Bush wins re-election!

[A2597]

Theres no denying it at this point, he has Ohio. There simply is no statistical possibility of Kerry getting enough votes from the Absentee ballots to make a difference.

Bush is leading by 135,000 votes in Ohio,
there are 175,000 absentee votes.

bush only needs 23% of those to be for him to win.

since the state is ~50/50 and since the absentee votes have always reflected the same percentage ratio, Bush holds Ohio and thus the election.

Good race guys, I'm glad it's over...

<- is sick of all the political phone calls...

[ShadowDancer]

we (the world) are sooo screwed!

[Squidgy]

I am so moving to Australia.

[Random Chaos]

A2597 - there are also arround 250,000 provisional ballots in Ohio...and we have no idea if they will even be counted...

[Falcon1]

It ain't over until the fat Pakmara sings bascially.

[shadow boxer]

Ahash... the mental image I get of you is this :

A guy toasting marshmallows on a funeral pyre. Perhaps even unaware that its his brothers bones that are fueling the fire in front on him.

~~~~

Thanks to the collective fucktard that is the Bush voter, the world is going to go to hell.

Bush runs on ignorance, on fear bourne of that ignorance. He'll continue to lead the ignorant insular majority that is the collective US psyche into a myopic, blinkered, comfortable miasmic existence, until he can no longer paper over the cracks in the nation. Too many people love the status quo until its so dead and smelly even the maggots lose interest.

The USA will implode, or it will start wars and eventually be humbled when the rest of world decides to teach Goliath a lesson in humility.

All I can say to the good people left in the USA is either leave, or secede from the Union, perhaps state by state. The US Gov is so corrupt, unwieldy and immoral only a nice good old fashioned revolution will clean it out.

9/11 was supposed to be a wakeup call, a very twisted and quite evil wakeup call none the less. The message was, "Hey, you big dopey bully, it's time you woke up and realised that the world doesn't end just beyond the 12 mile limit off the coast of Maine or Washington State. Being the biggest doesnt automatically make you right, justified or righteous in everything you do."

Typically though... the wakeup call didn't work, Uncle Sam just rolled over and hit Snooze... decided he didn't want to wake up from his self imposed coma and realise he was part of a much larger world. Learn such things as the difference between a Shi-ite and Sunni Muslim, not just that Muslims dont just come in beards and towel headed A-Rabs models. That there are other ways to live outside capitalistic democracy, that some people have ideas somewhat different to that of the USA.

In short, Osama stabs you guys in the guts and you stick your head further up your arse...

...that defies logic and makes me physically sick.

Uncle Sam instead of thinking, " Well gee, despite all the other excuses and stuff, I really have pissed off these guys enough for them to want to hurt me, and not only that, kill themselves in the process. I wonder why exactly that is ? Have I done something someone might think is worng, even if I dont think its wrong ?" , sits down and draws up a shitlist, of people to get even with, people to teach a lesson in democracy and the way things should be done.

Dont you get it ? Dont you see the underlying problem here ? You pricks are just plain pig ignorant, arrogant fucks who delight in imagining sunlight pours from your sphincters. Who delight in being the biggest prick in the school yard, even if you dont beat everyone up you sure as hell make your presence felt, flexing your muscles and strutting around.

You dont seriously give a shit about anyone but yourself. That's your single biggest problem. Your collective psyche is almost totally self absorbed. Whats worse is this is almost a deliberate willful ignorance. That's what got Bush elected. Ultra conservatism, wanting to remain exactly as you are as a nation.

You think I'm being harsh ?

Osama flew two planes into the WTC...

... somehow you've managed to completely mangle, disregard or willfully ignore the message.

You are not perfect, you SUCK, in alot of ways. DO something about it ! NOW ! Work out what it actually means to be a member of the world and the human race.


~~~~~~~

I posited something with some pals earlier today. Namely this :

All states that voted Bush, form a nation, all those that voted Kerry, form another.

Then watch CUSA, the conservative United States of America dissapear up its own arse inside perhaps a decade.

LUSA, governed by Kerry will then go on to propser as a nation of genuine citizens of Earth.

[Data Crystal]

When it comes to the people that voted for Bush... amen to what sb here said.

I seriously can't believe that people can be so stupid as to give that self-righteous baboon another run at the office.

Half the nation got it right in my books, the rest... are there THAT MANY rednecks there? I can't say I'd watched the opposing forces' (;)) agendas with fierce interest, but hell, almost anything is better than what Bush does and is going to do.

I'm pretty certain, that this will lead to more terrorist acts and thus lead to Bush strengthening his grip on the country...

You're screwed, mates.

[Falcon1]

One thing I've noticed from watching coverage at this end was how some people interviewed referred to Bush as 'cockey'... if they realise this and since his entire approach is based around this attitude, I can't understand why so many are voting for him. I just don't get this idea that the US is gonna go it alone and that alliances with other nations are not important. Right now the free nations need to be as allied as never before otherwise terrorism is going to succeed in dividing us all.

It saddens me to think how so much progress was made under the Clinton administration, i.e. with Israel and particular Northern Ireland... and how long did it take for Bush and his bunch to wreck it all?? Makes me wish Clinton stayed on for a 2nd term.

[Jambo]

Clinton did stay on for a second term.

[Falcon1]

He did? Damn... they should have offered him a 3rd term! :D

[Reaver4k]

Originally posted by ShadowDancer
we (the world) are sooo screwed!

We so are...

Two more Wars, Two more Wars.

[WORF]

I agree with Shadow Boxer.

I think sooner or later Bush will push the world too far and the world will push back, hard.

Personally I think it will come from this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/news_web/video/40454000/bb/40454793_bb_16x9.asx) (streaming video from the BBC).

For those of you who don't want to stream it, basically it talks about a Satellite Communication network being developed by Europe, Russia and China. They have all agreed that it won't be used to spy on or jam communications in enemy countries.

Despite that, Bush has said if he doesn't like how it gets used, he is perfectly willing to order an attack to destroy it and that he thinks conflict in space is inevitable.

Personally, I think that if that happens, that Europe, Russia and China will actively turn against the US and it could even lead to war.

The reason for that is, Bush would have shown that he has no problem attacking his allies and the various governments involved wouldn't want their countries to be attacked.

He would have against almost the entire civilized (as opposed to the third world who don't have the ability to fight back) world closing in on him.

Maybe it won't come from the satellite situation but it will happen, it's just a matter of time.

Worf

[Biggles]

Kerry has apparently conceded (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6363692/). I congratulate him on being the better person.
However, I also say goodbye free USA and free world. Welcome to Bush's world, where everything is how he wants it and there is no other way to live.

SB: For once you and I are in nearly perfect agreement. I couldn't have said it better myself (although probably with less swearing).
I also partially agree with Worf. Bush is going to go too far some time in the next 4 years, and the rest of the world is going to point out the mistake. If you want to play at being the "leader of the free world" then you do it like a leader, not a dictator. Bush doesn't seem capable of that.

[Lennier]

:rolleyes: at the paranoid bitching and "end of goliath" predictions in this thread.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Lennier
:rolleyes: at the paranoid bitching and "end of goliath" predictions in this thread.

Then let me ask you a question. How do you feel about what has happened to the USA's reputation in the world over the past 4 years? How do you feel about what is most likely going to happen to it over the next 4?

[croxis]

Bush unleased. He doesn't have to worry about reelection.

I look forward to the day when our history books look back at this sad time.

[Rogue Trader]

isnt it a little childish and cowardly and againest democracy that if the guy you wanted loses you put your tail between your legs and run?

in a democracy the other guy wins sometimes to.

[croxis]

Here is the thing, this isn't just anyone. I don't know of any single person that has caused so much damage.

[Tyvar]

Its funny how if people start repeating something often enough they think its true.


Myself, A# and the other conservatives have just been personally attacked by many of you, due to the fact that we have disagreements of philophy, ideology and ultimatly on the nature of man.

You should look at your rhetoric, promising wars based on fear, just as you accused bush of doing, and wonder, just who is going to create the world of 1984?

[Biggles]

I have no problem with people being conservative, nor do I have a problem with Bush being democratically elected, as he was (I may not like the outcome, but I can't have a problem with it since it's what the majority of Americans appear to want). I admit that what I said earlier was probably a bit rash (hey, I'd just woken up and it was unhappy news in the morning - I guess I only agree with SB when I'm not thinking straight ;)). My problem with Bush is almost solely based on his attitude of being the only one who's right when dealing with the rest of the world (he's not the only one guilty of this either), and feeling that he needs to change the rest of the world. I've said it before: leave them alone until they're ready to be helped. If the middle east whats to develop nuclear weapons and have a little nuclear war with itself, let it. Let them learn their lesson that way. They won't learn it just because the "free" world rolls on in with tanks and guns, or even trade sanctions. Of course, as usual (gah), this is where oil comes into the picture, but we'll leave that for another discussion. If Bush would put less effort on trying to convert the middle east to western ideals and instead put effort into removing dependance on that region, it would help things a lot. But I do think that if Bush continues the way he has been then it will piss off many other nations enough for them to do something equally stupid. I do stand by my statement that "if you want to play at being leader of the free world, don't be a dictator" though.

[Random Chaos]

My problems with Bush have always been two-fold:
- His ideology clashes with mine - we have almost nothing in common as to how we view the US and the world...beyond wanting the best, in our opinion, for our country
- His decision making method I think tends to marginalize alternate opinions

That being said - I sure wish Kerry had won, but it is clear he didn't. It is also good that the election won't be contested. I dislike almost every decision Bush has made in the 1st half of 2001 and after mid 2002. Those decisions made in responce to 9/11 were the only decisions I fully supported him on.

The question really is: How much of this ultra-conservative stuff in the last year is election propaganda and how much does Bush really plan to put through? Look at all the things that got shoved under the carpet once he took office? He pulled most of them back out in the last year - just enough to tease people. Will he shove them back under again? Or will he try to push them through?

