I mean it. Seriously. I have had it up to here with the damn tv commericials, the lying spin, the incessant ramblings of the talking heads, the spinners, the brylcreme boys and hairsprayed, helmet-haired harridans.

LET IT END!

This is why I'm glad I live in a country that bans political TV ads

This too shall pass

Not for awhile. I mean, this election will end, but the mood in Washington will linger until folks do something about it.

Almost, thank grife.

We didn't have very many of those nasty commercials until the last few weeks and I'm already so sick of the accusations and outright falsehoods I could scream.
I swear, if I were gay I would be SO pissed off right now. The innuendo, the smears, the downright disgusting slander and the attempt at marginalizing 1/10th of the population has me boiling mad.
-heh- I guess I'm pissed after all.

I'm rather looking forward to excercising my civic duty tomorrow.

While I can't vote, since I've never become a U.S. citizen, I'm on pins and needles. For sure, I will be glued to the television until the wee hours of the morning.

This is a weird coincidence but there were 3 American kids and their dad on the same bus as me tonight. (What they were doing in Hackney is a mystery - it aint too tourist friendly!) Anyway, they were about 8 to 10 years old and this kid piped up with "at our school election we all voted for Bush - coz Kerry wants to make men marry men."

Yikes! I hope the grown ups had a better grip of "the issues".

Let's all hope so CK. Tomorrow's the day. I plan to get to the poll in the early AM so I can get my part done as early as possible. Here in Redneckville I don't expect to have to worry too much about incredibly long lines but it never hurts to be prepared.

I'm sure they didn't. Kids that young get that stuff straight from the mouth of Mommy and Daddy, for good or for ill.

I'm voting early as well. I hope to get it done quickly and then not worry about the results for the rest of the day.

The presidential election won't be over tomorrow night, because of three of the most fearsome words in the English language:

Twenty thousand lawyers.

Deployed by both wings of the War Party, all around the country. If we have a resolution by Thanksgiving, it'll be a miracle. And, like in 2000, it'll be both entertaining and horrifying.

In a scene reminiscent of Leslie Neilsen in Airplane, Faraway opens the door

“All of us here in Britain just want to say to you voters, well done; we are all counting on you”


Closes door.

SIgn in here once you've voted! I'm leaving here shortly to excercise my right to be late for work to vote!

I voted.

Not only that, i got to watch as a democratic "watcher" passed over her papers and prepared to watch for "voting irregularity".

I certainly voted irregularly. Lets see, I voted normal for pres/vice pres. and the open Hollings seat in senate, and then i voted for bill the cat, daffy duck, Rob Everybody for country treasurer...the list goes on.

(Don't worry, my write-ins wont have any effect, the dems in a highly gerrymandered state are running unopposed.

Now to all the candidates...SHUT THE HELL UP!

I voted!

I expected to be challenged, actually, as I am known to side with folks who want to oust a local corrupt judge. But I wasn't.

Had to resist a last-minute impulse (no pun intended) to vote for Nader again... when the 'blame Nader' Democrats climb on their legless horses, they piss me off.

Bah! Didn't get to vote yet-- my precinct is different now. Will have to do it after work.

Being in America all last week made me realise how glad I am that here in the UK there are *very* strict rules about electioneering. All the TV ads made me so bloody cross. Not that there were millions of them, that i could just about cope with, but the fact that every single one of themm just laid into the opponent and tried to smear them. Not one of them said anything positive about the candidate they were speaking for (and we're talking the Presidential and the senate elections here) or had anything to do with their policies or anything. They were little more than votriolic attacks on other candidates that didn't tell you anything at all about the people they wanted you to vote for. I just don't understand the point. Surely politicians should be elected because of what they stand for, because you agree with them, because you think they will make a better state/country/world/whatever *not* because the other guy is a corrupt bastard. What depresses me most about that is that the majority of the population will only ever see those smeer campaigns. Much as it galls me to admit it most people (and I'm not talking just about the US here) don't watch news programmes or political debates or anything like that, but they do watch TV ad breaks and as such probably the majority of Americans will base their decisions on these pernicious little attacks rather than what the candidates stand for. It's not that the US voters are stupid or anything, just that if that's the standard of the electioneering then the majority are going to be woefully uninformed.

Here in the UK all parties are very closely goverened as to what they can and can't say. The kind of half-turths and negative spin that the US ads are filled with would never be allowed here. Sure you get attacks from all sides about everyone else, but the majority of it is about what said party will actually *do*. It's about information rather than disinformation, which seems to be severely lacking in the US. I'm not saying that the political system here is perfect, or that the system in the US is awful, just the way that electioneering is done in the US really got me wound up.

All that being said I do hope as many people as possible vote. Regardless of whether you are one of the groups that has been completely ignored by both parties (gay, black, women, working class, poor... uh, everyone apart from middle to upper class white men really. ) it's your chance to make a difference. Personally I want to see the back of Bush as soon as possible (not that Kerry is exactly an angel mind...) but as long as you vote you're doing your bit.

Oh, and one more thing about political coverage in the US, does anyone actually believe Fox News? I've never seen such a pile of partisan drivel from a supposedly impartial news station before. Most of the others (CNN and so on, including the smaller local stations) were pretty much even and seemed to be reporting the facts fairly evenly but Fox should really have just sat there and said 'yeah, OK, we're part of the BUsh campaign, live with it' and at least then everyone would know where they stand.

Went to vote this morning, but there were like 200 people in line OUTSIDE of the building! I hope this means that more people are voting than ever before in my short life!

Will vote after work!

Waiting 2 months for the new Legion #1 is already too much for me; at least I hope the name of the next president will be known sooner!

In a scene reminiscent of Leslie Neilsen in Airplane, Faraway opens the door

“All of us here in Britain just want to say to you voters, well done; we are all counting on you”


Closes door.

I voted on the way home from work this morning. The polling place was pretty much empty when I went in, but it was outside the normal rush times so I wasn't too surprised.

God, I'll be so glad when this is over, mainly because of the local race for an open Congressional seat. The two candidates have spent the better part of the last six months running probably the most negative campaign I've ever seen at this level. After all this time I *still* have no idea what either candidate actually plans to do if elected, just how much of a schmuck they think the other candidate is. I've gotten so sick of it I was actually hoping there'd be a third party candidate running just so I wouldn't have to vote for either of the major paty idiots. There wasn't, of course, so I just skipped that line on the ballot entirely. Neither of them earned my vote.

It was kind of funny though, as I was pulling up in front of the polling place I heard a friend of mine call in to the radio morning show I listen to, and basically let the DJ's decide who he would vote for in the Presidential Election with a coin toss (it came up tails-Kerry, BTW).

Hey Bevis,

Totally agree with you. All election campaign commericals are total smear jobs aganist the other. It is freaking terrible.

And about FOX news, you are right on. I actually use that as a barometer when meeting people. If they like Fox news and thinks that they are "fair and balanced" I know that we will not get along that well. If Fox news is not more pro bush then I am a Monkey Eater Lad's Uncle! I can't stand Fox News and people who defend it as being unbias and that it is not pro bush!

Aww you're just sore that being fair and balanced naturally leads one to be supportive of Bush.

