Discuss the US Presidential Election Here

[BigNic]

Lol, some people here are making some relatively dumb canada comments. First how are we living off US military spending? If anything at all, the US's military actions cost us much more than we'd spend. But since we have traditionally helped in some way in most US initiatives, it gets us involved more than we probably would otherwise. We have a very active role in peace-keeping initiatives. Don't require like half our GDP on defense and military because we don't go out and make enemies, that would require us to fear attack. Most of our defense spending is probably done as a result of the US being a target in some way to other factions, and since we are neighbours we share a common border, via which these factions can gain admittance to the US.

As for guns and whether we care or not, this is also a huge gap in perception. Here in canada, most people own guns for hunting. It doesn't even cross the mind of most to have one for self-defense. That alone probably speaks volumes on quality of life, and how we feel much more secure than others that must go out and purchase and carry firearms. Perhaps I just didn't watch as many cowboy and indian movies as some of you guys down there when I was younger, I've met plenty of guys that simply want to own a gun because to them it's "cool." To me, a gun is no big deal, it's for self-defense, or target shooting if you like that as a sport. But to think you are cool now because you own a tool that is designed to kill is probably one of the most juvenile, "small-dick" syndrome things I could think of. The constitution gives you that right, so that's fine, just don't say one country is better because they can carry concealed weapons.

I can't ever remember any report put out that showed the US to have a higher standard of living than canada. Ever. Of course, I could be wrong, but never heard of it before.

Sure we pay higher taxes, and you know what, I don't like it. If I could change that I would. But if my biggest concern is taxation, I'll certainly take that, over having to worry about being shot, having a plane fly into my office building, losing relatives or friends in wars I may or may not believe in, having my government control my life in some way based on his religious beliefs, or being sued for serving coffee that was too hot.

Blind Patriotism < rational thought. Be proud of your country, but don't do it at the expense of others. How many americans are settled in canada now because they had to dodge the draft?
I disagree with many us policies however as far as im concerned those that left to avoid the draft are certainly not americans. Good riddance to them.

[PowerManDL]

The Illuminatus has controlled us since before Rome. Just accept their rule.

[Tryska]

Tina - do you think that they would be embracing America's ideals by voting for Kerry? I certainly don't see how. I think it was a lose-lose situation on Tuesday - big time.


he would have stood for the separation of Chruch and State and the Freedom of Speech.


two of my biggest concerns right now.

[toughguywannabe]

well who ever said most democrats are the most educated and most successful ppl are wrong.. it's the republicans who are doctors lawyers upper class.. at least most of em are.. democrats are lower class and teachers.. republicans fight for social status and that's what i think is important i think there should be status rather than us all being equal.. the only reason why i voted bush is b/c im one sided i don't care tho im jus not what democrats are all about all their views i find are very wrong.. but again somethings about republicans are wrong too but since i live in texas i jus kind of get influenced to vote bush with my friends and stuff oh well..

[Tryska]

yay aristocracy!!

it worked so well for France.

[MixmasterNash]

I will agree on safety. They don't have the same melting put of people we have, they don't have as many large cities. I would have to see figures on the per capita gun ownership. I find it hard to beleive. Probably as many rifles and shotguns, but not guns all together, since handguns are illegal.

This is also incorrect. The do have the same sort of metlting pot, with huge waves of recent Asian immigration and relatively liberal refugee policies. Additionally, the percentage of people living in urban areas in the U.S. versus Canada is exactly the same.

As for safety, it has little to do with gun ownership levels and everything to do with social programs and community support.

[Focused70]

well who ever said most democrats are the most educated and most successful ppl are wrong.. it's the republicans who are doctors lawyers upper class.. at least most of em are.. democrats are lower class and teachers..

Wrong. Isn't this a misquote and a series of overbroad generalizations?

edit: I stand corrected. I see Tryska made the original statement back in page two or three of this thread. Tryska and toughguywannabe -- you're both wrong unless you can back up your statements with statistics. Education and success know no ideological boundaries. You'll find the same amount of highly educated and successful people on both sides of the ideological fence. There are Republican teachers as well as Democrat physicians and doctors. This "success = ideology" argument is rather silly and pointless as far as I'm concerned.

Stash

[HahnB]

Wrong. Isn't this a misquote and a series of overbroad generalizations?

Stash

Perhaps. There are successful people in both parties-obviously. There are poor people in both parties as well. However, most poor minorities are democrats. There are very few poor minorities that are republicans. Then again who knows because bush won 53% of the Latino vote near miami. I guess I'm biast against democrats because I haven't met too many intellegent ones yet:) Everyone that I know who votes in that direction uses Michael Moore as their reasoning.

[MixmasterNash]

Wrong. Isn't this a misquote and a series of overbroad generalizations?

Stash

Crap? Really? I though there weren't any doctors Manhattan and other "blue" areas. I figured all radically new medical research and advanced treatment was being done in Idaho and Arkansas instead of NY and California.

And lawyers? Wait, wait, I though Republicans hated the trial lawyers and wanted to ban them.

Ah! The vortex of inconsistency!

[MixmasterNash]

Perhaps. There are successful people in both parties-obviously. There are poor people in both parties as well. However, most poor minorities are democrats. There are very few poor minorities that are republicans. Then again who knows because bush won 53% of the Latino vote near miami. I guess I'm biast against democrats because I haven't met too many intellegent ones yet:) Everyone that I know who votes in that direction uses Michael Moore as their reasoning.

You do know that the red state are welfare states, and the blue states are donors? Why don't the lazy welfare queen red states go get a job and stop having babies? Even discounting military spending, the net effect of farm subsidies and pork go heavily to the red states. You guys are like a cancer on productive blue America.

Also, you know which state has the lowest divorce rate? That bastion of gay marriage and liberal ideology, Massachusetts. Texas has a divorce rate 60% higher. So much for moral values. You guys need some gay marriage, cause your straight people are messing things up royally.

Republicans talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

[anyone]

What do you mean? I don't see why anyone can't go to night school, work hard. Get student loans,ect.
If you raised min wage to something you could live on, how many kids would try for anything better? Though if you raised min wage probably wouldn't be able to afford that big mac they were serving.

You ended your last comment with "It is all part of being self reliant." But getting federally subsidized loans and grants is not self-reliance. It is welfare, which flys in the face of all the "self-reliance" and "I'm a self-made man" stuff that has been flung around this forum.

People will try for something better, unless the federal minimum wage was closer to the minimum pay for professional athletes. Minimum wage will never make people rich. But that is besides the point. In a capitalist society, there will always be people on the bottom, working minimum wage jobs because:

1) there are few higher paying skilled jobs compared to the number of low wage service positions (compare the number of engineers to the number of people who work non-managerial positions in the food service industry) and

2) not everyone has the ability to become an engineer or other highly skilled job (people used to be able to make a decent wage in the US in factories, as unskilled labor, but this is no longer the case).

The Republican answer to all job problems is "get a better education," but this isn't realistic. People have followed that advice and look at the decreasing value of a college degree. A college degree is the new high school diploma. You need a degree now for jobs that NEVER used to require it. All this accomplishes is to increase the minimum standard for employment at the most basic of jobs, not get people better jobs.

We have to make it possible for someone who isn't all that skilled but who works hard to have a decent quality of life. This is something that has become near impossible in less than a generation. Doing this will require a combination of increasing the minimum wage, decreasing healthcare costs, strengthening the value of the dollar by lowering the deficit and otherwise improving the economy.

Obviously, you can't increase the minimum wage too much or it will break too many small businesses. However, minimum wage should at least keep pace with inflation.

[Rock]

ChubRock, I dont understand how you can compare, you being sober in college in a party enviroment, to a child growing up in a crack infested hood, hearing gunshots, watching people get killed from early age, get beaten up ,seeing his mother scream after crack, watching his father get arrested, living in terror and fear all the early precious years of his demonic life, oh wait, he should just shape up! because George Bush says he can make it him self, shape up little negro, its all your fault!

[Focused70]

Perhaps. There are successful people in both parties-obviously. There are poor people in both parties as well. However, most poor minorities are democrats. There are very few poor minorities that are republicans. Then again who knows because bush won 53% of the Latino vote near miami. I guess I'm biast against democrats because I haven't met too many intellegent ones yet:) Everyone that I know who votes in that direction uses Michael Moore as their reasoning.

Lol, Hahn. There are poor people on the Republican side of the spectrum....but they usually aren't minorities.

Haven't you read any of my posts? Michael Moore was entertaining, but my mind was made up way before I ever saw his film.

Stash

[Focused70]

Crap? Really? I though there weren't any doctors Manhattan and other "blue" areas. I figured all radically new medical research and advanced treatment was being done in Idaho and Arkansas instead of NY and California.

And lawyers? Wait, wait, I though Republicans hated the trial lawyers and wanted to ban them.

Ah! The vortex of inconsistency!

Most of the corporate litigators I know are usually Republicans. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Stash

[Focused70]

The Republican answer to all job problems is "get a better education," but this isn't realistic. People have followed that advice and look at the decreasing value of a college degree. A college degree is the new high school diploma. You need a degree now for jobs that NEVER used to require it. All this accomplishes is to increase the minimum standard for employment at the most basic of jobs, not get people better jobs.