What concerns me is the later - it will only increase the divide in this country. What I hope is he really doesn't believe that most of these outrageous ideas really are good for the country. Based on what I have seen - I think he might believe they aren't good. Since he doesn't have a reelection, it might be that he doesn't care about things that support his base as much anymore.

We know that Cheney has no plans to run in 2008 - so based on that - there is no reason for him to really pander to his base anymore. He can afford to take a more moderate stance and try and reconsile differences in the country. Let us hope that he takes the high road and tries to bridge divides this time.

[Biggles]

We can but hope.

[Bekenn]

Hey, SB, I'll post you a bucket of cold water.

My treat this time.

[the_exile]

I have to agree with Lennier, to some extent; Bush is not the greatest president ever--in fact he is the worst president in this country's history, but he is not so repugnant as to merit revolution, as SB has suggested. I do not support him, nor do I consider myself a supporter of Kerry; I feel that much of the blame for winning Bush a second term goes to the Democrats for giving us such a weak candidate. I really, really like Edwards, and would like to see him run for office in 2008, as I would like to see Dean or even Hillary Clinton.

That said, I don't like the direction in which America is headed. Republicans control the Executive and Legislative branches, and three Supreme Court justices are likely to retire within the next four years (Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor), giving Bush a chance to appoint three Republican Justices who will be with us for the next thirty years--a Constitutional ban on gay marriage seems inevitable, and a reversal of Roe v. Wade may soon follow.

Further, Bush no longer has to fear comitting political suicide by reinstating the Draft...

[Biggles]

Shouldn't you be writing a novel? ;)

I don't really think Bush will cause a revolution either. In general Americans are probably too lazy. ;) But moreso, they know he'll be gone in 4 years. It's not like he's around for as long as he's alive.

[Lennier]

Originally posted by Biggles
Then let me ask you a question. How do you feel about what has happened to the USA's reputation in the world over the past 4 years? How do you feel about what is most likely going to happen to it over the next 4?


Originally posted by Biggles
But moreso, they know he'll be gone in 4 years. It's not like he's around for as long as he's alive.


Answered your own question. I voted Kerry BTW, but that doesn't mean I condone all this naysaying and predictions of doom.

[A2597]

WOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!

Kerry loses! GREAT day for America, the LAST thing this nation needed was a creep like Kerry in office! I am so incredibly thankful that he decided to conceed rather then fight like Gore did. That almost gave me one thread of respect for him. Almost.

And SB, you know that everything you said was bullocks, and you know that I personally am an educated person. I could sit here and argue your points, but we both know that doing so would not change anyones opinions.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Lennier
Answered your own question. I voted Kerry BTW, but that doesn't mean I condone all this naysaying and predictions of doom.

The problem is that reputations, while they can change for the worse in a matter of minutes, they don't heal as fast as presidents change.

[Tyvar]

You know having had some dealings with the whole repub party on a local level, and being in sync with the party

the draft SO IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

That entire thing is a piece of democratic propoganda.

You want to know the real reason why its not going to happen, the volunteer force is 60% republican at least, and the combat arms (infantry, armor and artillery) are even more heavily republican. Any institution of the draft would dilute the republican powerbase in the military.

There now you know the dirty secret as to why a republican president will not reinstate the draft short of a massive war with china or something.

In the mean time the Military is meeting is enlistment goals.

[croxis]

I still hold my ground that bush is incompetant (he got a C average in a school where the grade inflation causes 75% of the student body to have at least a 3.0 GPA) AND he is a man of little moral value.

Like I said. I await the day when his gradchild comes over to visit, and tell him all the things that the child learned today in school about the first decade of the 21st century. It will be bliss.

I love karma.


Also, despite that the far far right now has the white house, congress, and soon the court, they are STILL bitching.

Also, dont forget. A vote for bush is also a vote for asscroft.


I lookforward to 2008 when I can point the finger at everyone and say "I told you so"

This nation deserves what it coming to it.

[Striker]

*grabs some popcorn*

This is one thread I'm staying out of. :)

[PJH]

I mostly agree with SB. Well said.

I must say, that I really can't understand why so many people voted for Bush even after all those things what he has done to the US itself for 4 years and to the other world and for US relations and reputation with the rest of the world.

I was still yesterday 100% convinced, that after all we've seen Kerry would win easily and get at least 2/3 of the votes, but no, that retard was re-elected. It's just absolutely astonishing.

I'd so much like to say some harsh things now and clear my mouth the way SB did, but I don't want to do that for the sake of peace in this place.

This is a sad moment to the USA and rest of the world as well.

- PJH

[Vertigo_1]

Originally posted by shadow boxer
Thanks to the collective fucktard that is the Bush voter, the world is going to go to hell.

I wish I could get away with saying things like that without getting banned. BTW, you have just insulted at least three board members, you know that?

You are not perfect, you SUCK, in alot of ways. DO something about it ! NOW ! Work out what it actually means to be a member of the world and the human race.

Who are you to say that to me? What if I were to say that to you? What if I think that because of your beliefs and actions, that you suck and need to work out what it means to be a healthy member of society? You would tell me to go fly a kite. Excuse me while I do the same to you.

All states that voted Bush, form a nation, all those that voted Kerry, form another.

Then watch CUSA, the conservative United States of America dissapear up its own arse inside perhaps a decade.

LUSA, governed by Kerry will then go on to propser as a nation of genuine citizens of Earth.

I think both nations would have their merits. I would definately want to live in the Bush one, but I'm not going to say that the Kerry would would "collapse" so quickly. At the base of these two candidates you find two different economic and social theories. Both have their merits and their weaknesses, and both want to accomplish the same goal.

Bush and Kerry offered different directions in which they could take the country to the voters. They spoke, in both electoral and popular votes, in favor of the direction that Bush has promised to take us. It's over. Move on. Just think: Hillary '08.....

I can be quite honest in saying that had Kerry won, I would not be going as nuts as some of the people here. Yes, on some level, I would be going nuts, saying things perhaps like "It's going to be a long four years..." and "God help us all..." but even I wouldn't take myself seriously. If Kerry had won, one of two things would happen: his plans would work, people would see that, and re-elect him, in which case I would have been wrong. I can live with this. Either that, or Kerry would have screwed up on something important, and people would vote him out. Would those four years be wasted? No, as long as we learned our lessons.

[David of Mac]

Originally posted by A2597
Kerry loses! GREAT day for America, the LAST thing this nation needed was a creep like Kerry in office!

You know, I remember a time when Americans were above reveling in the defeat of an enemy. When we left that for others, to celebrate in the suffering of another.

I thank you for continuing that proud tradition. It is heartening to know that even in these most divisive of times, we can still depend on our countrymen to be kind-hearted in victory, even as we are, I admit, less than gracious in defeat.

I am so incredibly thankful that he decided to conceed rather then fight like Gore did. That almost gave me one thread of respect for him. Almost.

Again, with the kindness. The concept of an election being two honorable men, disagreeing honorably is still alive and well, thank goodness. With kind hearted and charitable souls like yourself in power.

On a related note, I'm reminded of a saying. "Only a fool fights in a burning house."

------

Now, let's visit an alternate universe for a minute. A2597, please respond to these comments by alternate me, if you would.

Originally posted by David of Mac, in the 233rd Universe to the right of ours
Hot damn!

Bush loses! The country is on the road to recovery, the long night is over, and we have a competent man in the White House after four long years!

Thank God Bush conceded, too. You have no idea how worried I was that he would've refused to recognize the vote. After all his talk in the debates, refusing to even consider the possibility that he might lose, well, I was worried he might do something rash. His dignity and respect for the opinions of others almost made up for four years of bull-headed ignorance and squandered opportunities. Almost.

------

Originally posted by Vertigo_1
Either that, or Kerry would have screwed up on something important, and people would vote him out.

Funny thing about that theory....

[Vertigo_1]

Problem with that oh-so-bitter argument is, some people didn't vote for Bush because they thought he was a saint, but against Kerry because they had serious problems with some of the ideas that he put forth and the character (or lack thereof) that he appeared to display.

He's happy his candidate won, not "reveling in the suffering of another." Please, don't put it in such harsh and extreme terms just because you're a bit put out right now - which is quite understandable.

Who here is glad Nader didn't win? Is that a bad thing? (SB does not count)

Oh, and that last comment about my "theory" - obviously a majority of people think he hasn't screwed up THAT badly, or he wouldn't be in office. Either that or they feel Kerry would screw it up worse.

[Bekenn]

Vert_1, you're only half-right. He is happy that his candidate won. He is also reveling in the suffering of his opponents.

And it's time for him to go sit in the corner.

A#, you have a lot to learn when it comes to manners, sportsmanhsip, and grace. This is not the time to rub your opponent's face in the mud.

[David of Mac]

Originally posted by Vertigo_1
Problem with that oh-so-bitter argument is, some people didn't vote for Bush because they thought he was a saint, but against Kerry because they had serious problems with some of the ideas that he put forth and the character (or lack thereof) that he appeared to display.

Hah! Voting against Kerry. That's a laugh. "Well, I'm not sure about the guy whose had four years on the job to thrill me with his performance, but I don't think the flip-flopping, medal-grabbing, creep is that good, either. Besides, the bald guy said we'd be attacked again if I voted for him."

It's a pity the Republican party is so lock-step. Sounds like the real solution would've been to throw another candidate into that primary, tradition be damned. Someone respectable, perhaps a war veteran, so Bush could play the "undeserved medals" card for three consecutive elections.

He's happy his candidate won, not "reveling in the suffering of another." Please, don't put it in such harsh and extreme terms just because you're a bit put out right now - which is quite understandable.


Yes, he is. He's gloating, for God's sake. His party had had a majority for the last few years, and will continue for the next few. It makes him appear more interested on whether he's on the winning side than the issues. Not to mention his oh-so-flattering characterization of the opposing candidate as a creep. At least its a step up from "I think Gore is a rapist, just like Clinton." Progress is progress, I suppose.

I don't like gloating.

