Jesus and by the story in the above essay -- should be circumcised.  A whole bunch of Christians said, you have to follow Jewish law to be a Christian.  Others said Christs fulfillment of the law made certain portions of it redundant.  Eventually, Peter got everyone to agree that gentiles could keep their willies uncut (as my son's going to be).  Basically, they crammed all of Jewish law into a quick set of rules.

a) Everybody has to obey the 10 commandments.  That's just basic.
b) No drinking blood.
c) No eating a strangled animal.
d) No eating foo that's been offered up to another god.
e) Stay away from sexual immorality.

And e's the kicker.  They didn't describe it any better than that.  It's 'sexual immorality' in every translation I've seen.  I assume that includes any sort of sex outside of marriage, and since there is no biblical precident for the marriage of two people of the same sex (that I know of), that means gay sex is out.  That's where modern Christians get their ideas that shrimp is okay but banging the crap out of the lad or lass next door is a bad idea.  I wish that rule were more specific, so we could lay to rest any sort of masturbation controversy.  I mean, "don't drink blood" is clear and easy to follow.  "Sexual immorality" is a bit more vague.

As to why people fight harder against homosexuality than promiscuity, I've got a partial answer.  A lot of people think they're both wrong, but can at least understand one.  It's hard for straight people to understand why you'd WANT to have homosexual relations.  Because it's both wrong and incomrehensible to people, it's easy to hate.

[Bozack]

edit-
here's a neat link.
someone tookt he red vs blue EV map and "blurred" it apparently based on percentage etc.
apparently red plus blue equals purple.

I've been currently doing a lot of reading/schoolwork on information design, and what a huge difference it actually makes (the Challenger actually exploded because the chart which showed that the part would wear out was set up in an insanely confusing way). Thus, I've been really interested in how  all of these electoral maps. That's an interesting 2000 map broken down by counties.

Did they actually get a mandate? No.

Will they ACT like they got a mandate? I'm sure.