Seeriously I am happy today for Election Day. The biggest reason is that the school I teach at is used as a voting precinct so I get the day off!!! But as far as the negativity goes between the two sides, it is an unfortunate side effect of freedom of speech. I am tired of all ofthe recorded messages on my answering machine, though.

Super Lad Kid.

Let me add something to clarify. I would have no probelm with FOX news if they came out and side that they want to represent the "Right" and that they are a conservative news station. I wouldn't have a problem if they came out and said that they are Pro-Bush. I have no problem with any of that. What I do have a problem with is their denial that they are not conservative and they are a news service. When a majority of their commentators are know conservative commentators or have written books (Ann Coultler and that other guy) with a conservative bent then how can they say that they aren't bias? How can they say that their personal beliefs aren't effecting the way they are reporting the news?

Now I will get off my soapbox.

I voted this morning and I am so glad the election is almost over.

I'll also be going after work. We in America like to think that our system is superior to all others, but the more I hear about other democratic countries, the less I like the way we do it. No bullshit smear ads? A fine if you don't vote? No stupid goddamn electoral college? It's hard not to think that those in power (not just Bush, but ALL the rich old white guys) wouldn't all be much happier if we still had the good old rules--if you're not a white Christian property owner, take off.

I voted at lunch. I'm here in Northern Virginia and all the newsies are reporting heavy voter turnout and two hour waits. Me and my wife were in and out in less than 10 minutes. I don't know what the newsies are talking about.

Thanks Bevis... You saying CNN and other (I'm assuming ABC, NBC, and CBS at this point) news agencies are even handed was one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

Don't get me started on CNN... they are very biased towards the left. Anybody who says different, probably isn't interested in hearing both sides anyway. If I do watch the news, it's usually Good Morning America on ABC. I haven't watched Fox news with any regularity, but I will say that they live up to fair and balanced better than CNN or any of the big three networks.

Really if Fox were so enamored with conservative reporting, there is no way they'd have Alan Colmes on every night debating the liberal side on a show he co-hosts. Can you name one conservative debater that CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC put on every night with their own show?

I've listened to all sides in this country for awhile. I used to listen to Rush, but grew tired of his high falootin' attitude. I used to listen to Alan Colmes when he was on the radio back in the early nineties and his radio graphitti segments. I've never really listened to Hannity's radio show. I listen to G Gordon about once a month these days, but that's mainly because I'm an old military dog myself. I'm telling you this so you don't just say, "He's defending Fox News, he must be evil." I've listened to all sides and will continue to do so. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth, but don't kid yourself into thinking that CNN and the other three networks are even handed.

Uh, Colmes does not defend the liberal side on that show. He is only there to be Hannity's manufactured and scripted whipping boy. So congratulations. Rupert Murdoch has won again.

I'm not saying the other news networks are evenhanded, but Fox is nothing but thinly-disguised propaganda. After the last debate, they went on for HOURS about Mary Cheney, and how Kerry was such a horrible, horrible man for bringing her sexuality into the debate... the unsaid implication, of course, that being a lesbian is such a horrible, shameful thing.

If FOX news wants to impress upon me their fair, balanced ways, let them give Al Franken a 2-hour show on primetime. Then we'll see. Colmes is NOT evidence of evenhanded journalism. He's a placebo, manufactured to make people feel better about themselves as they absorb Fox's right-wing-rhetoric-as-actual-news.

I hate Fox News more than Go-Bots.

Wow! Now those are some pretty strong wrods coming from you.

I have to agree with you on this Prime. How about the time Ann Coutler was on the Today Show to promote her first book where she called Couric the liberals Eva Braun? I happened to be scanning the news channels that day and saw Coutler being "interviewd" on FOX news about an hour after the today show interview. What did they talk about? Was it some important news topic for the day? Was it the book? Was it the interview that Coutler had just finished on NBC?

No, it was about what Couric was wearing!

Whatever Fox News. What don't you make another montage of night time bombings aganist Irag and put some classical music behind so we can all have fun watching it!

all of the Big Nedia are corporate puppets -- thinly coated with 'flavoring' to be painted in degrees of 'liberal'.

I have never seen any newscast in the US that doesn't cowtow to the established power structure to some degree--- a true opposing view is ALWAYS lacking.

You and I will never agree on this point. I may not agree with Mr. Colmes too often, but I give him a little more credit than just being Hannity's side kick and/or whipping boy.

Not only does Colmes defend the liberal side, he has been a long standing champion. The fact remains that he is on Fox every night with his own show and the freedom to talk about what he wants to talk about... and that message is pro-liberal and anti-conservative. I still can't think of a pro conservative that is on air every night with his own show on the other networks. Al Franken could get a 2 hour show on any of the other networks, any night of the week and twice on Sundays. Quite frankly I think he'd have a better chance of getting a show on Fox than G. Gordon would have of getting his own show on CNN or NBC or the likes.

Fox is more fair and balanced than CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC. That doesn't take much and it doesn't mean that they are completely fair and balanced either.

It is important to have both sides represented through mass media. Whether you like it or not and whether I like it or not, the people of this country are better off hearing both sides than what passed for media coverage for darn near forty years in this country. From the 1950's to the early 1990's the mass media reported regularly how evil conservatives wanted to starve children and make the elderly sick. That is patently ridiculous and I am glad that they can not get away with that type of "reporting" anymore without being called on it.

I went to the polling place at 6:40 do be early in line, only to find out that the custodian of the building hadn't shown up, so even the volunteers working the polls weren't able to get in. Finally, another guy showed up at 7:15 to open the doors, and we still had to wait another 30 minutes for them to get set up. Most everyone stayed in good spirits, even though it was raining...of course, there were some conspiracy theories going around, since we're a mostly Kerry neighborhood...LOL!

Heh heh heh. OK, now it's my time to snigger. Do you *really* believe that? OK, so the other stations do have a more liberal bias from what I saw (and bear in mind that on satellite TV here the only American news channels we have are Fox and CNN so I only have a very little experience of the other networks) but Fox being more balanced and fair? That's just one of the biggest jokes I've ever heard. However as RTVU2 says, it's more about the fact that they claim to be so unbiased while being so blatantly for one side that bugs me. They may have liberal viewpoints but while we were there they pretty much completely ignored the whole thing about the missing explosives in Iraq (regardless of whose fault that was, and most of the other networks were also questioning Kerry's glee at that piece of news) and were still banging on about Kerry and Cheney's daughter as if he'd actually said something awful (and again as has been said the implication not being that it was really awful that Kerry was vicously attacking Cheney's family but how awful it was for him to actually remind everyone of Cheney's shameful daughter).

It's something we'll probably have to agree to disagree on, but it just makes me laugh how pitiful Fox news is. Not just in the election though, generally too. One of the most piss poor news channels I have ever seen. But then again it's owned and ruled over with an insane iron rod by Murdoch, one of the most disturbing and disturbed men to ever get a grip on the media system. (Excuse me, I'm going off on one again. I'll shush now.)

Jack

Minesurfer, I guess it is all about degrees. I would have to say CNN is fairly liberal-when compared to FOX News. But then you can say Fox News is fairly conservative compared to CNN. Two sides of the same coin. I think both points of view are valid and that we need both points of views out there so everyone can make their choice. So we can agree on that point.