Who here is glad Nader didn't win? Is that a bad thing? (SB does not count)

Ralph Nader is the modern tragic hero. He's gone from an honorable consumer advocate to a power-mad egotistical nutcase, who doesn't bat an eye at the fact that a), he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning and b), that he is likely to only assist the candidate who would most probably repeal all of Nader's hard-won reforms of years past.

That doesn't mean that the next time I see a Nader supporter I'll start cheering in his face; "Yeah, bitch! We beat that crazy bastard again! Two-party system forever! And visit a tailor to get a suit that fits, for God's sake! Woo-hoo!"

Oh, and that last comment about my "theory" - obviously a majority of people think he hasn't screwed up THAT badly, or he wouldn't be in office. Either that or they feel Kerry would screw it up worse.

I'm still trying to figure out how John Kerry could be worse that George Bush, though.

----

I'm trying to keep looking on the bright side. I've grown to like Kerry over the past few months, and I'm sort of hoping he becomes another Adali Stevenson (who, you may remember, lost the presidency and later came to notoriety for his time as the Ambassador to the UN, among other things.) Though, I have to admit, it would've been oddly satisfying if his concession speech consisted of something like "They say democracy insures the people get the government they deserve. Well, so long, suckers!" and high-tailing it into self-imposed exile. I think we can all think of a time our candidate has lost and we would've liked to see something similar.

Besides, in four years, we'll have another milestone- the first totally fresh election in 50 years. No incumbents, no former vice-presidents, no baggage. I think that'll be kind of cool.

[Bekenn]

Originally posted by David of Mac
I'm still trying to figure out how John Kerry could be worse that George Bush, though.

It's a question of different values, different priorities. Believe it or not, large numbers of people in this country like what Bush has done over the past four years, and don't see his presidency as a disaster.

Some people would love to see social security destroyed as a government instution; others would consider that a disaster.

[Random Chaos]

Originally posted by Bekenn
A#, you have a lot to learn when it comes to manners, sportsmanhsip, and grace. This is not the time to rub your opponent's face in the mud.

Completely agree with Bekenn. It is statements like that which is why so many people hate the republican party (well...that and their policies).

[milod]

Originally posted by David of Mac
On a related note, I'm reminded of a saying. "Only a fool fights in a burning house."
Isn't that an old Kligon proverb?

[A2597]

sorry, my fault for going from Rage3d's political forum to firstones....

must remember, firstones 1st, THEN Rage...

heh... one would THINK I had learned that by now. :D

[Bekenn]

Originally posted by Random Chaos
It is statements like that which is why so many people hate the republican party

The Republican Party hardly has a monopoly on such things.

[Random Chaos]

I agree - but unfortunately we didn't get the chance to gloat this time! ;)

[MT]

shadow boxer,

We have a word at the newsroom for everything you said: unqualified.

[A2597]

I do have one little bitty gripe here though...

it's perfectly fine to say it's the end of the world and wallow in your self pity saying it's a "sad day" for America, but someone happy of the results? Oh hell no. That can't be. Thats worthy of flameing.

Same on every damn forum I've been at.

Maybe I WAS out of line, but then so is Shadow Boxer, Shadow Dancer, Squidgy, Data Crystal, and Even Biggles.

I am in agreement that there is little sportsmanship left, and that IS a sad thing. But it does go both ways.

[David of Mac]

Originally posted by A2597
it's perfectly fine to say it's the end of the world and wallow in your self pity saying it's a "sad day" for America, but someone happy of the results? Oh hell no. That can't be. Thats worthy of flameing.

I would think you would just roll your eyes at our foolishness and not let it bother you. All we're doing is the same thing we've been doing for four years. It took me half as long to tune out the cracks about Clinton.

So, yeah, great, your guy won. Congratulations. But don't expect me to be patting you on the back. I have, quite literally, been waiting for this day for four years, and to have it turn out so contrary to my expectations is a bit of a let down. Sort of like if I'd spent a year overseas and returned to find my fiancŽe had married another guy, all while still sending my love letters.

And you really won't get me to pat you on the back when you seem more happy that our guy lost than that your guy won. That's just kicking us when we're down.

[Bekenn]

A#: You're right; there's more than a little unfairness in reactions to what's being said, and I was simply dumbfounded when Biggles posted agreement with SB instead of reprimanding him.

But poor behavior is not a valid excuse for poor behavior.

A lot of people are naturally upset at the results of this election, particularly those who didn't have a say in it; I think it's best to let them vent a bit. Take the win and be happy.

And if the situation is ever reversed, prove yourself the better person by not spitting out the kind of vitriol we've seen here today.

[Tyvar]

I think your being unfair and hyping a double standard inregards to A#,

frankly Ive been rather heavily insulted in this thread, and I had the urge to say alot of the stuff A# did in his second post.

Hell, I'll go farther, if this was 1790, and I was in the same room with one of several posters in this thread I would remove my white glove and administer a slap across the face with it, with all that entails.

Many have been insulting as hell, and even threatning, if thats going to be the way its going to be, lets just be honest and get to killing each other then.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by A2597
Maybe I WAS out of line, but then so is Shadow Boxer, Shadow Dancer, Squidgy, Data Crystal, and Even Biggles.

I think I already admitted as much a few posts up, but if that wasn't enough then here I am doing it again. I could call it the built up tension of a few years watching Bush display what (to me) appears to be contempt at a lot of the world, but either way it was still out of line and excuses won't change that. Apologies to all who were insulted.

Originally posted by Bekenn
A#: You're right; there's more than a little unfairness in reactions to what's being said, and I was simply dumbfounded when Biggles posted agreement with SB instead of reprimanding him.

As said above, and I do regret saying I agreed with SB now since, after the many rereadings of his post I've had this day, I really don't... In any other circumstances I would have warned if not banned SB for that sort of language, so here I am warning him (and everyone else) now: No more personal attacks or swearing. Keep it civil.

This, people, is why I generally stay out of political threads. :)

[David of Mac]

Originally posted by Tyvar
Hell, I'll go farther, if this was 1790, and I was in the same room with one of several posters in this thread I would remove my white glove and administer a slap across the face with it, with all that entails.

Which is ironic, because in 1790s America, you'd probably find just as many people speaking rather unkindly of a world leader by the name of George. Funny how life works out, huh?

[wiseguy]

Originally posted by Biggles
This, people, is why I generally stay out of political threads. :)

politics and religion = big nono's on forums

and just to get flamed, f bush.




oh sorry, it was w and not f right? silly me... :rolleyes:

[A2597]

Originally posted by Bekenn

But poor behavior is not a valid excuse for poor behavior.


I agree, I definately shouldn't have made a post like that.

Both sides of the fence need to get along alittle better. (Ok, ALOT)

anhoo, elections over, no more political advertising/campaigning/debating whos better...

So lets all sit around the perverbial campfire and sing Kum'by'a! :D

[Reaver4k]

Originally posted by wiseguy
politics and religion = big nono's on forums

and just to get flamed, f bush.




oh sorry, it was w and not f right? silly me... :rolleyes:


LOL..... Which is why they banned these theads at Scifi-meshes

EDIT:

I dont see how anyone has gotten out of line

[Random Chaos]

Originally posted by A2597
anhoo, elections over, no more political advertising/campaigning/debating whos better...

Wait...no more campaigning? Yeah right. Here in Maryland they have already started campaigning for the 2006 democratic primary for the state Govenor - 2 very effective and well liked people want to be the nominie to challenge Erlich. The acceptance speaches of several of last night's winners in the state endorsed one or the other people.

--RC

[Vertigo1]

Originally posted by wiseguy
politics and religion = big nono's on forums

and just to get flamed, f bush.




oh sorry, it was w and not f right? silly me... :rolleyes:

pfft, if you want to get flamed, post something along the lines of this:

"I swear, if Bush shows up, I'd spit right in that terrorist asshole's face!"

;)

As for my opinion on the election....you all know how I feel about Bush, so there would be little to be gained by repeating it here in this thread again. So, in the spirit of civility, I shall refrain from posting any insults against that fucktard in this thread.

(note for the easy to anger: The bit about me calling Bush a fucktard was an attempt at humor.)

[Reaver4k]

Originally posted by Vertigo1
pfft, if you want to get flamed, post something along the lines of this:

"I swear, if Bush shows up, I'd spit right in that terrorist asshole's face!"


Sounds like somthing my friend would do to Bush, Spit in his face that is.

So, in the spirit of civility, I shall refrain from posting any insults against that fucktard in this thread.

(note for the easy to anger: The bit about me calling Bush a fucktard was an attempt at humor.)

You had me fooled... Knowing you, you would have called hima fundie aswell:p

[shadow boxer]

lets face it people, I'm the voice of you raw uncivilised selves... its either let me rant or get ulcers, cancer and such. I worked very hard to earn my licence to be an asshole, so I intend to use it. I know that a good deal of you are just quietly sitting back and nodding at what I'm saying and you wish you had an asshole licence like me.

~~~~~~~

I wish I could find the damned reference I saw recently.

They did a comparison between IQ and voting habits.

low IQ = Bush/Repub

high IQ = Kerry/Demo

Terribly inflammatory stuff, but from memory it was rather well researched and seemingly quite neutral, in fact I think the results where opposite to what the research funders wanted.

~~~~~~~~

Ahash, I could forgive you for just being where/who you are and how you were brought up, but Tyvar ???

A sad day indeed when a deep thinking person of rare insight and intelligence votes for Bush. All I can hope for is that deep down you're voting for him because Repubs are strongly supportive of the military, which it seems is quite dear to your heart.

If not, dont bother with the brass dude...

~~~~~~~~

All of what I've said still stands.

Ultraconservatism, which is what you are going to get with Bushs level of power is going to backfire, brutally and make a colossal mess. Just exactly what that mess will be is hard to guage, but mark my words, it's going to get a whole lot uglier before it gets better.

Having ones head firmly ensconced in ones anus does not prevent one from having to deal with the world.

~~~~~~~~

*claps his hands*

Add a double twist to your backflip Biggles, you're better at it than a politician. I hope all this is, is just an attempt to reclaim some arbitrator neutrality.