And this is one of the stands where I generally part company with most of the liberals on this board. A college education is attainable for anyone who wants it. Anyone. Now, some people will have an advantage moreso than others, but if you really want something, much like working out, you'll get it eventually. You just have to persevere and be consistent enough to attain your goal. This applies towards advanced and professional degrees as well.

Making excuses is only a distraction.

Stash

[anyone]

A college education is attainable for anyone who wants it. Anyone.

Exactly. Printing more money makes money worth less just as printing more degrees makes a degree worth less. That's exactly my point.

Education alone is not the fixall the Republicans make it out to be.

[BigNic]

And this is one of the stands where I generally part company with most of the liberals on this board. A college education is attainable for anyone who wants it. Anyone. Now, some people will have an advantage moreso than others, but if you really want something, much like working out, you'll get it eventually. You just have to persevere and be consistent enough to attain your goal. This applies towards advanced and professional degrees as well.

Making excuses is only a distraction.

Stash
I agree. With all the scholarships, military, work education pay, loans ect

[Focused70]

Exactly. Printing more money makes money worth less just as printing more degrees makes a degree worth less. That's exactly my point.

Education alone is not the fixall the Republicans make it out to be.

No, but it's a step in the right direction.

It's a proven fact that acquiring an education leads to increased job opportunities, which in turn leads towards a positive impact on the economy. Getting a better education is not a fixall but it *is* part of the solution. However, in my opinion, there's simply no excuse for not getting a college degree.

Stash

[toughguywannabe]

Wrong. Isn't this a misquote and a series of overbroad generalizations?

edit: I stand corrected. I see Tryska made the original statement back in page two or three of this thread. Tryska and toughguywannabe -- you're both wrong unless you can back up your statements with statistics. Education and success know no ideological boundaries. You'll find the same amount of highly educated and successful people on both sides of the ideological fence. There are Republican teachers as well as Democrat physicians and doctors. This "success = ideology" argument is rather silly and pointless as far as I'm concerned.

Stash

yah good point i was just saying what my gov't teacher said.. i do beleive it's pointless to argue about this politics thing.. politics is somethin u can never agree on u always have something to say that will make somebody else mad.. but that makes me look kind of dumb b/c im posting on this thread so i'll stop posting here lol!

[BigNic]

yah good point i was just saying what my gov't teacher said.. i do beleive it's pointless to argue about this politics thing.. politics is somethin u can never agree on u always have something to say that will make somebody else mad.. but that makes me look kind of dumb b/c im posting on this thread so i'll stop posting here lol!
you gotta watch out for govt teachers in hs. My gog't teach dished out the mot bs of all time. Not just her whack ass opinion, but false things.

[toughguywannabe]

it was a college teacher.. he seemed pretty knowledgable about everything so i give him that..

[HahnB]

Lol, Hahn. There are poor people on the Republican side of the spectrum....but they usually aren't minorities.
Stash

That's exactly what I said. I'm all for equal rights, but as soon as gays are allowed to marry, then some idiot is going to want to marry his dog-then you have the word marriage meaning absolutely nothing anymore. When republicans want to protect marriage many of them simply are against gays-period. Some, like myself, feel that gay marriage will eventually lead to the destruction of everything that the word marriage stands for.

[Focused70]

I'm all for equal rights, but as soon as gays are allowed to marry, then some idiot is going to want to marry his dog-then you have the word marriage meaning absolutely nothing anymore. When republicans want to protect marriage many of them simply are against gays-period. Some, like myself, feel that gay marriage will eventually lead to the destruction of everything that the word marriage stands for.

You're all for equal rights....but you're not.

Huh?

Either you are, or you aren't. Sounds to me like you aren't, unless you meant something else.

Stash

[BigNic]

i prolly shouldnt get into this one, but im kinda on the fence regarding gay marriage. On one hand, i dont think its any of the governments business. On the other, i feel like marriage is supposed to be a sacrament(sp?) between a man and a woman, and that changing it would be wrong.
Either way im definetly for civil unions for homosexuals, that would give them the same rights.

Id be interested in sobas argument as he seems to be one of the few ppl who can disagree respectfully.

[Rock]

I am against gay marriage, they can find their own thing, and call it gayrrige or something, where is their imagination, marriage is a christian symbol for the love between a man and a woman, why cant they just make up their own thing, do we need to F*** over every important value in this corrupt society.

[HahnB]

You're all for equal rights....but you're not.

Huh?

Either you are, or you aren't. Sounds to me like you aren't, unless you meant something else.

Stash

I knew someone was going to say that, so I'll make it a little more clear. I'm all for equal rights- as long as the outcome doesn't have serious negetive consequences, as the situation with gay marriage does. Nobody can be 100% for equal rights, it's impossible. There's always going to be a fine line, and it isn't as simple as liberals make it. If all liberals are for equal rights, I'm assuming they think felons should be able to vote, and that a convicted child molester should have an equal opportunity to work at a day care as anybody else.

[BigNic]

I am against gay marriage, they can find their own thing, and call it gayrrige or something, where is their imagination, marriage is a christian symbol for the love between a man and a woman, why cant they just make up their own thing, do we need to F*** over every important value in this corrupt society.
gayrigge? hahahhhah. Thats funny dude, your a funny guy

[Tryska]

marriage has no business being part of the govenrment.


save it for the churches.


i think this is the essential downfall of the separation of chruch and state issue:

if we ban gay marriage, you allow religion to affect government

if we allow gay marriage, you allow government to affect religion.

neither is good, hence they should be separate.

you wanna get married, you get your partnership license first (from the government). this is what allows you to have rights as a couple. then go to your church and be given the sacrament.


who's marrying who then ceases to be relevant.

just like a social security card is not the same thing as a baptism.

[BigNic]

thats a good point, that sums up more or less my first feelings. That the government shouldnt have a say in it.

[Tryska]

I knew someone was going to say that, so I'll make it a little more clear. I'm all for equal rights- as long as the outcome doesn't have serious negetive consequences, as the situation with gay marriage does. Nobody can be 100% for equal rights, it's impossible. There's always going to be a fine line, and it isn't as simple as liberals make it. If all liberals are for equal rights, I'm assuming they think felons should be able to vote, and that a convicted child molester should have an equal opportunity to work at a day care as anybody else.



so being gay is the same as being a felon or a child molestor.


i see.

[Focused70]

BN:

The problem with the civil union argument is that so many rights are tied into marriage. Taxes, visitation rights in hospitals, children, and issues related to inheritance, trusts and estates just to name a few. All of this is not an issue with regards to heterosexuals.

The legal definition of "marriage" as defined "between a man and a woman" ignores the spiritual (note I said "spiritual" and not "religious") definition which implies a permanent act of spiritual union between two adults who love each other dearly and without boundaries. Unfortunately, the spiritual definition of marriage doesn't hold water in modern day American society, especially when you're filing your taxes.

Many people think we're asking for "special rights" or "gay rights". We're just asking to be treated like the rest of society. We want to be able to have the right to serve in the military, to be treated without discrimination in the workplace and to be able to run for public office, in addition to all of the other rights that heterosexual adults enjoy in American society. We just want "equal rights". Why this statement is so difficult to comprehend by certain segments of the population is beyond my comprehension.

Stash

[BigNic]

i see where your coming from, regarding their legal rights. Which is basically where i can sympathize.

My father is a very conservative guy, but while he was in the service he had a guy that worked for him get aids. Well it turns out this man was a homosexual, and it was my fathers responsibility to see to it that all hs personal matters because the guy was dying. Well my father did all the stuff that your supposed to do for a dying service member. One of the things was take car of funeral arrangements ect. He called this mans parents, but they wanted nothing to do with him at all, they had renounded him because of his lifestyle. His military life insurance plan was supposed to be split between his parents and his long time partner. His parents faught this, while the man was in the hospital. My father was down with this guy at the hospital, and his partner was not even allowed in to see him. Essentially the guy died all alone, except for my dad and the hospital corpsman working there. His parents were outside arguing with a jag about "their" legal rights. His parents won and got his full life insurance. His partner didnt even get to see him before he died.
I dont know i even typed all this but my extremely conservative father told me this story as an example of how a ridiculous inservice towards a citizen of the us. This is more or less what got me thinking about it.

[Focused70]

I knew someone was going to say that, so I'll make it a little more clear. I'm all for equal rights- as long as the outcome doesn't have serious negetive consequences, as the situation with gay marriage does. Nobody can be 100% for equal rights, it's impossible. There's always going to be a fine line, and it isn't as simple as liberals make it. If all liberals are for equal rights, I'm assuming they think felons should be able to vote, and that a convicted child molester should have an equal opportunity to work at a day care as anybody else.

Hahn: listen to what you're saying. You're for something, but then you say you're not.

This is not an issue where you can waffle. Either you're for it, or you're against it.

Freedom of speech is a basic Constitutional right, yet it can have serious negative consequences (i.e., pornography on the Internet, hate speech (which is protected by the First Amendment), violence in films and on TV). You can't say "fire!" in a crowded theater and you can't slander or libel someone, but other than that, you have to accept the negative consequences that come with having this basic right.