My problem goes to the Fox slogan of being fair and balanced. Because I don't think they are. Fox seems to actively support Bush and actively dismiss any stories that come against him or the Iraq War. They seem to want to discredit Democrats and attack others that aren't pro-government. All their news story about any item that is not favorable to bush or his policies seem to have a tinge of doubt in their readings and that they aren't willing to explore the validity of the stories at all.

It's that slogan that gets me every time. I have no problem with FOX coming down on any liberal (which they happen to do a lot), but to say that it is fair and balance is subjective and inaccurate. No news station can be fair and balanced, as hard as they try to be. Every station is going to have some inherent bias –left or right. But for FOX news to say that they are fair and balance is what irks me.

And the funny thing about Colmes—I always thought he was fairly conservative.

Oh, gawd. I forgot to add that the local NBC channel was filming all of us locked out of the voting place, and a friend just emailed me that he saw me on TV. Eeeeek!

Is Tennessee goign to replace Florida this year?

It totally wouldn't surprise me, RTVU2. It's been ugly here...in my neighborhood alone, someone went around spray painting swastikas on the Bush signs in people's yards. Not that I like Bush AT ALL, but that's still not cool.

Minesurfer, Colmes does NOT have his own show. It's Hannity's show. Colmes draws a paycheck to present a milquetoast somewhat-moderate view which Hannity can easily torch without much thought or effort. The entire show is designed to make liberals (or anyone who doesn't share Hannity's views) look foolish.

Don't even get me started on Ann Coulter.

You have the right to your opinions regarding Fox News, but I'm not going to sit here and let blanket statements about how Fox News is more fair and balanced than other news organizations go while they continue to employ people like Hannity and Coulter on their shows, people who have made it their life's goal to tear down and destroy the way I wish to live my life, and the love I share with my partner Lee. I truly am sorry I have to disagree with you so vehemently, but I am not going to let people like Coulter and Hannity have one inch, and I will do everything I can to prevent them from influencing the naive. I speak out against Fox News on a regular basis whenever I see it playing at any bar or on any Tv, really. These people are not going to destroy my chance to live my life.

Hey Jack, same here in Austin to a lesser extant. Someone put Liar on all the Bush sign in my hood. Funny thing to share. My neighbors have a Kerry/edwards sign in their yard. Well, some one kept stealing it for some reason. So the guy jury rigged an alarm to go off if someone else took it. Well it went off and he ran outside to see two 12 year olds trying to make off wiht the sign. If it was just something for fun or they really hate Kerry, we will never know.

Go for it Prime! I am right behind yeah!

The reason that that is such a big deal is that for the longest time in this country, it was understood that one candidate did not bring the other candidate's family into the campaign process. Sort of an "honor among theives" type of thing. Sure sling mud about the candidate, but it was just understood that it was crossing a line to talk about the other candidate's family. Times are a changin'.

Why is Kerry bringing up the daughter in the first place? There are many skeletons in the Kerry closet too, but I don't hear Bush and Cheney bringing up Kerry's first marriage. It really is a big deal that Kerry brought up the family, and Fox should be commended for commenting on it. Can't say that I've seen that on the other channels.

Illegal immigration in this country is something that Bush was getting bashed for alot a few years back. Fox News' morning team and O'Reilly were hyper-critical of Bush at that time. Somehow that issue went away, even with the other news networks as well. Hannity was very critical of Bush on that subject too.

As for the missing explosives, it has been reported (story) that it was pretty much a non story that Kerry would have been better suited to have received all of the facts before speaking. They could not confirm that the explosives were actually there when the American Military Demo Unit arrived. Kerry claims that it was looted after the military arrived, but can't prove it. I know the source is the "conservative" Washington Times, but they do quote sources from the Kerry campaign, so it at least looks like they did their homework and got the facts. Seems to me like restraint on reporting about the "looted" explosives was well justified on Fox's part.

RTVU2: My turn to chuckle again. Colmes conservative? Not in the least... I've been listening to that man since he was shilling to get Clinton elected the first time. The man is basically James Carville with hair and glasses. They always seem to be saying the same thing. You wouldn't call Carville conservative would you?

You know for a country which in so many other ways can be a standard bearer for democracy and the right to speak your mind, if that staement is true it is very sad.

Even the BBC, which in many respects is part of the established power structure, can and does feel free to report opposing views. to the extent that the Goverment makes huge attacks on it and its directors

Having just read about that dutch film maker who was murdered after reciving death threats because he made a film about violence against muslim women I do start to wonder just how much freedom of speech is left in the world nowadays?

I had expected things to be a little worse than they were when I went to the polls today. I see RTVU2 mentioned it, and I can confirm that people around here are getting a little insane. I've heard all kinds of things from both sides. One of my classes has a very political-minded professor and all semester, it seems like every third lecture just ends up being students and the prof all yelling at each other over Bush.

Yesterday I was rather nervous and twitchy, but now I feel... oddly relaxed. But I wouldn't be surprised if we hear about polls getting torched or attacked before the election's over.

I brought my stuffed Krypto with me to the polls for good luck.

Minesurfer,

Maybe Kerry bringing up Cheney's daughter is to expose the hypocrisy of the Bush Government. Bush has come and said that he wants a constitutional admenendt to ban same sex marriages and define marriage as only being between a man and women. Yet we have Cheney whose daughter is gay and has said quietly that he supports marriage for everyone. How can you say something just to appease a certain part of the population (in this case the religious right) while alienating another? Especially one that you know? It's like biting the hand that feeds you.

You said this earlier and I have to agree with you that we are never going to agree on this topic or our views. You are firmly behind your side and I am firmly behind my side. And that is another thing old George has done to America. Driven a huge wedge between the American people. Either you love or you hate him. There doesn’t seem to be an in between. I am from Texas and I never voted for Bush when he was Governor and haven't voted for him today.

I don't see anywhere in The Constitution that says the Vice President has to believe what the President believes. I don't see how two grown men differing on beliefs equates to hypocrisy in the government. That is a tremendous leap of logic. Even so, Kerry is the last man to point out hypocrisy... look at his military record. Look at his first marriage.

Talk about driving a wedge between America... George Bush could not have done that alone. It's the nature of the two party political system. Equal blame goes to Republicans and Democrats alike. I can expound on that, but I don't think it's necessary. Look I'm not here to try and change your views, I'm interested in the truth. The truth is that all politicians lie. It's up to us to decide who's lies we like better.

Prime:

I know you feel strongly about this topic, but the facts remain undisputable. Colmes does have a show on Fox. He is the co-host. His name is in the title. He is liberally biased on what many here believe to be a "conservative" news network. The other facts are that the liberally biased news networks do not give equal time to a conservative host. These are all facts. If Colmes ends up looking "foolish" then he should prepare better debates. I've listened to him for over 10 years now, he is an intelligent man.

I'm not here to contend that Fox is fair and unbiased. I do contend that they are more fair and less biased than CNN and the other big three. When I start hearing conservatives spouting off their nightly rhetoric on their own shows on one of those networks, then I'll review my conclusions.

Well, part of the problem is our election laws... towards the end of the elections, ads by non-candidates aren't allowed to include a call to action (i.e., "Vote for X" or "Don't vote for Y") so they usually have to say bad thing about the candidate they oppose. (I think they also can't talk about candidates at all in the last two weeks, at which point it all becomes about issues, a topic which seems to go negative in most cases.)