[Tyvar]

Originally posted by David of Mac
Which is ironic, because in 1790s America, you'd probably find just as many people speaking rather unkindly of a world leader by the name of George. Funny how life works out, huh?


Actually if you had a clue about the american revolution you would be startled to know that originaly most of the patriots were still loyal to the crown, it was the parliment they blamed for their woes, and that was the general trend till about 1778, yes even after the revolution many of the founders in their writing saved most of their venom for the english parliment.



Originally posted by shadow boxer


Ahash, I could forgive you for just being where/who you are and how you were brought up, but Tyvar ???

A sad day indeed when a deep thinking person of rare insight and intelligence votes for Bush. All I can hope for is that deep down you're voting for him because Repubs are strongly supportive of the military, which it seems is quite dear to your heart.

If not, dont bother with the brass dude...

~~~~~~~~

All of what I've said still stands.

.



SB, you can think what you wish, for the longest time I was the closest thing you had to a supporter around here because I understood many elements of your temperment, but your belief that your utterly infalible has broken the camels back so to say.

In the final analysis its your beliefs that are inccorect, about the future, about the past, and worst of all about what truly lies in the hearts of men. You relish in your emotions without realizing how often they blind you to the world about you. your lost, in your own ragues and fuges caused by your inabilities.

How about we just disagree on these matters and ignore one another. Its the most pleasant alternative.

But if you wish others I can deliver.

[Biggles]

Shadow Boxer, noone, and I mean noone, at Firstones.com has any sort of "licence to be an asshole." For ignoring my warning to keep it civil, for insulting people considerably with no apologies for your mistakes and for claiming to have such an asshole license, you have been banned for 3 days.

[JackN]

Originally posted by Bekenn
It's a question of different values, different priorities. Believe it or not, large numbers of people in this country like what Bush has done over the past four years, and don't see his presidency as a disaster.

Wow...

Almost makes me afraid (NOT!) to tell you guys I voted Bush...

Thanks Bekenn for saying the above.

I don't buy into the bashing and name calling that a certain vocal element has been doing for years now.

I'm getting tired of hearing the democrats dismiss the American public's voice concerning this election. It wasn't all Kerry making bad campaign choices, or everyone voting Bush as the lesser of two evils, these people made a statement with their vote, for their reasons. It's insulting to assume otherwise just because your party didn't win the race.

3.5 million more voters voted for Bush than Kerry. There's a message here. The whole damn country doesn't necessarily hate the president like everyone has been hearing from the vocal minorities and the Media funded spin doctors and talking heads.

I see most of the complaints here on the boards about Bush are from those who live in other countries. People I consider(ed) friends. They have every right to have their opinions of Bush, just don't insult me for my vote.

I don't feel I need to defend my choice, so I won't waste lots of space here with the reasons for why I voted for him...

But if you are going to feel a certain way about me, because I voted for him, then I guess I didn't know you all as well as I thought over the years...

By the way... If you want to see the results of a Democrat controlled state, you only have to look at California and how fucked up it is to see why I voted for Bush and other Republicans.

Vertigo1: I'll be seeing you in person probably within the next 6 months...

time for a walk-about I think...

[Konrad]

:D - Red Team

[Biggles]

http://www.worth1000.com/cache/contest/contestcache.asp?contest_id=4046&display=photoshop#entries

[Language of Hope]

I wondered whether I would come back to political threads in this forum ever...

--

Since it is good behaviour to start with your reaction on other peoples posts before starting your own:

The posts in this thread are - as always - of very different quality. I wished that personal attacks were not as present in them, and the same goes for the feeling in many people that they were personally attacked, even if they weren't. This would make everyone's life much easier.

shadow boxer's initial post has a lot of truths to it - whether you like it or not. I agree that his style is debatable (or not, as some of you think - and to the admins of this board: Please state explicitly what the precise reason is if you decide to ban someone - you should enforce rules, not punish someone).
Maybe it is easier for me to read his and other posts divided into content and emotional effect since English is not my first language and I am not hit as directly as most by this style.
However, try to think about what the underlying message of sb's post is, and he made it very clear in some passages.

--

So, the USA elected a new president. I don't want to write about my personal reaction because this would not help anyone. And I neither want nor will I personally attack anybody. If you feel attacked, please think about the reason before accusing me. And if your feeling hasn't vanished by then, please accept my apology, even if that means that I have to apologize for sth. I haven't done. I will do so, even in advance, just to make feel everyone better.

The political world of this time is one of decisions about international war, mainly (with special importance of the US war against Iraq). While there are other very important issues, both international and national, everyone notes the importance and seriousness of these warfare decisions. At the same time, we all know how influential the USA are in this respect, since they are even deciding such issues without the UN Security Council.

In this situation, about 40% of the potential voters did not vote at all. About 30% voted for the Republicans/Bush and another 30% for the Democrats/Kerry. Only minorities voted for so-called third parties.

The question is not whether someone likes the result or not, the main question is: What consequences will that decision have, and how will it be interpreted by people internationally?

I will give you one such interpretation:

In this time of war, 60% of the US voters are for the war (since both Republican and Democratic Party voted for the war, and both presidency candidates reassured that they would continue the war). 40% of the citizens seem not to have enough motivation to have their say about war, in the US president election. Only a small minority votes against the war.

So, basically, nearly all US citizens are responsible for the tens of thousands who were murdered in the US wars, and for the destruction of culture, political culture, and millions of ill and disabled people caused by the war - and the US citizens should be hold to account for that.


This view on things might seem strange to some, but it is perfectly understandable. And while you, and most US Americans may not have intended this, other people(s) will make their decisions about how to recognize you based on this and other interpretations.

Unfortunately, some of these people will use that for finding allies for their own agendas and to spread fear and violence. Obviously, the main target will be the USA. We can all only hope (and I wish the US citizens as well as all other people of this world) that the casualties will be minor, but I wouldn't count on that.

It all comes down to this: You had the chance to get your will. Don't whine about the result. If you want to change things, then do so (I heard in this thread that waiting 4 years would also accomplish something... hm, when I see what was accomplished in the last 4 years, I can assure you that another 4 of such years won't make the situation better but much worse).

[edit: spelling mistake]

[David of Mac]

Originally posted by Tyvar
Actually if you had a clue about the american revolution you would be startled to know that originaly most of the patriots were still loyal to the crown, it was the parliment they blamed for their woes, and that was the general trend till about 1778, yes even after the revolution many of the founders in their writing saved most of their venom for the english parliment.


Oh, I'm sorry. My lack of knowledge of sociopolitical history is showing again. Please, please correct my ignorance in such an insulting manner if I ever do it again. I beg forgiveness from Mister "My Party Runs the Country" for my pithy comment.

You know, this has to be the crabbiest crowd of winners I've yet seen. The supporters of the party that now runs the Congress, the Presidency, and soon, the Supreme Court seem awfully annoyed with having won.

[A2597]

LMAO at the Worth1000 link Biggles posted. Some of those are really really good. :D

[Freejack]

Holy smoke, I loose access to the web for one day and it looks like all hell breaks loose...

Anyway, to try and bring things back to center, I am positive that in four years most of the dire predictions I’ve seen above will NOT come true!

1) It’s not as if Bush was just elected as dictator for life of the US, in just 4 years, which I agree that in world politics, that can be a long time. In the grand scheme of things, it’s really not that long. At the end of those 4 years there are some excellent candidates waiting in the wings to run for president

2) As far policies heading further right during the second term, I think you will find Republican decisions will head back toward center. They won a significant election with both the House and Senate gaining seats, I’d be willing to bet, to continue their majorities, they will make attempts to pass policies that appeal to a broader base. Sure there will be fights and partisanship (this is politics after all), I believe they will decrease, not increase during Bush’s second term

3) There is an underlying friction between US and Europe that will continue to grow regardless whose president. At this point in time, the US and Europe are on very different paths socially and economically. First, the EU has given Europe a collective bargaining power on the world stage that it did not have previously. I think many of the conflicts that have arisen lately have as much to do with Europe flexing its new world power as it does with whoever is in the Oval Office. Second, Europe has some serious social and economic issues it has to overcome soon, especially in Western Europe. Population grow has slowed significantly, which creates real issues economically. Economies must have, in some way or another a growing base to continue to expand and create wealth. Europe’s social states are also contributing; the older populations have become accustom to governmental support, leading to a higher tax burden. This in turn stifles business growth, creating high unemployment that we see in areas of Western Europe. The younger generation, that should be supporting the older generation, does not have the ability to grow the economy as needed. In my mind, this is not an indictment of Europe itself, just my view of the current state of the continent and why its lead to frictions between the US and the EU. That said, I believe the US will be running into the exact same problems in another 25 to 50 years.

Jake

[SpiritOne]

Anyone have room for me to move out of Texas?

Sorry, I know we have a few republicans/conservatives whatever your calling yourselves these days, but I just cant comprehend how someone could actually vote for Bush.

I wont stand here and claim that all of Kerrys views were perfect and that would have solved all that is wrong with the world or even our own country. But Bush?

Lets face it, the economy blows. Unemployment is still high, and its about to go higher with the collapse of some of the airlines. For those of you that dont know, there are several smaller airlines about to go under, including the one my father still works at. Midwest Airlines (milwaukee based) by the end of next year will probably not exist. He has 16 years with that company and his 401k made up almost entirely of stock, will be worthless. Hes fucked to say the least.

Then there is the war. For those that dont know, I am a former US Marine Corporal. I enjoyed my time in the Marines. And let me state that when my President told me that Iraq had WMDs and that he could use them at any time, I stood behind my President. I was proud when congress gave him the authority to go in and tell him to relinquish control to UN inspectors now. I was concerned when he threw caution to the wind and took the US, our friends the Brits and the 4 countries in our alliance without an army into war with Iraq. But he is the President, he knows what he is doing right? Nope. The guy lied to us. Whats that? Clinton lied too? Ok, Clinton lied about sticking a cigar in a woman only slightly more attractive than his wife. All he hurt was a couple of womanizing republicans who have probably done the same thing in their own offices. Bush's lie has cost the country Billions of dollars and worse, our soldiers lives.