And yes, I think felons should be allowed the right to vote. (this issue is already up for public debate, and there is a lawsuit in the works; see Hayden v. Pataki (http://www.naacpldf.org/content/pdf/felon/hayden_case_summary.pdf) (No. 00-8586)); your argument on child molesters is a long, complex one but one I shall not disagree with.

Stash

[Tryska]

i see where your coming from, regarding their legal rights. Which is basically where i can sympathize.

My father is a very conservative guy, but while he was in the service he had a guy that worked for him get aids. Well it turns out this man was a homosexual, and it was my fathers responsibility to see to it that all hs personal matters because the guy was dying. Well my father did all the stuff that your supposed to do for a dying service member. One of the things was take car of funeral arrangements ect. He called this mans parents, but they wanted nothing to do with him at all, they had renounded him because of his lifestyle. His military life insurance plan was supposed to be split between his parents and his long time partner. His parents faught this, while the man was in the hospital. My father was down with this guy at the hospital, and his partner was not even allowed in to see him. Essentially the guy died all alone, except for my dad and the hospital corpsman working there. His parents were outside arguing with a jag about "their" legal rights. His parents won and got his full life insurance. His partner didnt even get to see him before he died.
I dont know i even typed all this but my extremely conservative father told me this story as an example of how a ridiculous inservice towards a citizen of the us. This is more or less what got me thinking about it.


so having been right in the thick of a perfect example, how does your father feel about this issue?

[BigNic]

so having been right in the thick of a perfect example, how does your father feel about this issue?
Equal rights in civil unions. Although he is also of the opinion that there should be equal rights in civil unions for other types of relationships, for instance a sister and brother. Obviously not a sexual relationship, but say they lived together for whatever reason and one cared for the other. when i say equal rights i mean equal to the rights of a marriage.

[Focused70]

so being gay is the same as being a felon or a child molestor.

He didn't say that, although his analogy isn't exactly one I would use.

Stash

[Tryska]

Equal rights in civil unions. Although he is also of the opinion that there should be equal rights in civil unions for other types of relationships, for instance a sister and brother. Obviously not a sexual relationship, but say they lived together for whatever reason and one cared for the other. when i say equal rights i mean equal to the rights of a marriage.


so essentially making domestic partnership the law of the land.

what you want to call it after that is up to your belief system.

[BigNic]

so essentially making domestic partnership the law of the land.

what you want to call it after that is up to your belief system.
exactly, up to your church religion ect.

[Chubrock]

ChubRock, I dont understand how you can compare, you being sober in college in a party enviroment, to a child growing up in a crack infested hood, hearing gunshots, watching people get killed from early age, get beaten up ,seeing his mother scream after crack, watching his father get arrested, living in terror and fear all the early precious years of his demonic life, oh wait, he should just shape up! because George Bush says he can make it him self, shape up little negro, its all your fault!



It's a fair comparison. Essentially people are saying that the environment shapes the individual without them having any chance to "change" or be different. I don't agree with that at all. You give this dark image of poverty but you also include the assumption that the kids that grow up in this type of environment have no chance to change. Anybody that has half a brain would realize the situations you outlined (watching people get killed, watching father get arrested, hearing gun shots etc etc) are wrong. This day in age, there is too much exposure to "to the brighter side of life" through TV, Radio, etc etc, to not know what is right and wrong. Granted they may be accustomed to seeing this on an everyday basis, but that doesn't force the child to make a decision to join, just like even though I encounter alcohol and other substances on a daily basis, I don't have to choose to use them.

Answer this Rock. Why should there be so much government assistance handed out, when it seems like a majority of those that receive it abuse it in one way or another. It seems that every time I drive through "the projects" I see almost every other car with all this useless junk (ie. rims, body kits, etc etc) on it. If money was such a necessity, they would be spending it on things needed to sustain life. On another aspect of this, not to single out, but simply to provide an example, almost all of the Hispanic population around here seems to be on Welfare and other gov't assistance programs. I also see many of these Hispanic people with HUGE wads of cash in their pockets (mainly payed under the table, and not taxed). Why should money continously be payed out to people who already walk around with more money than several people I know combined. THAT's what doesn't make sense to me.


Somebody talked about minimum wages needing to be raised because an 8hr work day is already hard enough. Maybe it's just me, but flipping hamburgers doesn't constitute a "hard or stressful" day. If you want to see somebody working HARD for their money, look no further than many of the farms around here. Not only does these farmers pull upwards of 12-15hrs a day, but them along with their hired help (ie anybody willing to actually do manual labor) work extremely hard, in rough conditions. The jobs are their for those willing to look. I looked through my local paper this morning and looked at the "Help Wanted Section." Many of these jobs required no education whatsoever and no experience whatsoever. I know these jobs alone won't sustain a family, but as a side job, they help put money in the bank. If people truley wanted to "pick themselves up by the boot straps" there wouldn't be a single wanted ad listed for more than 2 days, but as it is, I contiuously see the same job listed over and over again.

[Tryska]

farmers get government handouts too. sometimes they get handouts to NOT produce. so what's your point, chubrock?

[BigNic]

i think he was just saying that people should be happy with minimum wage. I dont think it needs to be raised either. The majority if not almost all, jobs paying minimum wage are unskilled labor jobs. there is nothing wrong with that, but we need to keep in mind that companies have rights also. I dont think its the governments place ot be stepping in and raising it again.

[Chubrock]

Tryska, BigNic understood the point I was trying to make, maybe I just didn't put it in a clear form. One thing though about farmers being paid not to produce. For one, this is done with the idea of stimulating the economy by causing produce prices to rises slightly (this was an idea born from FDR and his AAA). It should also be said that Butler vs US stated this Act was unconstitutional, so if I understand correctly, anytime this happens, it is done illegaly.

[BigNic]

chubby knows his ****

[HahnB]

This is not an issue where you can waffle. Either you're for it, or you're against it.

Stash

That's my point. Nobody is 100% for equal rights. Everyone has their limits, so everyone waffles.

Tryska pointed out that there is an obvious difference between a child molester and a gay person. That again is my point, that everyone is for equal rights up to SOME POINT. Conservatives just draw that line a little earlier than liberals- see what I'm saying?

[Tryska]

do the corn and soybean farmers know this? i personally don't have a problem with farm subsidies to family farmers. i do have problems when corporate farms do.

and lastly i disagree. i think minimum wage should raise as cost of living increases.

that should be enough stimulus for companies to not inflate prices in general.

[Chubrock]

Tryska I'm not a farmer, so I couldn't tell ya the ins and outs of that. All I'm saying is that if I'm remembering correctly that Supreme Court case stated that paying farmers to lower production was unconstitutional. Maybe somewhere in between FDR's administration and the present, there was another court case that stated that it in fact is constitutional to pay farmers to lower production. I honestly don't know.

[reaver]

This is also incorrect. The do have the same sort of metlting pot, with huge waves of recent Asian immigration and relatively liberal refugee policies. Additionally, the percentage of people living in urban areas in the U.S. versus Canada is exactly the same.

As for safety, it has little to do with gun ownership levels and everything to do with social programs and community support.
I wasn't attributing lack of gun ownership to Canada's safety. Just because you have the percentage of people living in urban area doesn't mean you have as many people living in urban areas. I am guessing the population of Canada is less.

As far as Americans carrying guns cause there afraid, I don't think so, its insurance. I leave it in my closet. Maybe there is a one in ten thousand chance someone will break in. But I am not willing to accept that. I also have fire and auto insurance.

[Focused70]

That's my point. Nobody is 100% for equal rights. Everyone has their limits, so everyone waffles.

Tryska pointed out that there is an obvious difference between a child molester and a gay person. That again is my point, that everyone is for equal rights up to SOME POINT. Conservatives just draw that line a little earlier than liberals- see what I'm saying?

lol. My point is that we are not a danger to society. The sky is not going to fall down if Joe Queer marries James Queer. The idea of someone marrying a dog is laughable so as not to even be worthy of serious consideration. (although there are people who actually have relations with animals, so perhaps that's not entirely off but still...)

In actual practice, so far what you have are people who want to conjoin with their partner, the same as most heterosexuals. I haven't heard of someone wanting to marry their horse, but then again I'm always ready for something new. :)

Stash

[reaver]

You ended your last comment with "It is all part of being self reliant." But getting federally subsidized loans and grants is not self-reliance. It is welfare, which flys in the face of all the "self-reliance" and "I'm a self-made man" stuff that has been flung around this forum.

People will try for something better, unless the federal minimum wage was closer to the minimum pay for professional athletes. Minimum wage will never make people rich. But that is besides the point. In a capitalist society, there will always be people on the bottom, working minimum wage jobs because:

1) there are few higher paying skilled jobs compared to the number of low wage service positions (compare the number of engineers to the number of people who work non-managerial positions in the food service industry) and

2) not everyone has the ability to become an engineer or other highly skilled job (people used to be able to make a decent wage in the US in factories, as unskilled labor, but this is no longer the case).

The Republican answer to all job problems is "get a better education," but this isn't realistic. People have followed that advice and look at the decreasing value of a college degree. A college degree is the new high school diploma. You need a degree now for jobs that NEVER used to require it. All this accomplishes is to increase the minimum standard for employment at the most basic of jobs, not get people better jobs.