It's hard for me to write about negative campaigning in 2004 without linking to Joshua Green\'s profile of Bush\'s campaign manager, Karl Rove . I found the portrait rather fascinating and infuriating at the same time. Rove probably has succeeded most at negative campaigning, but so many strategists succeed this way. I wish the people in power had more incentive to fix this.

Unfortunately, negative advertising often discourages people from voting (because they think 'what's the point if both options are bad', which ends up supporting incumbents, making it an easier process to turn to. Grey Davis relied on this when he was re-elected as Cali governor... then it backfired because a low voter turnout made it easier to get the recall qualified.

I'm sad that since I'm no longer a San Franciscan I can't participate in their first attempt with Instant Runoff Voting. IRV is a system that has voters picking their first, second and third choice, eliminating the need for runoff elections (unless odds go badly). Because a negative campaign can hurt more than help in that system (since the "where else are you going to go" factor is eliminated) it supposedly makes a better campaign. I hear the city elections have been much calmer, tho some of the business advocacy groups were playing the old game, not having any goal other than defeating certain incumbents.

I certainly hope the first IRV election goes well so that it spreads to other places.

It's not stupid, really. but lazy.

I'll be honest, I was there myself until two years ago. Perhaps it's what we should expect but we've gotten to accept that everything we hear in the news is true. There is a lot of noise... sometimes the cable news channels are wall-to-wall people yelling at each other... it's easy to hear all that yelling and take a side instead of evaluating what people say.

That's one thing I really like about talk radio host Randi Rhodes. She emphasizes primary-source research a lot and makes it seem less intimidating. I don't like it when she's yelling at a caller but I just love her when she reacts to a call by doing some on-air research.

Between Rhodes and some of the poli-bloggers, I've learned to research quotes that get passed around (I'm quick to agree that some of those Bushisms are only funny when presented out-of-context) to read more articles carefully and research things that sound wrong. Hell, with some of the bloggers out there fact checking becomes a game.

This year I actually gave the text of the ballot initiatives a read. I still relied on endorsements to help me decide my position, but it was interesting to combine the opinions with the source text. I also looked up incumbents' records to see why various advocacy groups liked or didn't like the candidate, instead of letting talking heads tell me what their record is.

Quote

Here in the UK all parties are very closely goverened as to what they can and can't say. The kind of half-turths and negative spin that the US ads are filled with would never be allowed here. Sure you get attacks from all sides about everyone else, but the majority of it is about what said party will actually *do*. It's about information rather than disinformation, which seems to be severely lacking in the US.

I'm curious about the British system... I'm told that Greg Pallast is a more credible journalist because he works in Britan and what he writes falls under a much stricter law than in the United States. I'm told that there isn't a right to free speech there, which makes it easier to make people liable for the truth of what they say, but for an American like me I can't imagine any civilized nation not having free speech. Would you mind clarifying this for me Bevis?

As a side note, I’ve been regularly visiting factcheck.org forever, they’re a good guide for how to research things. They give me a lot of leads.

Quote

All that being said I do hope as many people as possible vote. Regardless of whether you are one of the groups that has been completely ignored by both parties (gay, black, women, working class, poor... uh, everyone apart from middle to upper class white men really. ) it's your chance to make a difference. Personally I want to see the back of Bush as soon as possible (not that Kerry is exactly an angel mind...) but as long as you vote you're doing your bit.

There's been a lot of discussion of if voting is a right or a privilege, lately and I've realized that I don't think of it as either... I kinda see it as a duty. I've felt that way since before my first election, even if I've had periods when I've been more lax in my duties. I mean, being vigilant and knowing what your elected officials are up to and voting based on that information seems a small price to pay for freedom and democracy.

Quote

Oh, and one more thing about political coverage in the US, does anyone actually believe Fox News? I've never seen such a pile of partisan drivel from a supposedly impartial news station before. Most of the others (CNN and so on, including the smaller local stations) were pretty much even and seemed to be reporting the facts fairly evenly but Fox should really have just sat there and said 'yeah, OK, we're part of the BUsh campaign, live with it' and at least then everyone would know where they stand.

Personally, I've become pretty frustrated with most news media sources, save NPR. Last August, the Program on International Policy Attitudes of the University of Maryland where people were asked a quiz on the Iraq war and analyzed where the respondents got their news. Fox News viewers were the most likely to answer questions wrong, and this was the most reported part of the study. However, the supposedly liberally biased CBS came in second for misinformed viewers, with NBC, ABC and CNN falling not far behind. NPR/PBS audiences did best by answering questions correctly by a pretty far margins.

Pretty much all of them have failed in performing the due diligence the media is supposed to provide. Why is Jon Stewart the only person on TV pointing out the contradictory statements of the Bush administration? “But yesterday you said…” should be a question that’s being asked by journalists and not a joke of comedians.

I voted this morning too. I'm having some connection problems so I didn't get to "sign in" earlier.
"All politics is local"
- Tip O'Neil -

Issues that affect you (a general "you") closely and intimately may not be the same things that affect me that way.

I stated my view on marginalizing the gay population of the US and I stand by it.

btw- the entire drummed up controversy just makes ME wonder what right states have in legitimizing marriage at all. It's none of their damned business who I choose to live with.

-also-
Families have ALWAYS been part of American politics during my lifetime. Ever heard of Billy Carter or Eleanor Roosevelt?

And Jackie O. and Clinton's brother, or Chelsea or Hillary, or Barbara, or Nancy and on and on. That's not what I said.

I didn't say that family isn't part of politics. I said that it is traditionally understood that "family" is off limits between the candidates during the campaign process.

When you say fox is fairer and less bias then CNN is it because of what you already personally believe? If you are already thinking that CNN and the other news outlets are liberal, then of course FOX is what you would want to watch. Fox is presenting the news to people who do feel that the "liberal" media is running rampant.

But what is so wrong about questioning our leaders? What is so wrong about want to know the truth? What is so wrong about questioning the motives of our leader’s actions? Is any of that wrong? Isn't it our duty to question our leaders? Isn't that is why we have a system of checks and balances? That is what the media is supposed to do.

But then again it does come out to what lies we want to believe in. You have chosen FOX while I have not.

And I am sorry, but GW has been the catalyst that his driven a wedge in the American people. His stance on Iraq has polarized the nation. I have not meet one person who has come out and say they don't care about this election. Or that they are blah on Bush. Either you love him or you hate him. And he is then one who did it. He is the one ultimately (but we can also debate that) decided to invade Iraq and his government’s shortsighted view on how the invasion would pan out.

That's not it at all. I've tried to be very clear. I say Fox is less biased and thereby more fair because they make an attempt to get both sides of the story out. The other networks don't give equal time to conservative views. Those are facts. I'm being as objective as possible here. For instance, when Reagan was in office all the press (Fox and conservative talk radio was not around at the time) could talk about was how he didn't care about the homeless. They pasted him day after day. Same with Bush Sr. Once Clinton got into office, the homeless story just went away. The homeless were still there, the story wasn't. That is bias. And besides I told you before, and it's the truth, that I watch GMA on ABC more than any other news show. The other fact is that the "liberal" media did run rampant in this country from the early 50's to the early 90's. There were no mass conservative media outlets during that time.