Was Sadam a bad guy? Yes. Did he need to be removed from power? Yes. Was this the way to do it? I think that can be answered by watching a little bbc news (note: I find the bbc to be much less eskewed in their reporting). Meaning, hell the fuck no. Ive lost friends and former co workers to this war, and for what? For oil. Thats right folks, we went in to Iraq and secured the shit out of his oil, but missed little things, like explosives. The same explosives that are now likely being used against our troops.

NPR seems to think that it was the christian conservatives that helped Bush win. They claimed it was a moral vote. Lets be realistic here, moral = sex. People voted for bush because they cant stand the thought of gay marriage, abortions and stem cell research. Thats what some 85% of those coming out of polls here in Tyler said.

Hmm, lets see. Gay Marriage. If I recall, this country was founded on the principles that we as a people are free to live our lives the way we want to live them. Free from opression by the government to make our own choices in our life. In fact, I recall taking an oath when I enlisted to protect and DEFEND the constitution of the United States. Yet we tell gay people, they dont have the right to get married and live their life the way they want to? wtf? How is it any different than telling ANY OTHER 2 PEOPLE they cant get married. in the early 20th century (1920's ish) it was illegal for black people to marry white people. It was illegal for blacks and women to vote. Why, because the ignorant people in charge at the time thought that the constitution did not apply to them. That has sense been proven wrong. We have discoverd that there is no difference in black people and white people, women and men. They are all human, and in the eyes of the constitution equal. Well, its the same here. I feel as though banning gay marriage goes against the constitution and all we stand for, and is no different that banning any other personal choice in the country.

Im not gay, Im married to an amazing woman who takes care of me and my children. I do however have a lesbian couple next door. I asked one of them how they felt about the subject, all she wants is the tax break (able to file jointly) and the right to put her partners daughters on her insurance. Whats so wrong with that? Why not just call it a civil union if you cant get people to look past the stigma of gay marriage?

Abortion. Hey, I know what the bible says, and if one more baptist calls my wife (a catholic) un-christian because the she is pro choice, Im gonna stuff their own fucking bible down their throat. You can believe in god and be pro choice. There are reasons to have an abortion. What about a rape victim. What about a young girl molested by family members who doesnt know for a while? Woman who may have severe medical problems from giving birth? Drug addicted babies? Babies with fetal alcohol syndrome? Am I suggesting that any baby that doesnt look perfect be aborted? No. In fact I am completely against the 3rd trimester or Partial birth abortions. Those are completely disgusting, and should be considered murder. But there are legitimate reasons for having an abortion.

The Lacy Peterson law goes along with this. In principle its a good idea, but I am against this law because it is just one political move away from charging a woman who gets any abortion with murder.

Stemm Cell research, I wont continue to bore the shit out of you all and just say, if stemm cell research was legal and going full force and given money and time. Superman might still be with us.

and now for something completely different, here is a robot with a penis :robot:

[A2597]

Stem Cell research, I wont continue to bore the shit out of you all and just say, if stemm cell research was legal and going full force and given money and time. Superman might still be with us.

You mean embryonic stem cells? Not all the other ones we DO use?

the ones that "show promise" but nothing concrete to show they are any more useful then the ones from a umbilical coord, or from the spine?

Theres a difference between hype and fact.

[SpiritOne]

No, I do mean embryonic stem cells. You see the difference between easily obtainable spinal or umbilical cord stem cells dont react the same as embryonic ones.

Embryonic stemm cells can form into any cell in the human body... However since Im not a scientist and I dont know a whole lot about the subject more than what Ive read, I will reference here (http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/facts.html#1) .

Not hype, just actual information.

[Lord Refa]

You know.. I'll be greatly disappointed if he doesnt end his second term by making it possible to have a third term, or by having a vision from god and declaring himself the emperor of the free world (and depending on the amount of psycho christians living in USA, become either a dictator with a screw loose or a nut with a screw loose living in a padded cell)

[A2597]

Well, since your not refering to the embryonic stem cells, I'm curious as to your responce to how Bush is the first president in history to ever fund stem cell research, and he keeps increasing the amound of federal money going to that research.

[Reaver4k]

this is funny... most of the people i have been talking to about bush winning, hope someone shoots him

[SpiritOne]

I AM talking about embryonic stem cells. but what I dont think you got was...

I was referring to what John Q. Baptist Public sees GWBush as against stem cells along with abortion and gay marriage. Thus rallying the crazy christian vote.

But you knew that, since we have established that the folks on firstones have a slightly higher IQ than the average american.

[WHY]

I'm less pissed about Bush being in office, more pissed about how in 30 states not only was gay marriage banned, Civil Unions were specifically dissallowed, as well as recognizing any aforementioned civil-union made in another state.

[Freejack]

Lets face it, the economy blows. Unemployment is still high, and its about to go higher with the collapse of some of the airlines. For those of you that dont know, there are several smaller airlines about to go under, including the one my father still works at. Midwest Airlines (milwaukee based) by the end of next year will probably not exist. He has 16 years with that company and his 401k made up almost entirely of stock, will be worthless. Hes fucked to say the least.
The economy does NOT blow, the current unemployment rate is 5.4%, economists tend to believe that 4.0-5.0% is the natural unemployment rate of a healthy economy. GDP growth is at at health rate of 3.7% annual growth. Interest is still low. The only real dark spot is that we are starting to see some inflationary pressures due to oil and steel prices (mostly due to China’s vast consumption)

While I feel for your father having had to face looming layoff before myself, the president has zero to do with the failure of airlines such as Delta, which is getting ready to file for chapter 11. The problem is that airlines are working under a ancient business model that harkens back to the days of regulation when customers paid a set amount per mile, not matter the line. Sure the price of oil (the only variable the president may have an effect on) has contributed to airlines woe’s, but its been more the straw that broke the camels back. The real problem in the airline industry comes from extremely high labor costs, older aircraft that are higher maintence and have poorer fuel economy and management teams that a unwilling to recognize the problems they facing. There are airlines that have it right, Southwest has yet to have a loosing quarter since 9/11 and JetBlue has been profitable even though their planes carry a lower passenger load than competitors.

Finally, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, THE PRESIDENT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH THE STATE OF OUR ECONOMY!!!

Jake

[Biggles]

Originally posted by SpiritOne
and now for something completely different, here is a robot with a penis :robot:

You know, I never looked at it that way before.

[WHY]

Originally posted by Freejack

Finally, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, THE PRESIDENT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH THE STATE OF OUR ECONOMY!!!

Jake

(It's all Clinton's Fault):D

[Freejack]

Umm, just one little clarification of my earlier statement, when I said President, I mean the office, not the current officeholder and when I said state of the economy, I meant at any time, not just right now. ;)

Jake

[Vertigo_1]

Originally posted by David of Mac
Oh, I'm sorry. My lack of knowledge of sociopolitical history is showing again. Please, please correct my ignorance in such an insulting manner if I ever do it again. I beg forgiveness from Mister "My Party Runs the Country" for my pithy comment.

You know, this has to be the crabbiest crowd of winners I've yet seen. The supporters of the party that now runs the Congress, the Presidency, and soon, the Supreme Court seem awfully annoyed with having won.
Wow. Just.....wow.

What seems to be bothering people like Tyvar is the attitudes of the people who supported Kerry. Before the election, they thought they were right, Bush is a retard, he's going to screw over the country, a choice between Hitler and Bush would yield Hitler, and that everyone in their right mind thought the same. But apparently 59.2 million people thought differently. In the face of this, the reaction isn't, "Well, we'll wait and see," or "Perhaps they had a good reason," the assumption is that all 59 million of them have some kind of mental illness! They must have made their decision based on erronious information, or maybe they were all just brought up by strict, closed-minded fundementalists, or they were ignorant, or they were all abused children, or they're in bed with big business, or something, anything other than the mere suggestion that they might be making an informed or well-thought-out decision. Anyone who voted for Kerry thinks, has weighed the issues, and made the right decision after much conscientious soul-searching. Anybody that votes for Bush is just a bandwagoneer, ignorant, and is just about as original as your average cattle.

Nobody's asking for you to concede that your beliefs are incorrect. Just respect the fact that some people, apparently a majority, just may have beliefs that have their own merits.

Oh, and just a little bit of flame-bait. Just thought it would be nice because on this board you hear everything bad about Bush and everything endearing about Kerry:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html?oref=login

I will concede, no matter how smart the man is, he's very good at making public speaking blunders.

[Rambie]

Originally posted by JackN
By the way... If you want to see the results of a Democrat controlled state, you only have to look at California and how fucked up it is to see why I voted for Bush and other Republicans.


If you want to see the results of a Republican controlled state, you only have to look at Utah. You know, the most Republican state in the union. No, we don't have the same issues as you in California, but it shows that neither party has the whole answer. A balance between the two extremes is a better choice than a single party controlled state. That's why I don't consider myself for either party, I look at the candidate and their actions and ignore what party he/she is in. That's how I vote.

Look here for a view from JMS: http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-17243

I have to say, JMS is a very good thinker. Did I want Bush to win: no. Did I want Kerry to win: no. I wasn't impressed with either one. Maybe I wasn't the only one who thought that and that's why the votes were so close.

If President Bush will do, as he said in his speech, work to mend the bitter divisiveness here at home, work with our allies, and stabilize Iraq, he will prove that he was indeed the better choice. I hope he'll follow though with that, I really do, but based on his first term and on this years negative campaign ads and speeches, I'm afraid he won't. I hope he proves me wrong.

And before I get into trouble, I realize he doesn't have a monopoly on negative campaign ads… I wish they'd put a moratorium for them.

[Rambie]

Originally posted by SpiritOne