We have to make it possible for someone who isn't all that skilled but who works hard to have a decent quality of life. This is something that has become near impossible in less than a generation. Doing this will require a combination of increasing the minimum wage, decreasing healthcare costs, strengthening the value of the dollar by lowering the deficit and otherwise improving the economy.

Obviously, you can't increase the minimum wage too much or it will break too many small businesses. However, minimum wage should at least keep pace with inflation.
I don't think a fedral loan paid back with interest is a handout. As far as college degrees being worthless, depends on the degree. Lot of the worthless degrees are in areas that easy to get. I do agree college diploma is starting to become like a high shool diploma, as in its become the bar.

[reaver]

That's exactly what I said. I'm all for equal rights, but as soon as gays are allowed to marry, then some idiot is going to want to marry his dog-
I resent the idiot part. The damn vet bills have been killing me lately.

[reaver]

marriage has no business being part of the govenrment.


save it for the churches.

.
Where were mos tof the gay marriages performed? Gov official or church? I really don't know.
But if you make marriage part of the church you are violating my rights, by forcing me to go to the church to be married.
I am for civil union not marriage. You can't just reinvent history. Its like these people who want to change history books so they look better on women and minorities. Can't change what was done.

[reaver]

As for gays in the military, I am not so much against it, but it does pose problems. Housing for one. Hetero men and women don't bunk together. Should homosexuals of the same gender be? I am man can't take a shower with a women. Should two gay men be allowed? Granted it is the military and not some porno movie but still. I bet if you offered to let the hetero men shower with the woman they would, no matter if the women were gay or straight.
I suppose this is also an issue in prison that gets ignored too.

[Focused70]

That's for the military to work out. Logistics are irrelevant at this point because we don't have that right. Once we have that right, then we can cross that bridge but until then, any significant discussion of "what if" or "how can we" or "is there a way" is just a moot point.

Stash

[reaver]

That's for the military to work out. Logistics are irrelevant at this point because we don't have that right. Once we have that right, then we can cross that bridge but until then, any significant discussion of "what if" or "how can we" or "is there a way" is just a moot point.

Stash
If you want something to change in your favor, you can't just say that is for the other guy to workout. Thats a pretty lazy, don't deserve attitude. More interested in stirring the pot the fixing the problem.

[anyone]

Somebody talked about minimum wages needing to be raised because an 8hr work day is already hard enough. Maybe it's just me, but flipping hamburgers doesn't constitute a "hard or stressful" day.

You've never worked food service, have you?

[beastin v6]

It looks like the Marines and Iraq's National Forces are now all getting geared to do a major offensive in FALLUJAH.


U.S. and Iraqi authorities want to curb the increasingly violent Sunni Muslim insurgency in order to hold nationwide elections by Jan. 31.

American officials stress that the final order to launch a big operation would come from Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who has warned Fallujah to hand over followers of terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or face attack.

Allawi has issued no such order, but preparations are clearly under way, including the movement of British soldiers into areas close to Baghdad so that American forces can be redeployed for the showdown in Fallujah.

"We're gearing up to do an operation and when were told to go we'll go," Brig. Gen. Dennis Hejlik, deputy commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, said at a camp near Fallujah. "When we do go, we'll whack them."

Meanwhile, Marines have been hitting Fallujah with frequent airstrikes, targeting buildings believed used by al-Zarqawi's followers. Marines have also launched probing attacks into Fallujah's outskirts to test insurgent defenses, Marine Col. Mike Shupp said.

A U.S. warplane fired at a house in the eastern Askari district of Fallujah around sundown Friday, witnesses said. Firefighter Salam Hameed said five bodies were pulled from under the rubble. Another four people were injured.

May God be with those Marines.

[Focused70]

All I am saying is that discussion about what will change is irrelevant because it doesn't yet exist.

I trust the military will work out an equitable solution when and if it becomes necessary. Since when does the general public have a direct hand in shaping their policies? IF it becomes a tangible right, then we can begin to discuss HOW things will work out. Speculation at this point doesn't really contribute much, as far as I'm concerned.

If you wish to flame me, you can, but don't expect me to engage you further.

Stash

[Tryska]

Where were mos tof the gay marriages performed? Gov official or church? I really don't know.
But if you make marriage part of the church you are violating my rights, by forcing me to go to the church to be married.
I am for civil union not marriage. You can't just reinvent history. Its like these people who want to change history books so they look better on women and minorities. Can't change what was done.



then you're missing the point.



the operative body is the "domestic partnership" this is what gives you the legal bond you want with your mate.


if you need a religious body to "sanctify" that as holy matrimony or whatever - take it to you the religious body of your choice.


when you get "married" at the courthouse - it's a essentially a civil union.


that's why it's called a "civil service" and not a "wedding".

[Gyno Rhino]

This thread is WAAAAY to cluttered to be able to have any real discussion in it.

As usual, the same people crop up with good positions/bad arguments, the same other people come up with good positions/good arguments, and even more seem to chime in with bad positions/bad arguments.

This is why the 2nd Amendment is so important: so you can kill those who disagree with you from a distance.

[Tryska]

but that would oppress my 1st amendment rights.


you should feel conflicted.

[Gyno Rhino]

I am - but here's how I feel about the two amendments:

Taking away the 1st Amendment will not happen whilst the 2nd exists.
Taking away the 2nd Amendment will lead to the immediate removal of the 1st.

Now, I'm quite aware that attempts are being made to encroach upon the 1st Amendment - and I do not support that in ANY shape or form. But it's hard to silence a people when gunfire rings out in Boston and a whole ****load of tea disappears.


As long as I'm armed, the government has no choice but to listen to me. If I'm not armed - take a trip to Tiananmen Square circa 1989.

[reaver]

This thread is WAAAAY to cluttered to be able to have any real discussion in it.

As usual, the same people crop up with good positions/bad arguments, the same other people come up with good positions/good arguments, and even more seem to chime in with bad positions/bad arguments.

This is why the 2nd Amendment is so important: so you can kill those who disagree with you from a distance.
I agree it is way off, and no one will ever change there mind. But from what I have seen it has been conducted fairly civilized. Acutally it should be 3-4 differant threads. But if anyone started them they be locked or vanish.

[Gyno Rhino]

I agree it is way off, and no one will ever change there mind. But from what I have seen it has been conducted fairly civilized. Acutally it should be 3-4 differant threads. But if anyone started them they be locked or vanish.

Trust me that the primary reason it appears civilized is because mods have been owning it like a biatch.

I weep for the future.

[SW]

The American people, chose, yesterday to trash EVERYTHING that America stands for, and risk destroying the grand experiment.


the sad part is, they didn't think twice about it, and apparently don't really care. so yes. Americans are stupid.


Lol. I thought you above all could keep calm. But you just said Americans are stupid. That's pretty immature. Because they didn't elect Kerry, the worst choice possible in this race, you think Americans are stupid. Come on.

[SW]

Here's what I think would be fair in relation to the whole gay thing:

Marriage: 1 man and 1 woman.
Civil Union: 1 woman and 1 woman, or 1 man and 1 man.

Make different showering facilities for gays in the military (private stalls). Easy as that.

[Gyno Rhino]

Lol. I thought you above all could keep calm. But you just said Americans are stupid. That's pretty immature. Because they didn't elect Kerry, the worst choice possible in this race, you think Americans are stupid. Come on.

Is this needed?

What was the point of this post?

It looks to me like the point of the post was to make Tina look foolish.

Whether or not you succeeded is up to the individual (hint: you didn't) - but you failed miserably in the whole goal of the thread post - to add something worthwhile to the conversation.

If you want to discuss this, argue her POINTS - not her. You could have refuted her post by talking about how Bush DOES stand for American ideals, or by saying that Kerry doesn't. Instead, you simply called him "the worst possible choice". That's great, man, just great. (EDIT: I'm not saying Bush does represent that at all, just using it as a point here)

Your post is the kind of post that starts the ball rolling towards thread closure.

I want EVERYONE to read his post and realize that it is exactly the WRONG way to continue civil discussion in a hot thread.

[Chubrock]

You've never worked food service, have you?


You're right. I've never worked food service, but you can't honestly tell me that working the window at the local McD's is anywhere near as physical demanding as farmers, construction, military etc etc or as mentally challenging/stressful as a self employed family physician, business man, etc etc. I mean don't get me wrong. I'm happy that people are willing to work for their money. I just don't understand that arguement that this job is so physically/mentally taxing.

[SalahG]

Is this needed?

What was the point of this post?

It looks to me like the point of the post was to make Tina look foolish.

Whether or not you succeeded is up to the individual (hint: you didn't) - but you failed miserably in the whole goal of the thread post - to add something worthwhile to the conversation.

If you want to discuss this, argue her POINTS - not her. You could have refuted her post by talking about how Bush DOES stand for American ideals, or by saying that Kerry doesn't. Instead, you simply called him "the worst possible choice". That's great, man, just great. (EDIT: I'm not saying Bush does represent that at all, just using it as a point here)

Your post is the kind of post that starts the ball rolling towards thread closure.

I want EVERYONE to read his post and realize that it is exactly the WRONG way to continue civil discussion in a hot thread.
Yeah, but saying "Americans are stupid" is a great way to keep people's emotions down, and stimulate great intellectual conversation.

[Gyno Rhino]

Yeah, but saying "Americans are stupid" is a great way to keep people's emotions down, and stimulate great intellectual conversation.