I don't know where this argument came from. I never said don't question leaders. My entire body of posts on this subject have been about the importance of having both sides shown.

It's not about what lies to believe in... It's about what lies you can live with. Like I said before, I usually don't watch any news agencies these days and when I do, it's GMA on ABC. If I'm in the truck, the news channel I have on is WTOP which is affiliated with one of the big 3 (abc I think). I have not chosen Fox, I have merely pointed out that you guys stated they have a conservative bias, but they still put a liberal view out every night through Colmes. The other networks do not put out conservative views every night.

You and I will probably not see eye to eye on this either, but this country was divided long before Bush got into office. Clinton did as much to polarize this country as Bush did, only he did it before. Carter was fairly polarizing and so was Nixon. You want to blame it on Bush, but the truth is this country was polarized long before he was a "player". He might not have been able to unite the country... I'll give you that, but I don't see anybody on the political scene who has the charisma to pull it off.

Then I guess we are going to have disagree then because while you say that FOX goes out to get a conservative view to make it "fair and balanced" all I see is FOX only presenting the conservative view and not examining all sides of the story. That is fine, but that is not fair and balanced view in my opinion.

And I am sorry if I presumed too much from your earlier posts. That was not my intention.

I CANNOT BELIEVE BUSH TOOK TENNESSEE! ArrrRRRRRRrrgggh!

He's gonna do it again. He's gonna win.

It's the end of the world, people!

You let us down Lash. So did KP since Bush won Alabama as well. And there was nothing I could do about the shrub winning Utah. They don't even count the Democratic votes here.

He certainly didn't win Tennessee based on MY vote. I cannot believe this... cannot, cannot.

With 79% of precincts in Florida reporting, Bush is up 52% to 47%.

Better hope the remaining 21% are in Miami-Dade, or another traditionally Democratic stronghold...

As of now, Bush has 196 electorals, Kerry 112. Disaster.

Of course, they still haven't called Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Cali... and many others...

You sure you filled the ballot out right? With all the posting you've been doing recently, a detail could have been missed.

Believe it or not, I caught myself TRIPLE-checking it!

197 Bush vs. 188 Kerry now. Doesn't see as bad. But still...

Though we don't have the electoral votes from NY, Kerry definitely took the popular vote here. I think the results were something like 69% Kerry and 30% Bush.

KERRY TOOK PENNSYLVANIA! 21 big electorals! WOO-HOO!!!!

my county went to the electronic voting thing --I did the same exact thing.

The latest I saw was the Kerry has 188 votes and Bush has 203. The gap has definitely narrowed.

Have they called New York yet, Ferro?

It's really still too close to call. There are still people standing in line in Ohio to vote, I just heard on the news.

Minesurfer: No worries, since we're obviously going to continue to disagree on Colmes, we really can't take this discussion much further tonight. So we'll agree to disagree.

I don't think NY has been called yet but NY has 31 electoral votes. According to the news, Bush is leading 219 to 199.

Well, I'm gonna stay up with it 'til the bitter end. No work for me tomorrow, though I do have to get up and do about 60 million things before Pov and Quis arrive.

If Kerry takes New York and Cali-- swEEEEEEt. And PLEASE, Ohio!

It looks like Kerry has both states based on popular vote but neither have reported on electoral votes.

I'm seeing California colored in Kerry-blue on CNN...

This is, like, the superbowl for me... thank goodness this only happens once every 4 years.

Man I don't know what I'm going to do for TV now that the election is over. My daughter hates it that I've been watching debates and spin doctors and ignoring Disney and the Cartoon network.
I'm going to be so lost!

Well actually, I did watch Drawn Together last week and tonight's Daily Show special Prelude to a Recount was pretty funny a couple of times.

Florida went to Bush and it's looking like he might get Ohio, too.

Crap. Kerry'll have to pretty much carry every state left, then...

Ohio is very very much still undecided.

Bush probably is going to win Florida, though.

Oregon is Kerry's!

Kerry - 206
Bush - 207

YEAY, BABY!!!!

So far, I'm concerned but everything has followed the patterns that pollster John Zogby has predicted. It feels grim until I start digging through the data we have so far. It's really looking like it's coming down to OH and FL.

http://"http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com" is saying that there's a lot of nasty court battles going on in Ohio. Last I heard the polls were still open because there were people still waiting to vote (having arrived before the polls closed) but the GOP were fighting to not allow those people to vote and to close the polls.

Ohio could be this year's Florida. It's pretty scary.

Rumors are, Kerry is gaining momentum in the Midwest.

But Bush just got Montana.

Kerry - 206
Bush - 210

I wish it would end...why every 4 years we have to drag this out.

Just my personal opinion...Peter Jennings sucks.
No offense to Canada...can you guys take him back!

I really can't handle this much longer...!

Lord, Lord, it's Karen Hughes. She is a political MACHINE for Bush.

MT fits with Zogby... Florida, once again, is the first miss of the night for Zogby, which CSPAN is calling for Bush. However, seeing that Vote Protect is showing a high number of reported incidents there, the vast majority in the democrat-leaning Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, I'm really not sure if we'll know.

Prime you said machine for Bush. hahahahahah

By the way, I say calm those nerves and check out The Daily Show\'s election blog .

We should all be scared of Sean Puffy Combs... will he spare those who's voter registration forms were shredded? How about those who's eligibiity was challenged because they wouldn't go to the post office to pick up a registered letter from the Republican Party?

Sigh, I just make the best joke a downer.

Well Utah just become more homophobic. Jackasses passed Amendment 3.

Oh this is interesting... Media Matters is tracking when each network has called each state. At the very least it's a good source to track everything without Firefox open with a dozen tabs...

This just effectively took all rights away from anyone except a union of man and woman. Even as far as denying visitation rights of same sex couples in hospitals.

The Mormons touted this as being needed to keep same sex marriages from happening. What they won't, and never will admit, is it just effectively made those couples second class citizens. We already had provisions in the state Constitution that said marriage was only between a man and a woman. This was just used to take away any basic rights, not to keep them from marrying.

I can't believe I put up with living in such a sprocked up state as Utah.

Ladies, gentlemen and other sentients. Our next President of the United States !

Hrumph, don't blame me, I voted for Count Olaf.

Stupid out voters, free parsley soda is a platform all in people should have voted for.

CNN's revised numbers now show Bush leading Kerry 246 to 195. What state backed out of the Kerry column into the Bush?

MSNBC is 246 to 206. Obviously CNN has a MSNBC Kerry state in the undecided column.

And Fox News just called Ohio and Hawaii for Bush. Giving him 269 to Kerry's 211

LL I love it...

Well, there it goes.

I'll offer my tentative congratulations to President Bush and the people who supported him.

That said, I hope each and every one of you one day will come to understand how it feels to be marginalized as someone to be voted against. It fucking hurts to know that America has spoken, and what America has said is, "Jeff DeGarmo and Lee Fowler, there's no place in this country for you. We loathe your commitment to each other. We loathe your love for each other. We loathe you."

I truly hope, once again, each and every one of you will understand what this feels like, and then cast your vote with that knowledge.

Good night, America.