Hmm, lets see. Gay Marriage. If I recall, this country was founded on the principles that we as a people are free to live our lives the way we want to live them. Free from opression by the government to make our own choices in our life. In fact, I recall taking an oath when I enlisted to protect and DEFEND the constitution of the United States. Yet we tell gay people, they dont have the right to get married and live their life the way they want to? wtf? How is it any different than telling ANY OTHER 2 PEOPLE they cant get married. in the early 20th century (1920's ish) it was illegal for black people to marry white people. It was illegal for blacks and women to vote. Why, because the ignorant people in charge at the time thought that the constitution did not apply to them. That has sense been proven wrong. We have discoverd that there is no difference in black people and white people, women and men. They are all human, and in the eyes of the constitution equal. Well, its the same here. I feel as though banning gay marriage goes against the constitution and all we stand for, and is no different that banning any other personal choice in the country.

I have to say I agree totally! Neither of the "gay marriage" laws in Massachusetts (Mass) or Vermont are going to hurt the "sanctity of marriage" Besides, I have yet to hear how gay unions would hurt the sanctity marriage without the protestor spitting religious venom. The laws in Mass and Vermont do not dictate, nor could they, that all religions in those states have to recognize gay unions - that is why there is the separation of church and state.

The Republicans just used this issue as a political wedge in this years election. I believe they know it's not the earth shattering 800 pound gorilla that they made it out to be in the campaign ads. It was an easy target to stir up the votes.

For that reason it may fall under the radar again for awhile. In two years, we'll have the mid-term elections, I'm willing to bet we'll see this issue come up then. But by then there will be about 2 years of data in Vermont and Mass that will show that the world didn't explode, straight people can still get married, have kids, grow old together, and even get divorced, just like before. Maybe that'll take a little wind out of the issue.

[David of Mac]

Originally posted by SpiritOne
Anyone have room for me to move out of Texas?

*Snip*

You, good sir, rock. We could use more people like you. About four million more, in fact, but that's neither here nor there.

Originally posted by Vertigo_1
What seems to be bothering people like Tyvar is the attitudes of the people who supported Kerry. Before the election, they thought they were right, Bush is a retard, he's going to screw over the country, a choice between Hitler and Bush would yield Hitler, and that everyone in their right mind thought the same. But apparently 59.2 million people thought differently. In the face of this, the reaction isn't, "Well, we'll wait and see," or "Perhaps they had a good reason," the assumption is that all 59 million of them have some kind of mental illness! They must have made their decision based on erronious information, or maybe they were all just brought up by strict, closed-minded fundementalists, or they were ignorant, or they were all abused children, or they're in bed with big business, or something, anything other than the mere suggestion that they might be making an informed or well-thought-out decision. Anyone who voted for Kerry thinks, has weighed the issues, and made the right decision after much conscientious soul-searching. Anybody that votes for Bush is just a bandwagoneer, ignorant, and is just about as original as your average cattle.

Well, why don't you give some of those well-thought-out reasons. Just a short list, maybe a dozen items, on why John Smith, from Anytown, USA should've voted for George W. Bush.

And, hey, I'm not the one who threatened to kill people, simply because they have a different opinion, no matter how inflammatorily it was presented. If you know that you made a well-thought-out decision, don't go into a murderous rage when someone calls you a moron. Attempt to educate and enlighten them. Sure, it won't work, but it'll prove you aren't just some beer-guzzling redneck who didn't want to vote for a rich pretty-boy who the bald scary man on the Tee-Vee said was a flipper-flop.

[WHY]

I suggest this button be used.

http://forums.firstones.com/images/sendpm.gif


otherwise let the grownups talk.

[Vertigo_1]

Because I support Bush I have to deliniate my ideology for you so that you can judge whether or not I'm ignorant?

Please. I have better things to do with my time.

[David of Mac]

You're kidding. You have the time to write a two-hundred word screed on why you feel insulted by the vocal minority, but you can't spend a similar amount of time and effort to prove said minority wrong.

Tell me it's not my business. Tell me its personal. Tell me to put my money where my mouth is, and show you why I have my opinions. In short, tell me anything but this boo-hoo, holier than thou claptrap about not having to justify yourself to something as low and contemptible as myself. Because if it were true, you would not care what I had to say enough to bring it up in the first place.

[Vertigo_1]

Originally posted by David of Mac
You're kidding. You have the time to write a two-hundred word screed on why you feel insulted by the vocal minority, but you can't spend a similar amount of time and effort to prove said minority wrong.
Sounds about right.

[Reaver4k]

Originally posted by WHY
I'm less pissed about Bush being in office, more pissed about how in 30 states not only was gay marriage banned, Civil Unions were specifically dissallowed, as well as recognizing any aforementioned civil-union made in another state.

My friend was saying something about that today.

[croxis]

If you don't care about the words and thoughts of others then you dont belong here. A mesage board isn't the place to enjoy the sound of your own voice.

This is a place for synergy.

[Vertigo_1]

Originally posted by croxis
If you don't care about the words and thoughts of others then you dont belong here. A mesage board isn't the place to enjoy the sound of your own voice.

This is a place for synergy.

Did I say that? I merely resent having to wait on a verdict from him to know whether or not I'm ignorant or not, and whether or not I'm a good person or not. What right does he have to decide that? He's begging me to argue with him! Who likes the sound of their own voice?

By the way, what happened to Faylorn?

[David of Mac]

What right did you have to decide that I was simply writing you off a sub-mornic party-ticket stamper?

And, I believe he was talking to me. I realize I've taken the position of being the dick of the topic. It comes with the fact that I've been going over the result for a day and a half now nonstop, and I'm likely going to get an aneurysm if don't figure out some justifiable reason that President Bush is getting four more years to do his thing.

Which is why I'm begging for you to argue with me. In fact, I had fully intended to request some reason Bush should be in office before I ever read that specific post. All I had been reading here was the same maddeningly nonspecific Republican line;

(the following is best read in the stereotypical voice of an 18th century aristocrat. A particularly foppish one, at that. Just want to make sure it's read with the exact right type of sarcasm.)

"Oh, how dare you all assume that everyone who voted for Bush is a moron. I'll have you know that I voted for Bush, as did several people I know, and we all had very good reasons to do so. I'm not going to mention any of them off the top of my head, but rest assured, they were very good ones."

Gee, thanks. I'm feeling pressure at the top of my head. That's just stress, right? Its not the blood vessel about to burst? Because I really want to finish this post off.

Since I live in a heavily democratic area, I had difficulty getting opinions from flesh-and-blood, face to face republicans, either. The tally is two relatives who didn't like Bush from day one, though I'm not sure how they voted. One respected community member, whose reasons were a), no attacks on american soil since September 11 and b) Bush's tax cut gave him a bigger raise than his employer (which made me wonder, not for the first time, exactly why I respected him. I still do, in fact, so I can only conclude he had the je ne sais quoi). Finally, I have someone who believes that war in Iraq was merely the first step in a campaign of containment of radical Islamic terrorism, similar to what Vietnam and a couple of South American countries were for communism. We move in, remove their corrupt dictators, instal a democratic government, and hope they like it and keep it. But if they prefer their feudal dictators, that's okay, too. He's hoping Syria is next on the list. Both of the above also want to shitcan social services, incidentally. I've actually required (but not recieved) the help of others in the past, though, so I disagree.

So, I've got one "Looking out for #1" and one "The United States should be the Johnny Appleseed of world democracy". Neither of those is enough for me.

So yeah, honestly, tell me why I should trust that the American people picked the right person. Because nothing I've seen thus far has given me one iota of hope.

You want to stop the whining? Here's how. I'm listening.

[Tyvar]

Originally posted by David of Mac
You, good sir, rock. We could use more people like you. About four million more, in fact, but that's neither here nor there.



Well, why don't you give some of those well-thought-out reasons. Just a short list, maybe a dozen items, on why John Smith, from Anytown, USA should've voted for George W. Bush.

And, hey, I'm not the one who threatened to kill people, simply because they have a different opinion, no matter how inflammatorily it was presented. If you know that you made a well-thought-out decision, don't go into a murderous rage when someone calls you a moron. Attempt to educate and enlighten them. Sure, it won't work, but it'll prove you aren't just some beer-guzzling redneck who didn't want to vote for a rich pretty-boy who the bald scary man on the Tee-Vee said was a flipper-flop. [/B]

Actualy that kind of response has been coming from several kerry supporters, along with even in this thread attempts to belittle and dehumanize those with diverging opinions.

And everything else you wrote is inflamatory rehtoric devoid of the factual material you are calling for. I sense a double standard?

Anyways I will give you a some reasons.

1. social security needs to be completely overhalled. The current system depends on a dramatic and major influx of new taxpayers or constantly higher taxes to support those receving benefits.
The idea of "a social security lock box" is a lie, all money recivied via the social security taxes is put into the general fund, and all recipts paid out are done by the general fund. Either recently or sometime in the future the amount of money being payed. privitization in some form, or using perhaps long term bonds is the only way out of that mess, as the current system has degenerated into a pyramid scheme which, like all pyramid schemes will collapse, and in this case probably irreperably shatter the nation.

2. Tort reform is needed, and not just for corporations but for individuals, indeed the entire judicial body needs to be modified so that personal responsiblity is paramount. People who get injured on my land and do not have my permision to be there should not be able to hold me culpable for their injuries, Im sorry.
Even if the tort reform is to cap the percentage of damages lawyers recieve or establish a flat cap on them while allowing the rest of the money to go to the victoms, you will see a lessinging in the litegiousness of this society.

3. Defense and foreign policy issues. The whole "the US caused it" argument is BULLSHIT. Im sorry, with a few excemptions the role the US had in the world may have been major, but only when viewed in the context of the period of time since 1948 and till about 1989. thats 41 years. The trends we are viewing at play in the world today, especially in latin america, africa and asia have their roots MUCH farther back. In fact the nations which ought to be cleaning up that mess are the european nations, since they were once the colonial masters of those regions, often untill after WWII (much of central africa was only decolonized in the 60's) and they held the damn places for over a century. If there is cultural disintergration the euro's better start blaiming themselves.

Yes the United States did alot of meddling around during the cold war, and we should endevour to fix those issues, but how to do so, frankly if somebody else here can come up with a way to reform a nation states political structure when it is resisting such reform that doesnt involve invasion, post it here! then submit it to some journals! your looking at a noble prize if it works!