Did I say that?

If I went through here and pointed out every single post that was simply stirring the pot, I'd spend about 5 pages addressing the majority of posters in here.

What I posted was not partisan, nor was it American/anti-American. It was purely administrative - so don't try to skew it over.

He was posting on page 13, and referencing a post with little substance from page 3 of the thread. That is stirring the pot.

[SalahG]

Did I say that?

If I went through here and pointed out every single post that was simply stirring the pot, I'd spend about 5 pages addressing the majority of posters in here.

What I posted was not partisan, nor was it American/anti-American. It was purely administrative - so don't try to skew it over.

He was posting on page 13, and referencing a post with little substance from page 3 of the thread. That is stirring the pot.
No you didn't, but I don't think calling out one single person, and protecting another is the right thing to do. Tryska slewed personal insults on me and a few others the entire thread, superior_will comes in and says one thing and gets called out. It's blatant favrotism, but it is your house, and it is your rules, so carry on.

[Gyno Rhino]

See, instead of elevating this with a personal attack like you just did - I'll simply tell you the fact:

He came in on page 13 when we'd had quite a few posts of "clean it up" and he got called out for trying to make someone look like an idiot.

If you'd like me too, I can go back through the thread and warn everyone that deserves it. Or I can take it from the "here on out line". Now, be aware that if I do the former - you wouldn't be around here anymore.

Why does everything have to be favoritism in your eyes? I don't understand why there's this little veil of hatred you view these discussions through - and you're not alone. It doesn't matter if I'd asked superior_will to tie his shoes, in your mind it would be favoritism.

Just please do everyone a favor and play nicely in the thread - or don't play at all. We have alot of sandboxes here at WBB, and if you have to be the kid that continuously urinates in them - then step out of this one, cause it's already overflowing with piss.

So I'm telling you, right now, get back on topic - or face the wrath of Cthulhu, who I've got on speed dial.

[SalahG]

See, instead of elevating this with a personal attack like you just did - I'll simply tell you the fact:

He came in on page 13 when we'd had quite a few posts of "clean it up" and he got called out for trying to make someone look like an idiot.

If you'd like me too, I can go back through the thread and warn everyone that deserves it. Or I can take it from the "here on out line". Now, be aware that if I do the former - you wouldn't be around here anymore.

Why does everything have to be favoritism in your eyes? I don't understand why there's this little veil of hatred you view these discussions through - and you're not alone. It doesn't matter if I'd asked superior_will to tie his shoes, in your mind it would be favoritism.

Just please do everyone a favor and play nicely in the thread - or don't play at all. We have alot of sandboxes here at WBB, and if you have to be the kid that continuously urinates in them - then step out of this one, cause it's already overflowing with piss.

So I'm telling you, right now, get back on topic - or face the wrath of Cthulhu, who I've got on speed dial.
Just to mention something to you, I spend most of my time assisting novices in the diet and training forums, and help many people there. Most of the people I see on general chat just argue politics, and look to insight in making their opposition angry.

BTW- I do not see this forum through a tinted view of hatred towards people, this is the internet, and I don't hold E-Grudges.

[MixmasterNash]

As for gays in the military, I am not so much against it, but it does pose problems. Housing for one. Hetero men and women don't bunk together. Should homosexuals of the same gender be? I am man can't take a shower with a women. Should two gay men be allowed? Granted it is the military and not some porno movie but still. I bet if you offered to let the hetero men shower with the woman they would, no matter if the women were gay or straight.
I suppose this is also an issue in prison that gets ignored too.

The relevant point is that the gay people are ALREADY in the military, and they're all around you too. You just don't know it. Don't ask, don't tell is so god damn stupid.

[Gyno Rhino]

Just to mention something to you, I spend most of my time assisting novices in the diet and training forums, and help many people there. Most of the people I see on general chat just argue politics, and look to insight in making their opposition angry.

BTW- I do not see this forum through a tinted view of hatred towards people, this is the internet, and I don't hold E-Grudges.

I'm aware of what you do with novices - and it's much appreciated.

But being a good member in some forums doesn't give you a ticket to stir up trouble in other ones.

I like you, and I like what you bring to the discussion - so please stay in it, civilly.

[MixmasterNash]

It looks like the Marines and Iraq's National Forces are now all getting geared to do a major offensive in FALLUJAH.

May God be with those Marines.

I hope God, Allah, Colt, and everyone else is with the Marines because it's damn unfortunate that tactical decisions on the ground were restricted by politics in the U.S. It is not coincidence that this offensive is taking place after the election.

[MixmasterNash]

This is why the 2nd Amendment is so important: so you can kill those who disagree with you from a distance.

This is the problem with kids these days. You're not willing to get up close and do it with a knife.

[Gyno Rhino]

Correct you are, Nash.

The information age has brought about some terrific "advances" in warfare - like the high technology of not allowing your military leaders do what they're trained to do.

[SalahG]

I hope God, Allah, Colt, and everyone else is with the Marines because it's damn unfortunate that tactical decisions on the ground were restricted by politics in the U.S. It is not coincidence that this offensive is taking place after the election.
I agree, in politics, timing is everything.

[MixmasterNash]

I am - but here's how I feel about the two amendments:

Taking away the 1st Amendment will not happen whilst the 2nd exists.
Taking away the 2nd Amendment will lead to the immediate removal of the 1st.

Now, I'm quite aware that attempts are being made to encroach upon the 1st Amendment - and I do not support that in ANY shape or form. But it's hard to silence a people when gunfire rings out in Boston and a whole ****load of tea disappears.


As long as I'm armed, the government has no choice but to listen to me. If I'm not armed - take a trip to Tiananmen Square circa 1989.

Ahem. David Koresh. Waco. You can be armed out your ass with the best weaponry around (indeed, those .50s are what started trouble in the first place) and the government will still roll right over your ass in 10 seconds.

You think any amount of weaponry in the hands of students would stop the Chinese army?

[Gyno Rhino]

This is the problem with kids these days. You're not willing to get up close and do it with a knife.

How quickly we forget: http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=52528

[Gyno Rhino]

Ahem. David Koresh. Waco. You can be armed out your ass with the best weaponry around (indeed, those .50s are what started trouble in the first place) and the government will still roll right over your ass in 10 seconds.

You think any amount of weaponry in the hands of students would stop the Chinese army?

Of course not - but the point isn't that a couple hundred people will be able to take on the U.S.

The mere fact that you mentioned Waco shows that in many ways, it served it's point. We don't bow down to the government like that (or at least we shouldn't).

The more Wacos we have, the more call to arms we have. REVOLUTZI!!!

[SalahG]

Ahem. David Koresh. Waco. You can be armed out your ass with the best weaponry around (indeed, those .50s are what started trouble in the first place) and the government will still roll right over your ass in 10 seconds.

You think any amount of weaponry in the hands of students would stop the Chinese army?
I disagree at what you are trying to get at here. With out weapons, everyone in the country is defenseless if there is some sort of military coup, at least with weapons we have a chance, or at the least slow down what ever is going on until some other country can assist us.

[anyone]

You're right. I've never worked food service, but you can't honestly tell me that working the window at the local McD's is anywhere near as physical demanding as farmers, construction, military etc etc or as mentally challenging/stressful as a self employed family physician, business man, etc etc. I mean don't get me wrong. I'm happy that people are willing to work for their money. I just don't understand that arguement that this job is so physically/mentally taxing.

I'm delivering pizza/working in the kitchen of a pizza joint to pay my college expenses. One order isn't hard, but when you get a rush of orders around meal times... it kind of sucks. You have to move fast to keep the orders moving through and you have to maintain some degree of focus so that you keep multiple orders straight and so that you don't hurt anyone with hot or sharp implements. Food service isn't rocket science but working a full shift is definitely physically and mentally draining. It isn't the same kind of stress as an ER doctor faces, but it is still stress.

But I don't work at a national fast food chain where they have the computers that feed the orders to the appropriate stations.

[reaver]

The relevant point is that the gay people are ALREADY in the military, and they're all around you too. You just don't know it. Don't ask, don't tell is so god damn stupid.
I don't think its the best solotion but don't know what is. Your right gays are all around and people don't know. So. Do you think the military can just go around building them there own bedroom? So best just to leave it out. People would probably rather not know the guy next to them is looking at them funny. I am not saying all gay guys are like that. But I do know if I was bunking with women I would enjoy it.

[reaver]

I'm delivering pizza/working in the kitchen of a pizza joint to pay my college expenses. One order isn't hard, but when you get a rush of orders around meal times... it kind of sucks. You have to move fast to keep the orders moving through and you have to maintain some degree of focus so that you keep multiple orders straight and so that you don't hurt anyone with hot or sharp implements. Food service isn't rocket science but working a full shift is definitely physically and mentally draining. It isn't the same kind of stress as an ER doctor faces, but it is still stress.

But I don't work at a national fast food chain where they have the computers that feed the orders to the appropriate stations.
I worked in a pizza restraunt for two years. It was work, but not that heard. Messy and hot at times. Had more fun then any job I ever had too. Pretty much mindless work. Not really physically demanding, other then standing up for hours.

I think I deserved a little over min wage when I had been there awhile and gotten good at what I did, but that was it. I don't think I should have made enough to make a living.