Jeff, I'm truly sorry my friend. If I could get them to see the error of their ways in this messed up state I would. But nothing short of giving them glimpse of the hell they will have in their supposed afterlife because of the way they are now will do it. They are so full of righteousness it makes me physically sick.

I don't think righteousness is the issue here. It's manipulation.

Righteousness and manipulation is the same in Utah.

So what are you all waiting for to start a revolution?

It's not over in Ohio. It's still bloody close (100K right now) and there are 150-200K provisional ballots according to CNN. Keep in mind that most of the challenges to bump a voter to provisional status were targeted to democrat-leaning and minority preciencts.

I joked that this wasn't going to be over on 11/3... okay I wasn't joking. I hate being right on this kind of @#$%. Sometimes I think I'd kill to stop being such a Cassandra.

I just checked CNN. They gave 3 states to Kerry (including Hawaii) just now. It's Bush 249 to Kerry's 242 and they are predicting it will be hours yet before we know who wins.

I guess I *won't* be around 'til the biter end... I have too much to do tomorrow to stay up much longer. This will certainly be interesting to discuss tomorrow, though.

Well if it goes the way it's looking now the whole world is very disappointed with you Americans. As of me leaving for work this morning about an hour ago Ohio was almost certainly going to go to Bush, which would mean he's won. But...

Also as I was leaving it came through that there are some issues in Iowa with them saying they probably won't actually come to a final total until some time in the next 24 hours which could mean that even if Ohio does go to Bush that Kerry could just pip him to the post if he manages to get Iowa (which as I understand it was being included in Bush's total at this point). It's incredibly close and really shows how divided a nation the US is at the moment. It's also a fairly good example of why ideally you should have at least a three party government just so that you can have a bit more balance. With just two parties it's almost impossible to have any middle ground. If you're a liberal in terms of social policy but conservative in terms of fiscal who do you vote for? Or vice versa? Admittedly even with a three party system you're not going to get a completely even view, but it's better than just picking the lesser of two evils. Here in the Uk the smaller parties do make a big difference. Labour has a big majority over the Conservatives but when you factor in the Lib Dems, the Scottish parties, Plaid Cymru (the Welsh National Party), the Irish parties, the Greens and various other minor parties you do have a system whereby it's very hard for the party in powe to have absolute control over the legislature. Yes Labour have managed to get most of their policies through, but largely that's because they have a *huge* majority (more than is normal for this country) but also because on a lot of issues the Lib Dems and the national parties of Scotland, Wales and Ireland hold similar views.

As an ardent Bush supporter,I thank you for your congratulations! I do hope, however, that I don't experience the entire country voting against me personally as you claim has happened to you. Somehow I think that there were other issues that weighed a bit more heavily on people's minds as they went to the polls (maybe the war perhaps? or the economy? just saying...) then the desire of you and your partner to be just like everyone else. While I will probably always disagree morally and biblically with what you want to do, I can, in all honesty, say that a loathing of you had nothing to do with the decisions I made at the polls today. I also don't remember Kerry being all that supportive of gay marriages either so I'm not sure what you would have to say about those who voted for him. Just trying to keep it in perspective...

Anyway, I am definitly feeling a bit more secure about the future and safety of our nation. I think that the war on terror will prove to be the factor that caused most Americans to vote the way they did. The fact that the economy isn't as bad as people tried to paint it has probably encouraged Americans to keep the same course.

Really? That's one of the most bizarre rules i've ever heard. Surely the whole point of political advertising is to urge people to vote for your candidate (regardless of whether you are directly tied to said candidate or not). If you're not allowed to do that then I can see that all one can fall back on is telling people why *not* to vote for someone else. Of course, this is bearing in mind that here in the Uk the whole non-candidate ads thing simply doesn't exist. Only official party broadcasts are allowed (and even then they're not ads in the same way that they are in the US, they're actual slots usually after news programmes shown on every terrestrial channel that are included in the TV schedules and everything. Like I say, very tightly controlled) so you don't get the whole 'independent' groups thing (apart from maybe groups that are just asking people to vote while being completely unbiased to each party). In the same way the amount that the parties can spend on elections is tightly controlled. In fact the total spend on TV adverts in Ohio in the last month is more than the entire budget of both Labour and the Tories combined for the whole election campaign (usually about a month or two for the whole thing) including all their print campaign, press conferences, doorstepping, *everything*.

Yeah, that's much as I suspected. Certainly I was left feeling like there wouldn't be any point voting for anyone since if the ads were to be believed then every single candidate was as corrupt and two-faced as the next one. Kinda making the election a choice of the lesser evil.

Uh... kind of a yes and no answer here. Techincally we don't have a constitution here in the UK, or at least we don't have a written one. in practice our constitution is the legal system, if you see what i mean. Rights are enshrined in the laws of the land which means both that we have more freedom and less than the US in some ways. t's easier to make changes but on the other hand it's easier to make changes. It cuts both ways. As for the right to free speech, yes it does exist. But we also have quite a lot of laws regarding hate speech and so on. It's a bit of an issue at the moment really and one that is going to take a long time to resolve. I get the imprssion that the same is true of the US but because of the 1st Amendment it's even more tricky than it is here. Everyone has a right to free speech but do they also have a right to insite religious or racial hatred? Do they have a right to express extreme political views? Do they have a right to denegrate women or queers? It's not the same issue as slander or libel (which are really quite clearly defined in law and are the basis of a lot of the controls on political electioneering) but it's an awkward one. Basically what it boils down to is like I say there is techincally no actual law or automatic right stating explicitly that everyone has a right to free speech, but it's also something that is an inherent right within the legal system even if there are some boundaries that are a little vague at the moment (as in the laws that prohibit incitement to violence especially with reference to race, religion, sex and sexuality). it's not really that different from most countries that do have a written constitution, it's just the way that it is included in the statute, if you see what I mean.

Yeah, I am *so* of a mind that it's a duty. Even if you decide that you don't want to vote for anyone and spoil you're ballot or whatever it is still you're duty to go out and actually use you're vote. A protest vote (even if that protest is voting for no-one) is still a vote and it's important that everyone expresses that. If a democracy is really going to be a democracy then *everyone* should have a say. I think the last General Election here had a turn out of something like 35% which is pitiful. Some places were as low as 15%. If people don't vote then how can they then feel they have a right to complain? It's not really about whether people are really intensly involved with politics or not, it's just that in a democratic society one should make sure that everyone has a chance to be heard, and for that to happen everyone should vote. I'm actually in favour of the system whereby everyone is automatically registered and is fined if they don't vote. it wouldn't need to be a big fine and it would still allow for people to cast a no vote but at least it would mean you'd actually get a much more even view of what the public want in their politicians. Maybe... Ach, no system is ever going to be perfect is it?

Unfortunately I don't think the media is entirely to blame here. One of the national newspapers here did an farily extensive survey last week in a few major cities in the US (mostly in the swing states I think) and found that a large majority of the public couldn't identify Iraq r Afghanistan on a map of the world and a significant portion of them couldn't even locate the UK or Australia. That's just really worrying (not that I'm saying the general public here in the UK is perfect but I'm pretty certain you get much better results here).

Not that low. The last three went:

1992: 78%
1997: 72%
2001: 59%

I stand corrected. Was it really that high in 92 and 97? I thought they were pretty low turn-outs for both of those as well. Maybe I'm thinking of the council elections, although they're usually not too bad.