4. I ineherently distrust centralization. Centralization means more power by those inside government and more tools for them to manifest control. And wheather people like to admit it or not, government programs to address any problem are an increase in power and responsiblity of the government. And just because you may agree with Kerry's position, hell even if I agree with Bush's posistion, that doesnt mean were not going to get a real nutjob 30 years down the road.

5. Im a second ammendment fanatic. Which REALLY REALLY threatens those with power. disarming the public is not about public saftey. Australia and UK after disarming can show no provable increase in public saftey, in Australia and the UK murders went down, yes, but they were declining at the same rates they had been prior to their laws. And yes Im willing to trade some insecurity for the ability of the people to posses a massive hedge against the goverment. And if you think insurections by a populace are impossible, then explain why iraq is so impossible to deal with? My M1A may not be fully automatic, but its a hell of alot more accurate then any AK, and there are AP rounds in civilian hands in the US meaning the first round might not blow through the trauma panel but number 3 will. That right there is a powerfull tool against potential tyranny.

6. The economy, NON ISSUE since the president doesnt deal with the economy. even the all mighty FDR, NEVER grew the GNP untill his 4th term, (you know that whole war thing occured though) And again untill the war unemployement never dropped below 10%. The only thing trully usefull his public works projects accomplished, is beefing up the US navy just before WWII, it was under the disguise of keeping the shipyard workers at work that the US ended up with 5 aircraft carriers, a dozen extra crusiers and quite a few DD's. And for that I give grudging approval.

[A2597]

Originally posted by David of Mac
You, good sir, rock. We could use more people like you. About four million more, in fact, but that's neither here nor there.


and you sir, dared to patronize me two pages back?

Heh, shameless, arn't we? :p

[David of Mac]

Okey-dokey.

Everything is fine. Thanks. By the way, I'm sorry. I realize I've said some unkind things. It was only because I was upset. And insulted. And somewhat terrified. But I'm better now. Good day.

[SpiritOne]

its ok to be terrified, I am.

Im going to reccomend that if you live on the west coast, move. If/when Bush decides its time to stop the North Korean threat, I think they have missiles that can reach you guys now.

[the_exile]

Originally posted by SpiritOne
its ok to be terrified, I am.

Im going to reccomend that if you live on the west coast, move. If/when Bush decides its time to stop the North Korean threat, I think they have missiles that can reach you guys now. That's what Star Wars is for. :rolleyes:

[PJH]

It's too bad you banned SB for saying out loud what most of the people in the world pretty much think anyway, if not exactly though, and being a natural human being showing anger and using swear words and talking about things with their real names.

I don't agree 100% with everything what SB's said over the years, but I respect him, because he's one of those rare people who's got enough courage to talk about things with their real names and is not licking anyones asses just for the sake of friendship or some stupid correctness.

That was a stupid decision.

- PJH

[Vertigo_1]

Originally posted by David of Mac
Okey-dokey.

Everything is fine. Thanks. By the way, I'm sorry. I realize I've said some unkind things. It was only because I was upset. And insulted. And somewhat terrified. But I'm better now. Good day.

Apology accepted. I'll admit, I had the wrong impression from you from some of the things you said.

In the past I've tried to do what Tyvar just did. People like Faylorn, who I do miss very dearly, would rip it to shreds, and it would eventually come down to whose "facts" one believed. Neither side gained anything from it. It would have been a waste of time, if it didn't help each side refine and examine their own beliefs.

Now it doesn't seem like that's happening anymore, and that's why I stepped in. It seemed like some *cough*Shadow Boxer*cough* were just lashing out. Instead of waiting for the gradual descent from logical, reasonable discussion and debate to flaming and name-calling, we just skipped that here and went straight to the latter.

Though I myself have conservative principles, I'm glad there's a healthy percentage out there who disagree. Let's face it - if it was just us, we'd end up with facism eventually, and if it was just them, we'd end up socialists or communists eventually. For a stable, healthy system to grow and thrive, you need discussion and compromise. Synergy, to throw a bone to the JMS followers here.

[JackN]

Originally posted by Vertigo_1
Wow. Just.....wow.

What seems to be bothering people like Tyvar is the attitudes of the people who supported Kerry. Before the election, they thought they were right, Bush is a retard, he's going to screw over the country, a choice between Hitler and Bush would yield Hitler, and that everyone in their right mind thought the same. But apparently 59.2 million people thought differently. In the face of this, the reaction isn't, "Well, we'll wait and see," or "Perhaps they had a good reason," the assumption is that all 59 million of them have some kind of mental illness! They must have made their decision based on erronious information, or maybe they were all just brought up by strict, closed-minded fundementalists, or they were ignorant, or they were all abused children, or they're in bed with big business, or something, anything other than the mere suggestion that they might be making an informed or well-thought-out decision. Anyone who voted for Kerry thinks, has weighed the issues, and made the right decision after much conscientious soul-searching. Anybody that votes for Bush is just a bandwagoneer, ignorant, and is just about as original as your average cattle.

Thanks for saying that... Because that's exactly what it is that's bothering me about this whole fucking thing...

;)

[JackN]

Originally posted by Tyvar
Actualy that kind of response has been coming from several kerry supporters, along with even in this thread attempts to belittle and dehumanize those with diverging opinions.

Yep...

[JackN]

Originally posted by SpiritOne
its ok to be terrified, I am.

Im going to reccomend that if you live on the west coast, move. If/when Bush decides its time to stop the North Korean threat, I think they have missiles that can reach you guys now.

I'm in the process of getting ready to leave California for good. Not for the reasons above, but they are a potential motivator as well (Not because Bush is president, but because the threat would be there regardless of who was in office).

This state is so messed up, and I don't see any hope for better times for a long while.

Now, do we need to talk about potential Terrorist Nukes/Bio/Chemical weapons that are probably trained on us already (and I mean the WHOLE USA), and just waiting for the right moment to be released?

[A2597]

Originally posted by PJH
It's too bad you banned SB for saying out loud what most of the people in the world pretty much think anyway, if not exactly though, and being a natural human being showing anger and using swear words and talking about things with their real names.

That was a stupid decision.

- PJH



hate to say it mate but there are rules to be followed...

From the Rules and Guidlines

Behave: no flaming, no unnecessary swearing at people, no personal attacks, etc.

[Vertigo1]

Originally posted by the_exile
That's what Star Wars is for. :rolleyes:

You mean we get to fling those horrible original trilogy DVDs at someone else and let THEM suffer for a change? ;)


Seriously though, WTF is going on here?! We all have different opinions, but thats no reason to attack eachother dammit. Now lets let bygones be bygones and let this thread die the death it deserves.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by WHY
I suggest this button be used.

http://forums.firstones.com/images/sendpm.gif


otherwise let the grownups talk.

Well I just kept clicking it and clicking it and nothing happened!

[Quigoni]

I simply want to say that I honestly didn't want W in office.

It could of been any other Republican for all I care. I really just don't like W.


-Quigoni

[Vertigo1]

Its because you're not clicking it right. You have to hit CTRL ALT DEL and type /join #2,000 in IRC for it to work right.

[Random Chaos]

You know...SB flames and swears all the time...but only in this thread does that earn him a ban. :rolleyes:

Anyway. I think the biggest problem with Bush is that for those that do not like him it isn't just one issue we were against - it was almost everything he stood for: his lack of environmentalism, his pro-corporatism, his war in Iraq which wasn't needed, his marginalizing of world allies, his US-centric view, his "moral and religious" justification of everything, his inability to admit mistakes, etc.

To those of us who disliked him we disliked almost everything about him. This means we have very very little that we can find to say "maybe something will work out" about. We know his record and it is the antithesis of what we believe in. Now the fact that half the country does believe in his record indicates how divided our great country really is. According to exit polls the "moral" position (I still can't understand where this whole equation of morality and the GOP comes from) represented the reason 25% of the voters came out - and they predominately went for Bush.

On to this question of morality and why it seems to equate with one party over the other. For years the GOP has been making a big issue out of abortion rights and more recently gay rights. Congress rarely says anything on either of these issues. Yet at the same time there can be another moral position: corporate pandering, personal ethics and morals, etc. To these neither party ranks very good - the republicans slightly worse in my book then the democrats. So why, if there are so many moral problems, would anyone think that Bush and the GOP is really supporting their view on morality?

Anyway - I don't think this discussion will ever really be understood. Personally I believe in the idea of free choice and action, so long as that action does not endanger the life or property of another. The point at which you start life is generally assumed to be at birth and not conception. Abortion rights does not force people to have abortions that believe it is morally wrong. It only allows those to have it that believe it is morally right. Anti-abortion forces those that wish to have abortion to be unable to have them, and doesn't change the position of those that believe it morally wrong not to have one. This is my objection: Anti-abortion limits a group that has no problem with abortions, but pro-abortion does not impact upton those who believe abortions wrong beyond providing a temtation...which is something in their all-full-of-themselves moral superior position they should be able to shun.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ok...that was a bit more of a rant then I wanted...oh well :)

[croxis]

I was speaking to everyone.

As for fear... I think I have it the most. Bush is not the one I am worried about, like I have said before I think he is too stupid to cause much trouble. Its his staff. Its Ashcroft I am afraid of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft

Funny how he wasn't seen or heard from much during election time...........

[Random Chaos]

Well - AP is reporting that aides to Ashcroft are saying that Ashcroft may soon resign - most likely before even the normal resignation point for 2nd terms of January - due to fatigue of responsibility.

We can all hope :)

[Tyvar]

To us republicans we have the same feeling about democrats and morality, that its not there.

The democrats are in bed with their own power blocks that advance their causes at the expense of others.

As for environmentalism, with some exeptions such as air and water quality, republicans are skeptical of the science on alot of things. Like Global warming you can find many legitimate scientists who completely disagree with it. Yet its treated like gospel even though its a theory with as many serious detractors and supporters.

And thats not a lie that people claim it as the truth, when all it is is a very tentative theory, that as time progresses is actually loosing credibility?

And dont get me started on Kyoto, Kyoto was a political ploy to further eliminate US manufacturing from global competition, it would have probably put alot of people, including many here on this board out of work, because plants would have moved and with those movements supporting jobs would have gone. Because Kyoto didnt target every nation equally, or even in any kind of fairness. Japan, Russia, Milaysia, Indonesia and Brazil would have tottaly exemted themselves due to some brilliant lanugage they negotated, and other countries had alot of things in there which dramaticly reduced its inpact on them.