[beastin v6]

Min wage jobs are ment for unskilled labor (high school kids). I agree that the min wage should be raised accordingly but you must remember that these jobs are not ment to raise a family with.

[BigNic]

Min wage jobs are ment for unskilled labor (high school kids). I agree that the min wage should be raised accordingly but you must remember that these jobs are not ment to raise a family with.
:withstupi

[MixmasterNash]

Min wage jobs are ment for unskilled labor (high school kids). I agree that the min wage should be raised accordingly but you must remember that these jobs are not ment to raise a family with.

Well, whatever they are "meant for," they are indeed obviously unsuitable for adults. It isn't a living wage, even if you work multiple jobs. Read "Nickle and Dimed" sometime.

What's really sad is that these low wages are basically a tool for corporations to receive government welfare. Walmart, because it doesn't pay its workers enough for them to be able to get healthcare, recommends that they go on Medicaid and other government welfare programs. We subsidize Walmart's profits. All full-time jobs should cover a living wage and healthcare, period. If they lose business and fire workers, fine. We'll support the worker with welfare. But it is ludicrous to be supporting walmart's 9 billion dollars in pure profit with our tax dollars. Boycott Walmart, go to Costco, which actually provides reasonable, affordable healthcare to it employees and SAVE US from paying the bill.

Back on topic, 4 more years of drinking and Vicodin.

[reaver]

Maybe we should just have a age limit, no one over 20 can work at min wage job.

[ElPietro]

This thread is for discussing the election and it's results, so bear that in mind. It's been pretty civil so good job for showing restraint. But try to stick on topic. Thanks. :)

[Tryska]

hmmm.....


http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/10103910.htm?1c

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A computer error with a voting machine cartridge gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in a Gahanna precinct.

Franklin County's unofficial results gave Bush 4,258 votes to Democratic challenger John Kerry's 260 votes in Precinct 1B. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct.

Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, said Bush received 365 votes there. The other 13 voters who cast ballots either voted for other candidates or did not vote for president.

[Focused70]

All right, Petey.

A couple of articles from the New York Times today that might be of interest:

Campaign 2004 Architect (Todd Purdam and David Kirkpatrick (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/politics/campaign/05rove.html)


Washington, November 4 -- Victory may have a thousand fathers, but if President Bush's triumph this week had a Big Daddy it was indisputably Karl Rove - the seer, strategist and serious student of politics and the presidency that a grateful Mr. Bush himself referred to as the architect of his winning campaign.

And with Mr. Bush's re-election, Mr. Rove has not only cemented his reputation as one of the canniest campaign gurus in a generation but has also put himself in position to shape second-term policies that could help realize his longtime goal of consolidating a broad Republican electoral majority for a generation to come.

"He is the master of the game," said a respectful Democratic rival, Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's campaign in 2000.

Mark McKinnon, Mr. Bush's chief media maven, said simply: "Karl lives up to his fiction. I think people tend to ascribe a lot of wisdom and genius to Karl, and a lot of it is true."

Over the past four years, Mr. Rove has made himself the face of the White House's outreach to the evangelical Protestants and other "people of faith" who may well have helped propel Mr. Bush to victory on Tuesday. Conservative leaders said he was unfailingly attentive to their concerns and complaints, even in the hectic final days and weeks of a campaign in which he counted on turning out the president's core supporters in big numbers.

"I'd send him an e-mail at 5 o'clock Sunday morning and would have an answer by 7:30," said Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation. "He never failed to respond, even when he was on Air Force One. I got swifter answers from him than I do from my own staff."

To most of the press and the broader public, Mr. Rove's fine hand has been more felt than seen. That was not true on Thursday when he good-naturedly mugged for the camera just before Mr. Bush began a news conference, popping up behind the CNN White House correspondent John King, who was broadcasting live and turned to ask, "See, Karl Rove, is he proud as a peacock?"

By the end of the day, Mr. Rove was not talking, but the consensus was that he was entitled to preen.

Bill McInturff, a veteran Republican pollster, noted that when he began work in party politics in 1980, "we were 14 points down from the Democrats on party identification among voters, a minority of minorities."

Now, Mr. McInturff said: "We have stable majorities in the House and Senate, a majority of governors and the American presidency for a second term. Is it time to declare victory and go home? No, but this is a transformation in a generation that was way beyond imagining when Ronald Reagan was first elected."

Unlike James Carville, who helped elect Bill Clinton, or Lee A****er, who was the first President Bush's political lieutenant, Mr. Rove works in the White House itself, and is the de facto domestic policy chief. His influence is presumed to extend to major and minor policy decisions, whether tax cuts or steel tariffs, stem-cell research or private investment accounts for Social Security.

He is the mastermind behind a campaigning and governing philosophy that puts a set of core policies in the service of politics to an unusually direct degree. Some elements of this approach are tonal and symbolic, while others - like a tax cut on dividends or a prescription drug benefit for Medicare - are more concrete.

"We have to pile up practical, real solutions in your life," said former Speaker Newt Gingrich, himself no slouch at consolidating Republican power. "So that you believe we are the right governing majority because we are delivering what you want."

William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, said Mr. Rove's singular achievement had been not merely mobilizing the Republicans' conservative base but recognizing that issues usually thought of as socially conservative could also help attract swing voters, like Roman Catholics and Latinos, who may like social welfare programs but oppose abortion and same-sex marriage.

"Swing voters are not socially moderate voters," Mr. Kristol said. "Swing voters are conflicted voters."

Mr. Rove's role model is Mark Hanna, the Ohio power-broker who helped William McKinley win the White House in 1896 - and Republican domination of Washington until the New Deal - by moving beyond the party's natural big-business base to appeal to Northeastern and Midwestern immigrants and city dwellers who were afraid of labor unrest and alienated by that era's fire and brimstone agrarian Democrats.

One of McKinley's biographers, Margaret Leech, wrote that Hanna, "cynical in his acceptance of contemporary political practices," was "drawn to McKinley's idealistic standards like a hardened man of the world who becomes infatuated with virgin innocence." Mr. Rove has known the president for more than 30 years, and associates detect a similar dynamic at work.

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, first met Mr. Rove in the late 1970's when both were seeking to revive the Texas Republican Party, Dr. Land as an opponent of abortion and Mr. Rove as a political consultant and direct-mail expert. Mr. Rove did not drink noticeably or use profanity, Dr. Land said, but neither did he appear to be particularly attuned to religion.

"I actually think the president has impacted Karl Rove more than Karl Rove has influenced the president," Dr. Land said. "Karl is much more serious about things of faith than he was when I first knew him, and I think that is the result of George W. Bush."

While Mr. Rove presided over weekend campaign staff meetings over home-cooked bacon and eggs at his house in Northwest Washington, he has been careful - like Hanna - to give full credit to his boss for devising their winning strategy.

"The president said in December 2002 that he did not want to make the mistake that incumbent presidential candidates always found it easy to make, which was to raise money, make the TV ads and fly around the country in the big blue bird," Mr. Rove said in a phone conversation on Wednesday. "He said we won in 2000 and 2002 because we had the energy of our grass-roots volunteers all over the country."

It was Mr. Rove who proposed plunging Mr. Bush into Congressional contests two years ago, and the move produced striking midterm gains. It was Mr. Rove and his colleagues Mark Mehlman and Matthew Dowd who devised this general election strategy and organized a network of 1.4 million volunteers to draw out Republican voters in crucial battlegrounds on Tuesday.

Mr. Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation said that at a private meeting with conservative activists early this year, Mr. Rove outlined his and the president's goals for the campaign: winning the popular vote decisively, adding to the Republican majorities in Congress, and increasing Mr. Bush's share of the vote among Roman Catholic, Hispanic and black voters. He achieved all but attracting more black votes, despite the Democrats' own concerted and partly successful efforts to increase voter turnout, Mr. Weyrich said.

Some Republicans, including some in the Bush circle who have spoken only on condition of anonymity for fear of angering Mr. Rove, have expressed concern that Mr. Rove risked alienating moderate voters by appealing so hard to the president's conservative base on questions like same-sex marriage and abortion. But Mr. Rove rejects the notion that the president's appeal is narrow.

"Fifty-eight million people," he said, referring to Mr. Bush's popular vote tally on Tuesday. "In 1996 Bill Clinton got 47 million votes. Al Gore got 50 million. This president got 58 million. Now, are you suggesting we got that by appealing to a very small, narrow base?"

Mr. Rove is a font of historical parallels, precinct vote tallies and big ideas, and is disinclined to suffer fools, dissent or disloyalty. Mr. Weyrich said Mr. Rove called to chew him out for publicly criticizing the number of moderates scheduled to speak at the Republican National Convention this summer, and Mr. Weyrich later recanted that criticism.

"He is a Christian man, but he is what I call a tough Christian," said the Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority. "I have heard him on a telephone talking to some powerful people and explaining to them how the cow eats corn," which Dr. Falwell described as "a Southern way of saying, 'Don't do that again.' "

Four years ago, when he spoke of creating a Republican realignment in government at all levels, Mr. Rove had no inkling that the Sept. 11 attacks and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would transform Mr. Bush into a wartime president, with costly burdens and big commitments in foreign policy that have produced a drag on his approval ratings and limited his attention to domestic problems.