78% is quite good really isn't it?

Well, this is the damnedest thing I've seen since ... well, 2000, anyway. One facet is absolutely unique, though, as we approach 5:00 am in Washington, D.C. (2:00 am in Los Angeles, 10:00 am GMT):

None of the networks, clearly, want to declare a winner. They're clearly holding back, nobody taking the step, intimidated by how they collectively screwed up in 2000. The Bush folks are clearly chagrined, as they can't send the Emperor, er, Prez over to the rally of the faithful to declare victory, and Kerry hasn't conceded, though he lags by 3.8 million in the popular vote.

To simplify: Bush leads in the state of Ohio, but enough absentee and "provisional" (questionable voter registration) ballots exist to conceivably turn the state's sizable 20 electoral votes to Kerry. Most of the provisional, etc., ballots won't be verified or fully counted for at least 10 days from now.

Two networks believe Bush has won Ohio: NBC and Fox. They both, however, won't give several smaller states to Bush, where he leads in nearly all of them. So, to them, Bush is estimated to be stuck at exactly half the electoral votes, 269, one short of the absolute majority needed to win.

Other networks believe some of the smaller states still outstanding have, indeed, gone to Bush: ABC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN. They all, however, won't give Ohio to Bush. So, to them, Bush is anywhere from about 15 to 30 electoral votes short of victory.

No media crowing about getting a winner declared. I never thought I'd see this. If anything, Americans are quietly sick of media arrogance, though not enough to do anything about it. It's the first time that the major networks are cowed enough to fit the popular mood, even momentarily.

One or more of the networks will probably break and declare a winner by mid-morning Tuesday -- but while it lasts, again, this is one of the damnedest moments I've ever seen. They're not rushing like lemmings over the prediction cliff.

I couldn't help but notice that, too, Grey. Very strange to see the networks (not even conservative-biased Fox!) holding back what should be an obvious choice based on their past performances. Of course, I hope this doesn't give the Dems incentive to drag this through the court systems to prolong the inevitable.

Didn't some of the networks decalre Gore the winner last time before it was actually clear whether he was or not? If that's the case then I would think they're all holding off saying anything in case they get it wrong adn end up looking stupid. CNN here this morning certainl were being *very* careful about saying anything definate, whereas the BBC were saying that Bush almost certainly had it. It'd be kinda funny if a foreign network declared the winner before any of the US ones.

Yeah - I'm 80% certain you're thinking of the Euro-elections. Which went 36.4% (1994), 24.0% (1999), 38.2% (2004).

Ah, you could well be right. I must admit in the Euro elections Chris and myself were virtually the only people I know who voted. Not many more voted in the last council elections either.

And up here the vote on a regional assembly is going to be lucky to get 40% of the population to vote.

I wish people would vote. Its the one chance they have to influence things. Yet they cant be bothered to go out at night and walk to their local school to put a cross in a box? And of course these are the very people who complain over their beer in the pub about the politicians

AAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Just end it , Damn it.

Congrats, my friend. Your guy won.

We had a lot of long lines here in South Carolina, and a lot of people whining about it. That really ticked me off.

They were complaining about not enough machines, not enough people working in the polling places, no chairs to sit on while they waited...it was assanine.

The election poll workers were all volunteer. They were in many cases elderly people that volunteered their time gratis, working very long hours. And they got bitched at for feeling a sense of duty to country by doing what they could.

And to bitch about not having a chair to sit on while waiting? If you cant take a few hours for one day to participate in the countries elections, taking ten minutes to do your part, then they are flaming asses and i hope they don't contribute to the gene pool.

People fight and die to get to this country for the chance to participate in elections where they don't have to worry about being killed for their beliefs. If you are that sorry, that lazy, that assanine, don't be part of our collective misery.

That said, to everyone that participated, that voted for either party...well done. This was the first nation in the world were the people truly hold power, and you did your part. You are to be commended.

Thanks. I hope i can be as gracious here as i would like to be. I can't say that i was pleased with the new senator from South Carolina's acceptance speech. One line was pretty class-less. I really wish the line could have been left out. Other wise, it was fine.

As for president, i think it was amazing. Exit polling skewing, slashed tires, a lot of stuff to over come. And yet i heard of dirty tricks on the republican side as well, and i am not proud of them either.

But the main thing is...Laura is hotter that Teresa.

Great posts Mr Rickshaw; but who will be the first new Legion leader. Now that's an important election.

It was very easy to vote here in Upper Montclair, NJ. Sorry to hear about the lines and other problems. But hey! You are in S.C. at least you got great BBQ! LOL.

Now that the election is over I hope we can go back to being buddies. Mr. Pithy Rickshaw. LOL

Invis, i MAKE the best BBQ, lol. Eight hours, black jack oak coals, the best BBQ sauce you ever tasted, and hot enough to make yer hair sweat. And christmas time is comin' up, might have to do one this year for a family get together again. The last time was pretty great.

As for the lines, yeah, but some people would complain about winning ten million dollars and then having to pay taxes on it. I really don't think it too much to do your part in our nation.

Yeah, that was a little brag about my BBQ. Its about the only thing i WILL brag about, cept my wife, lol.

Party at Rickshaw's

Sincerely though, I'm glad it's all over too. What do you say, meet you guys all back here in four years and we can do it again? The whiskey is on me.

Great, break out a barrel and i am there.

And let me say this, i hope when the victory and concession speeches are done, BOTH parties are gracious about it. I think both parties need it. No joke. Thats why i was disappointed in DeMint's victory speech. One line ruined it for me.

And John Kerry's conceding! No armies of lawyers, no days-long gridlock, no James Baker flying to Ohio, no Katherine Harris...

Sort of skews the "The Democrats are whiny losers who want to litigate everything in the courts and will stop at nothing to steal elections in court battles" rationale, doesn't it?

John Kerry is a honorable man, folks.

Incidentally, just to buck my personal party line, I do kind of see John Edwards as a plastic political opportunist.

He's doing the right thing here. I'll give him that... But being a former military man myself, he'd have to do alot more than concede an election race that he genuinely lost to claim "honorable" though.

I find it somewhat odd and amusing that since Kerry decided to concede I'm hearing people on NPR referring to this election, one that came down to one last disputed state, as a "mandate" in favor of Bush. Yes, he won this one more decisively than he did in 2000, and without all of the legal contention, but I'd hardly call this a "mandate" from the people.

I thought he wanted to outlaw ManDates!

Idiot.

We're all doomed!

Well done US voters - you've said yes to no change on environmental issues, so the Antartic is going to melt by 2060!

And we can expect another 4 years of a futile War On Terror that doesn't even go after the right people! Pat yourselves on the back!

Don't blame me. I voted for Kerry.

Yup. Every pathetic idiot who voted for Bush should take a long hard look at the way to Armaggedon. 'Cause that's where we're going.

There are some things worth travelling cross country for. Good BBQ is one of them

And by the way it looks like the Congressional race that I was bitching about way back on page 2 is going to be dragged out for another couple of weeks. The Democrat Brian Higgins is currently ahead by 4000 some votes, and declared victory last night, but the Republicans of course are contesting. Just as their candidate Nancy Naples was taking the stage to give her concession the head of the local GOP Committee ordered that the polling machines be impounded for a recount. The bitterness and negativity goes on...