As for the US's "allies" they have never been that firm, France especially has done things in the past 40 years that has put american security at risk, because it benefits france. Germany to a lesser extent has done the same.

Nations look out for themselves.

As for the abortion issue, we have a deeper problem.

I want everybody here to sit back and think, where DO rights come from? what is it that gives us rights?

This is an important question and shapes everything else were discussing.

[Random Chaos]

Originally posted by Tyvar
I want everybody here to sit back and think, where DO rights come from? what is it that gives us rights?

We get rights from our own innate ability to reason due to an evolutionary process that has resulted in the present human brain combined with cultural traditions that have developed over hundreds of thousands of years and certain biochemical responces to specific types of stimuli.

At least that's my view :)

[WHY]

Originally posted by WHY
I'm less pissed about Bush being in office, more pissed about how in 30 states not only was gay marriage banned, Civil Unions were specifically dissallowed, as well as recognizing any aforementioned civil-union made in another state.

I still want my explanation.

[Tyvar]

Originally posted by Random Chaos
We get rights from our own innate ability to reason due to an evolutionary process that has resulted in the present human brain combined with cultural traditions that have developed over hundreds of thousands of years and certain biochemical responces to specific types of stimuli.

At least that's my view :)

So in essence natrual rights are nothing more the social consensus? is that what your saying?

As for the ability to reason being a carte blanch cause for rights, I think its quite possible to create scenarios where entities which have some capacity to reason would not be extended rights.

I mean rats navigate mazes.

Also your argument implies that only humans would have rights, not any other sentient beings we encounter.

[Random Chaos]

Yes - the difference is level of developed communication combined with long term cultural development based on that communication ability. Humans have this. Rats don't. Why? Becuase our brain developed in a way that enables us to understand and vocalize a complex communications method with near unlimited possible vocalized combinations.

[Rambie]

Originally posted by Tyvar
Also your argument implies that only humans would have rights, not any other sentient beings we encounter.
No, his explanation did not exclude other sentient beings. Yes, Random Chaos did use the word "Human" in his argument, but that mean that when we DO meet other sentient beings that we wouldn't change to include them. Hopefully by the time we do encounter them, we'll be more evolved ourselves.

[WHY]

I'm going to keep pushing the gay marriage/civil union ban thing...


That, along with the fact that a good %20 voted primarily based on "moral reasons" just makes you look like you're full of religious nutjobs.

no offense to A#

I kid because I love.

[Random Chaos]

While I don't agree with tyvar's interpretation of my statement applying only to humans, Rambie's interpretation leaves out a lot of nuiances that I feel ar needed.

This is a more accurate view on what I see:
Human morality is only available to humans. Why? Every species brain and historical cultural evolution is different. Therefore every speicies that can define morality would be different then what we see as morality. (I in no way claim that other species ever are able to - only that those with sufficient brain development and ability to "learn" might) I therefore also feel that our application of any one human culture's morality to other cultures, or even species, often ignores the fact that their morality may be different then our's.

In fact this different in morality becuase of different cultural traditions is a lot of the cause of the Red-vs-Blue divide in this country.

[Tyvar]

Alot of things communicate, and RC attributed it to a property in the HUMAN brain, if its not a property of purely the human brain, then it is some other general property.

And if its through cultural conditioning why do all the despirate human cultures have such different notions of rights?

Our idea of natural rights comes straight from John Locke and Thomas Aquinas, if you go back before say 1000 AD you will find no mention of rights what so ever. So if they are some quality that originated from the mind and from ages of cultural conditiong, how come they havent existed untill recently?

that gets me on another tangent

David of Mac made the comparisons between conservatives and 17th century aristocrats, which is falls generated by european political commentators so not understanding that american conservatives are radicly different then european conservatives.

The political bible of all american conservatives are two works, John Locke's two treities of civil government and Adam Smiths "The Wealth of Nations: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes" NOT Montesque, or Hobbes, who are the foundations of european political conservatisim.

[Random Chaos]

Tyvar: Choice of words "Human Brain" refer to "Human Morality" - the topic of our discussion. It excludes nothing.

[Tyvar]

Originally posted by Random Chaos
While I don't agree with tyvar's interpretation of my statement applying only to humans, I also don't agree with Rambie's interpretation.

This is a more accurate view on what I see:
Human morality is only available to humans. Why? Every species brain and historical cultural evolution is different. Therefore every speicies that can define morality would be different then what we see as morality. (I in no way claim that other species ever are able to - only that those with sufficient brain development and ability to "learn" might) I therefore also feel that our application of any one human culture's morality to other cultures, or even species, often ignores the fact that their morality may be different then our's.

In fact this different in morality becuase of different cultural traditions is a lot of the cause of the Red-vs-Blue divide in this country.


Whoot! thank you! you just made my day! :D

Alright we have here the classical reltavisitc argument.

That what is true for one person is not true for another. So at one time some thing is both wrong and not wrong, say, slavery. Thus you have an inherent contradiction.

You have eliminated the possibitlity for a true morality meaning its nothing more then a permable social construct that we all agree to live with due to at best elightend self interest.

But you can not have any act ever be truly "immoral" just you know a BAD idea.

[Random Chaos]

Originally posted by Tyvar
And if its through cultural conditioning why do all the despirate human cultures have such different notions of rights?

Our idea of natural rights comes straight from John Locke and Thomas Aquinas, if you go back before say 1000 AD you will find no mention of rights what so ever. So if they are some quality that originated from the mind and from ages of cultural conditiong, how come they havent existed untill recently?

Becuase disparate cultures, prior to the last couple hundred years, did not intermingle much. Thus cultural conditioning would have had different historical development in different parts of the world. In fact you state the entire core of your answer: "And if its through <b>cultural conditioning</b> why do all the <b>despirate human cultures</b> <b>have such different notions</b> of rights?

As for Locke, et al - they are an element of our cultural history.



This is actually one of the reasons I so like the internet. It allows cultural intermingaling that will result in a more unified world. Unfortunately this same cultural intermingaling has resulted in religious extreamist movements in every religion - even inside the US - though many like to deny this.

[Random Chaos]

Originally posted by Tyvar
Whoot! thank you! you just made my day! :D

Alright we have here the classical reltavisitc argument.

That what is true for one person is not true for another. So at one time some thing is both wrong and not wrong, say, slavery. Thus you have an inherent contradiction.

You have eliminated the possibitlity for a true morality meaning its nothing more then a permable social construct that we all agree to live with due to at best elightend self interest.

But you can not have any act ever be truly "immoral" just you know a BAD idea.

I agree with your statement here completely.

However I disagree that there is only the classical right and wrong. This ignores the fact that in almost no case does anyone say that something is 100% right or 100% wrong when making decisions. They might say "I shouldn't do this but I will anyway" or "This is what should be done but I think we can't afford to do this." These such statements represent an area of grey in a binary world. In the same way there is no truely evil or truely good. To believe so means that anyone who disagrees with you is clearly evil - even if they do almost nothinh evil - only becuase they do not support you...and since you fight evil, you must be good.

Back to the main issue at hand - it is my view that Bush has this Good vs Evil, Right vs Wrong view of the world. He has no grey scales. It is this reason that I feel he has made so many bad decisions. He is of the mind set that "if a little is good, a lot must be better." But just like with anything else, moderation is the key.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Tyvar
You have eliminated the possibitlity for a true morality meaning its nothing more then a permable social construct that we all agree to live with due to at best elightend self interest.

Every time we've had this discussion in IRC, Tyvar, you've come off sounding like you think this is a really bad thing. Do you, and if so why? What's so bad about a social consensus? I'm just curious here, because you've never explained this point.

But you can not have any act ever be truly "immoral" just you know a BAD idea.

An act can be immoral in the society you are currently in, no matter how moral it is in another society just 5 minutes away across the river-defined border. If you want to do something that is considered immoral in the society you are currently in, you can't. You need to go to the society that considers it moral and do it involving their people, not the people of the society you are currently in.

[David of Mac]

Originally posted by Tyvar
David of Mac made the comparisons between conservatives and 17th century aristocrats, which is falls generated by european political commentators so not understanding that american conservatives are radicly different then european conservatives.

Oh, no I didn't. I picked a group with a funny-sounding voice. I felt the speech patterns suited my paraphrase best. It would've worked with any voice, though. Southern Redneck, California Surfer Dude, Russian General, French Starving Artist, Dime-A-Dozen Banana Republic Dictator....

[Mundane]

http://www.vg.no/mortenm/bilder/6221f06a1fced010.jpg

[Random Chaos]

Originally posted by Biggles
An act can be immoral in the society you are currently in, no matter how moral it is in another society just 5 minutes away across the river-defined border. If you want to do something that is considered immoral in the society you are currently in, you can't. You need to go to the society that considers it moral and do it involving their people, not the people of the society you are currently in.

Such an example would be like when people had to go to Mexico to get a Divorce becuase the US wouldn't offer them becuase they thought it was immoral (though they would recognize marriage changes of this type from other countries).

[croxis]

what is the difference between morality and ethics?

[Random Chaos]

Generally morality refers to cultually identified right and wrong norms. Ethics refers to positionally identified right and wrong norms.

For instance: To kill is morally wrong but not covered under ethics. To accept donations for congressional favors is considered ethically wrong but not covered under morals.

Sometimes an issue is covered under both. Other issues one has no say on. Some rare times the moral and ethical right positions are polar opposites. Remember that ethically right refers to the job/position you are in. This means if you are a hit-man for the mob, it is ethically right to kill someone for certain things, but not other things; however, it is still morally wrong always.

[Biggles]

It's funny. Laugh. (http://nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=041104)