Even now, Mr. Rove will have to hope for some greater degree of stability in Iraq if Mr. Bush is to pursue ambitious but still sketchy proposals for overhauling the tax code and Social Security. Soon enough, the midterm elections will limit Mr. Bush's political options and the jockeying among Republican contenders for the White House in 2008 will begin.

Such contenders include Mr. Rove's friend Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader.

But even if a newcomer has his or her own muse to play Mr. Rove's role, Grover R. Norquist, president of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform, said, "The muse and the candidate would be wise to spend as much quality time as Karl can spend with them."

Stash

[Focused70]

And this:

A Coalition of the Willing (Laurie Goodstein and William Yardley) (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/politics/campaign/05religion.html)


If a White House photographer with a keen eye for American religious trends were documenting President Bush's moves the past four years, here are some snapshots that would show up in a retrospective album:

The president framed by a nun and a cardinal on a visit to an urban Roman Catholic school; the president screening a Holocaust film in the White House one evening with a small group of Jewish leaders he had invited over; the president bowing his head before addressing an evangelical congregation.

For the past four years, Mr. Bush has been deliberately assembling the building blocks of a formidable faith coalition. Pastor by pastor, rabbi by rabbi, and often face to face, Mr. Bush has built relationships with a diverse range of religious leaders.

The payoff came on Tuesday. For all the credit claimed by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush owes his victory to a formula that includes conservative Catholics, mainline Protestants, Hispanics, Jews and Mormons.

The president's strategists set out to improve his showing among not just evangelicals, but also Catholics, Jews, Hispanics and African-Americans by appealing to the social conservatives in each of those groups who felt alienated and disrespected by a popular culture that in their minds trivializes religion. In all of those groups, he won more of them over than he did four years ago, although the increase among African-Americans was negligible.

The pivotal group may have been Catholics, who make up 27 percent of voters. According to surveys of voters conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, the president improved his showing by five percentage points among Catholics, from 47 percent in the 2000 election to 52 percent this year. In Ohio, where the Bush campaign sent thousands of field workers to Catholic churches, the margin was 55 percent to 43 percent for Senator John Kerry.

"In both Ohio and Florida, the Catholic vote helped carry the president across the finish line," said Leonard Leo, a Catholic adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

Mr. Kerry, the first Catholic on a major party ticket since 1960, fared worse among Catholics than Al Gore did in 2000, Mr. Leo pointed out. "It's a pretty big sea change,'' he said. "In 2004, you have a Catholic running on a Democratic ticket, and he garners less Catholic support than the president, who is a Methodist. And this in the middle of a war where some Catholics are not with the president."

The president also did better among Hispanic voters: from 35 percent in 2000 to 44 percent in 2004. There are more Hispanic voters now than there were four years ago (going from 6 to 8 percent of the electorate), and many of them are either Catholic or evangelical. Among Hispanic evangelicals, 60 percent voted for the president; among Hispanic Catholics it was 39 percent (a lesser share than among Catholics as a whole).

The Jewish vote is small - 3 percent of the electorate. But after focusing attention on Jews in swing states like Florida, Ohio, Missouri and, when it looked competitive, New Jersey, the president increased his share of the Jewish vote from 19 percent in 2000 to 25 percent this year. Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, found that more than two-thirds of Orthodox Jews voted for the president.

"What this suggests is that the Bush coalition wasn't just evangelicals," said John C. Green, a professor of political science and director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. "It included a much larger group of more traditional religious people, many of them outside of the evangelical tradition. What they have in common is that all of these groups tend to hold traditional views on sexual behavior."

Voters who identified themselves as white born-again or evangelical Christians made up 23 percent of voters this year. Seventy-eight percent of them voted for the president - clearly an increase over the 2000 election (but it is unclear by how much, since the question used to identify evangelicals in surveys of voters leaving the polls was asked differently four years ago, making a direct comparison impossible). Professor Green said his polling showed an increase in the evangelical vote for President Bush from 71 percent in 2000 to 76 percent this year.

African-Americans were the only constituency that did not respond in great numbers to the Bush campaign's overtures, said Tony Carnes, a sociologist at Columbia University who polls religious leaders.

He and several black ministers said in interviews that while Republicans were making inroads with appeals to biblical teaching on gay marriage and abortion, it was a hard sell within this traditionally Democratic voting bloc. "The pew is not yet voting Republican; it's the church leaders," he said.

Four years ago, said Mike Hightower, chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign in six northeast Florida counties, some religious conservatives may have been wary of Mr. Bush. Some may have been put off by news late in the 2000 campaign that he had once been arrested for drunken driving.

"In these four years, they have come to understand that this is a man of great, deep faith, and on that they all agree," Mr. Hightower said. "They saw a man who didn't just talk about being a religious person but lives it out."

He noted that when Republicans in Jacksonville first viewed a commercial showing a girl who said the president comforted her after she lost a parent on Sept. 11, "You will not believe the men and women who wept in my office. That to me is one of the high moments of the campaign."

Outside the sprawling, multiblock downtown complex that is the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, a two-word chorus emerged from people on their way to the 6:30 worship service on Wednesday evening.

"Moral values."

Terry Lee, 52, an insurance salesman, said it. So did Reecia Harrell, a "50-something" kindergarten teacher. Same for Laura Hurse, a 20-year-old nursing student.

All white, all Republican, all Bush supporters, each offered the answer immediately when asked what had driven their vote for the president. And each cited the president's positions on a trinity of social issues - abortion, same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research.

But Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, warned against placing too much emphasis on "values voters.''

He noted that the percentages of voters who said they attended church once a week or opposed abortion were no greater than four years ago. In addition, a surprising 60 percent of voters said they favored some kind of legal recognition for same-sex couples, with 25 percent favoring marriage rights, and 35 percent favoring civil unions. Thirty-seven percent told pollsters that same-sex couples should not be granted any form of legal recognition.

Mr. Kohut also questioned whether the anti-gay-marriage initiatives that were on the ballot in 11 states helped galvanize conservative religious voters to vote for the president. After all, he said, Mr. Kerry won both Michigan and Oregon, two swing states where gay marriage propositions were on the ballot.

"After reading the newspapers this morning, we're getting a little carried away with the cultural and religious interpretation of this election," Mr. Kohut said. "It was a vote to some extent on values, but it was also a vote on John Kerry and how the American public felt about the way President Bush handled the war on terrorism."

Further, the religious alignment could splinter over particular policy issues, however. On abortion and stem cell research, evangelicals and traditionalist Catholics are opposed, while Orthodox Jews are not.

"There are differences,'' said Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. "It is not just that we are evangelicals who read our Bible right to left. But what is in common is an appreciation for the role that religious faith plays in a person's life and in the life of a community.''

Ok, now discuss. ;)

Stash

[galileo]

hmmm.....


http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/10103910.htm?1c

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A computer error with a voting machine cartridge gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in a Gahanna precinct.

Franklin County's unofficial results gave Bush 4,258 votes to Democratic challenger John Kerry's 260 votes in Precinct 1B. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct.

Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, said Bush received 365 votes there. The other 13 voters who cast ballots either voted for other candidates or did not vote for president.


I knew these ****ing electronic voting systems would be a problem. They didn't seem to be very well tested or secure, from the new reports. I'd say if they were well tested, they'll be 100% better than the paper deal, but they're not. How ****ing sad is it that one of the most important decisions in the country is assisted by non-validated machines?

If those ****ers were controlled by FDA regulations, they'd sure be tested well.

[Tryska]

Instead, Diebold is a fairly large contributor to the Republican party.


coincedence? i think not.


this is an interestign site if you want to delve deeperinto this:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/


there's also this one:

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

[ElPietro]

Have they identified instances where these machines made errors in favour of Kerry?

I'm just wondering if people are trying to say that the machines simply aren't 100% reliable, or if the machines were rigged purposefully in favour of Bush. Obviously these are completely different arguments.

[Tryska]

I'm not sure either way.


I'd love to believe purposefully rigged, because the mathematics jsut doesn't pan out for me, but until there's proof, i won't commit.

And in any case, even if it were true, what then? The dust settles, the numbers prove to be in Kerry's favor, and Bush stays in office. Just like last time.

[MixmasterNash]

As someone who has formally studied computer science and built computers for over a decade, I can simply say that electronic voting machines are a BAD idea.

Pen and paper. Hand counting. That is all.

[GrumpyTX]

You know, I am not very political but people need to think of the consequences of electing Kerry to office and him pulling all the troops out of the current wars.

You think the world hates the US now, they would be appalled at the US if we were to pull out. Heres why:

These countries governments are in disarray, therefore civil war would break out in an attempt to seize government power. All assistance from the civilian workers who are trying to rebuild what was destroyed would be gone and for a 3rd world country, this is a substantial setback on their rebuilding of the country. Medical supplies and assistance with food would be pulled back, therefore even more people would be starving or dying. The economies are already **** now, but if a civil war was to break out, the import and export would certainly decline if not stop. The armies of these countries are poorly equipped and would not be able to defend against a large uprising.


I am not saying Bush was the best candidate, again I am not very political, but he had to stay in office at least to try to finish what he started or at least try to find a peaceful solution. I am not arguing if the war was right or wrong or if the US should pull out, all I am saying is that if the US was to drop there current activities, the outcome would be a disaster for the countries involved as well as the outlook of the rest of the world on the US.

The US is already being hated by many countries/factions for starting the war. Imagine now what the world would think if the US just up and pulled out leaving the country in its current condition.

Just something to think about.

[MixmasterNash]

1) Kerry was not going to pull out of Iraq. Did Fox tell you otherwise? His plan was basically the same as Dubya's.

2) Basically, the entire world already hates us. A strong majority in our closest ally, Britain, is opposed to the war and want to pull out. If 100% of people hate us already, how can we make any more enemies?

[BigNic]

imo, almost all foreign policy would be the exact same with either man in office. The main differences in the two men is primarily fiscal issues, and power being brought to the national government, or spread to the state govs

[GrumpyTX]

It is just food for thought. Many individuals, news correspondents, public opinion, etc has mentioned that Kerry would have ended the war. He opposed the war and he would pull out the troops. I was just giving another way to look at the outcome of the involved countries instead of everyone worrying about what the world thinks of the US being involved in the war. The world would think alot worse if the US was to pull out.

[Paul Stagg]

Kerry was not against the war, nor would he have pulled the troops out.

[Tryska]

does anyone know where this came from? I need to know who wrote this, because i will give them my vote from now on......


November 03, 2004
Concession Speech

My fellow Americans, the people of this nation have spoken, and spoken with a clear voice. So I am here to offer my concession.

Boos, groans, rending of garments

I concede that I overestimated the intelligence of the American people. Though the people disagree with the President on almost every issue, you saw fit to vote for him. I never saw that coming. That's really special. And I mean "special" in the sense that we use it to describe those kids who ride the short school bus and find ways to injure themselves while eating pudding with rubber spoons. That kind of special.

I concede that I misjudged the power of hate. That's pretty powerful stuff, and I didn't see it. So let me take a moment to congratulate the President's strategists: Putting the gay marriage amendments on the ballot in various swing states like Ohio... well, that was just genius. Genius. It got people, a certain kind of people, to the polls. The unprecedented number of folks who showed up and cited "moral values" as their biggest issue, those people changed history. The folks who consider same sex marriage a more important issue than war, or terrorism, or the economy... Who'd have thought the election would belong to them? Well, Karl Rove did. Gotta give it up to him for that.

Boos.

Now, now. Credit where it's due.

I concede that I put too much faith in America's youth. With 8 out of 10 of you opposing the President, with your friends and classmates dying daily in a war you disapprove of, with your future being mortgaged to pay for rich old peoples' tax breaks, you somehow managed to sit on your asses and watch the Cartoon Network while aging homophobic hillbillies carried the day. You voted with the exact same anemic percentage that you did in 2000. You suck. Seriously, y'do.

Cheers, applause

Thank you. Thank you very much.

There are some who would say that I sound bitter, that now is the time for healing, to bring the nation together. Let me tell you a little story. Last night, I watched the returns come in with some friends here in Los Angeles. As the night progressed, people began to talk half-seriously about secession, a red state / blue state split. The reasoning was this: We in blue states produce the vast majority of the wealth in this country and pay the most taxes, and you in the red states receive the majority of the money from those taxes while complaining about 'em. We in the blue states are the only ones who've been attacked by foreign terrorists, yet you in the red states are gung ho to fight a war in our name. We in the blue states produce the entertainment that you consume so greedily each day, while you in the red states show open disdain for us and our values. Blue state civilians are the actual victims and targets of the war on terror, while red state civilians are the ones standing behind us and yelling "Oh, yeah!? Bring it on!"

More than 40% of you Bush voters still believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I'm impressed by that, truly I am. Your sons and daughters who might die in this war know it's not true, the people in the urban centers where al Qaeda wants to attack know it's not true, but those of you who are at practically no risk believe this easy lie because you can. As part of my concession speech, let me say that I really envy that luxury. I concede that.

Healing? We, the people at risk from terrorists, the people who subsidize you, the people who speak in glowing and respectful terms about the heartland of America while that heartland insults and excoriates us... we wanted some healing. We spoke loud and clear. And you refused to give it to us, largely because of your high moral values. You knew better: America doesn't need its allies, doesn't need to share the burden, doesn't need to unite the world, doesn't need to provide for its future. Hell no. Not when it's got a human shield of pointy-headed, atheistic, unconfrontational breadwinners who are willing to pay the bills and play nice in the vain hope of winning a vote that we can never have. Because we're "morally inferior," I suppose, we are supposed to respect your values while you insult ours. And the big joke here is that for 20 years, we've done just that.

It's not a "ha-ha" funny joke, I realize, but it's a joke all the same. Being an independent candidate gives me one luxury - as well as conceding the election today, I am also announcing my candidacy for President in 2008.

Wild applause, screams, chants

Thank you.

And I make this pledge to you today: THIS time, next time, there will be no pandering. This time I will run with all the open and joking contempt for my opponents that our President demonstrated towards the cradle of liberty, the Ivy League intellectuals, the "media elite," and the "white-wine sippers." This time I will not pretend that the simple folk of America know just as much as the people who devote their lives to serving and studying the nation and the world. They don't.

So that's why I'm asking for your vote in 2008, America. I'm talking to you, you ignorant, slack-jawed yokels, you bible-thumping, inbred drones, you redneck, racist, chest-thumping, perennially duped grade-school grads. Vote for me, because I know better, and I truly believe that I can help your smug, sorry asses. Vote ______ in '08! Thank you, and may God, if he does in fact exist, bless each and every one of you.

Tumultuous cheers, applause, and foot-stomping. PULL BACK to reveal the rest of the stage, the row of cameras, hundreds of unoccupied chairs, and the empty field beyond.

[SalahG]

I'm not sure either way.


I'd love to believe purposefully rigged, because the mathematics jsut doesn't pan out for me, but until there's proof, i won't commit.

And in any case, even if it were true, what then? The dust settles, the numbers prove to be in Kerry's favor, and Bush stays in office. Just like last time.Kerry needed a lot more than that. Bush won by quite a margin.

[Tryska]

okay.

[GrumpyTX]

See why I am not very political. I didnt pay that much attention. I did hear and read a couple items about Kerry putting an end to the war, but I dont recall how long ago that was. :bang:

Sorry, I will leave the thread up to those who paid attention.

[greekboy80]

i hope he did'nt say that.

[Gyno Rhino]

Tina, you are such a smart lady.

That's why I don't understand the way you've been posting about this election. You call out the Bush-Nazis as being fascist - which they are. But more than anyone else, you blindly seem to promote Kerry like he's the Messiah.

What's up with this? Do you really like Kerry this much, or is it more that you hate Bush so much? I'm just at a loss. Early on in the election proceedings, you were much more even handed - now it's just extreme Kerry promotion, using the same kind of sources that you'd ridicule a Bush supporter for. What's going on?

[SalahG]

Tina, you are such a smart lady.

That's why I don't understand the way you've been posting about this election. You call out the Bush-Nazis as being fascist - which they are. But more than anyone else, you blindly seem to promote Kerry like he's the Messiah.

What's up with this? Do you really like Kerry this much, or is it more that you hate Bush so much? I'm just at a loss. Early on in the election proceedings, you were much more even handed - now it's just extreme Kerry promotion, using the same kind of sources that you'd ridicule a Bush supporter for. What's going on?The USA will not become a facist state, and supporters of Bush aren't Nazi's.

[Gyno Rhino]

You just don't give up, do you?

Where in my post did it say the U.S. was a fascist state? And where did I say that supporters of Bush are Nazis?

Read again and apply logic. I said "Bush-Nazis". Not "all Bush voters are Nazis". There are also "Kerry-Nazis" out there.

[Focused70]

Kerry needed a lot more than that. Bush won by quite a margin.

He won by 3,509,257 votes or 3.01% of the popular vote.

Not exactly a landslide in my opinion.

Also: Bush claims he has a mandate. I'm sorry but if he had won by a larger margin, he *might* have a mandate. As it stands now, what he has is a clear answer by the people that America's domestic problems have far greater weight than a war of dubious origin.

Stash

[Tryska]

dude, kerry lost the election. it's not about him anymore.

now it's all about figuring out how to never let this happen again. i'm angry, that i'm having religion crammed down my throat, and morals decided for me, by a bunch of hateful fundamentalists.


i'm pissed off that while i'm standing up and speaking out as much as i can about the craziness that's been going on since 9/11, i'm the one that gets insulted and labeled a commie america-hater by people who are happy to let other people die for their beliefs, but won't get off their asses, because their too busy i dunno, going to church or soemthing.


i'm utterly disgusted.

and i've played nice, and i've played rational, and i've played politically correct, while people insulted me, using all the labels under my title, as well as many more, i ain't takin' it anymore. i can be just as rude and ignorant and simple-minded as anyone else here, or elsewhere.

if you're a bigot, i'm gonna call you a bigot.

if you're an idiot, i'll let you know you're an idiot

if you're a hypocrite - guess what, i'm not afraid to say it - you're a damn hypocrite.

you want me to lend you a hand? f*ck you, be self-reliant.

the people made their choices, let 'em deal with it.

i'm angry and i'm disgusted.

[Gyno Rhino]

Tina - your PM box is full.