Same here, bud.

As did I. I was really optimistic about it the whole time too...

Worst of all, Alaska shot down their proposition to decriminalize marijuana...

I was gonna reply in a little bit of a nasty way to sanity, but i think the silent majority has spoken enough. The extremes of both parties really need to remove their craniums from their anal sphincter voids and realize that when it is pushed enough, the majority will stand up and be heard.

Connecticut is Kerry territory!

I think it's time to start working together for the good of the country instead of persueing personal, individual desires over all else.

Really? Then why vote for Mr Tax Cut?

Voter fraud is funny...

My favorite bit from the above linked Washington Times article:

"Elsewhere, a bogus flier with the McCandless Township, Pa., seal said because of long lines, Republicans should vote Nov. 2 and Democrats should vote on Nov. 3;"

This country is divided. Quite frankly, I don't want to be associated with the Republican half. I'm digusted, that you could re-elect that lying moron. I see this as a country full of mean people who just want to bully the rest of the world. Well, you've got your chance. Enjoy it.

Sanity, have you ever taken any economics courses?

Here's why...

When the government removes too much taxes from the pockets of consumers, it depresses the economy. There is not enough money going around to sustain and support a healthy economy. This is the law of supply and demand. Money in the governments hands is money that cannot be used by ordinary folk to buy houses, cars, health care, etc... Even John Kennedy understood this.

As the law of supply and demand works, there will be flucutations around it, it is never completely in equilibrium.

When you start talking about taxing corporations, here's what happens. First, they start to stop investing in capital needs. Equipement gets older and becomes less productive. Then, in order to maintain profits and stay in business, you know, giving normal, middle class people jobs, they either stop hiring new folk, or start eliminating jobs.

Then there is the popular, and completely erroneous "tax the rich" idea. Here is what happens with it.

The rich pay most of the taxes in the country on a personal level. When this happens, they don't buy the expensive luxury goods that are made by working class middle income people. So the small business' that produce those goods eventually go out of business, or....here's a nice thing...SHIP THEIR PRODUCTION OVERSEAS TO NATIONS THAT PAY CENTS ON THE DOLLAR TO CHEAPER WORKERS. You know, like the Heinz corporation.

But there is another aspect. The money the "wealthy" get does not evaporate into the ether like the left would have you believe. It is banked, and used by the middle and working classes in the forms of loans to better their lives by education, employment, housing, food, medical care, etc...

And then there is the fact that large corporations will attempt to pass along the additional cost of taxes...and it is a cost...to the buyers. Hence twenty dollar CD's at walmart instead of five dollar cd's.

So, not only are you taking away the money of hard working people and giving it to faceless government drones to waste, you are distressing their ability to earn a basic living.

And while you may think that $300 or $600 hundred dollar tax cuts don't amount to much, when it is put back into the economy, it has a multiplier effect, because companies turn profits, and this allows them to save money in the bank. This money is loaned out for houses, cars, startup capital to other small business'.

I really wish some folk that pontificate on economics and socialist taxing would study the science of economics before talking. It isn't a science of "feelings", it is a hard, scientic reality.

I'm not socialist or communist. I work for me and my family, not some fat ass government drone that would cry at a paper cut. I own my money, not the government. The government is to be there for us, the people, not the other way around.

Thats okay, Semi, we were disgusted that you would re-elect a lying con-man like clinton when he stood in front of you and lied over and over. He even lied before he took office about his record as Governor.

But if he was such a moron, how did he know enough to put together a campaign team that could beat the monstrous machine of the left? Maybe not so dumb.

You see, I actually kind of do see it as a mandate. A very small mandate, but one nevertheless. Keep in mind Bush won by a not insignificant margin in the popular vote. 3.5 million is not overwhelmingly decisive in a presidential contest, but it's decisive enough. Not to mention the Republican gains in the House and Senate. The Republicans played a smooth, awesome campaign overall. They painted themselves as America's white knights, saviors of America's moral fiber and defenders of America from the terrorist threat. The only major Republican loss was by a beer magnate, Peter Coors. Because beer isn't family-friendly and morally upright, he lost. What does this say about this country?

It says we really don't care about what people in Hollywood think. Sure, we'll shell out money to see a spectacle like Farenheit 9-11, but that's where it stops. We'll go see REM and Pearl Jam in a political concert because we like their music, but that's where it stops. Americans really do differentiate between entertainment and politics, and y'know, honestly, that's not a bad thing.

Moral values were the number one issue cited in exit polling. This means we care more about what our children see on TV every day than how our country relates to other countries. We care more about who is moving into the house next door than whether or not the richest Americans have to shoulder their proper portion of the tax burden. Our day-to-day lives spent with our families and friends are more important to us than anything.

Did Janet Jackson win this election for the Republicans? From the very beginning of this year, there has been the insistent rumbling of a line being drawn in the sand. "This far, and no farther." We have decided as a country that we will NOT see people exposing themselves in the Super Bowl. We will NOT welcome homosexuals into our day-to-day lives by honoring their unions. "This far, NO farther." The zeitgeist of America right now I think is very much "Not in my backyard" and I think this election was right in line with that.

But more importantly than that, what Bush tapped into was a feeling of a cultural helplessness. Helplessness against judges who gave homosexuals the right to marry in Massachusetts. Helplessness against the power of Michael Moore to make documentaries. Helplessness against the power of Janet Jackson to bare her boobies in front of your kids. Bush took that and said, "I will make you powerful. I will give you your society back. I will protect you and I will draw that line in the sand for you. This far, and no farther."

To our friends from Europe: this election wasn't about you. Please believe that. It was about us. I love this country very much, even though I don't feel at the moment that it loves me back too greatly. But this election was the result of an America that loves itself very much, and it was close. This election was about "What do we want to BE? What is our identity as Americans?" America spoke today in a small majority and let us know what was important to her. Now we all have to live with the consequences.

Clinton did not get your kids killed. He lied about having sex. I see a difference in that. Talk about moral values - well, let's not.

All day on the news I've been hearing that Kerry and Bush will both be addressing this in their speeches. I really hope that steps are taken to bring the country back together, since I see it as very divided too right now.

Brent, I may be a gay liberal Democrat, but I still love this country very much. I don't see my beloved country as a country full of mean people who want to bully the rest of the world. I'm sorry you're upset (and I'm disappointed myself,) but that doesn't mean you, or any other non-Americans, have the right to call us names because our democratic process didn't come out the way you wanted.

*Sigh* Yes, men and women in the armed services have died fighting terrorism. However, they are not "kids". They made an adult decision, and are respected for it. And the margin they voted for Bush was over 70%. It is a volunteer army now. They made a concious decision, they know the stakes, and saying that "kids are getting killed" denigrates them, and pretty much dehumanizes all the people that have been killed by terrorists all over the world.

You can't have a free society, as much as it is possible to be free, and not expect to have to pay a price in a world where petty tyrants and dictators can buy protection from other nations in a corrupt UN.

I just found out that i have two friends from childhood over in Iraq. I worry that they may be killed, but i don't denigrate their decisions as adults as to what they choose to do with their lives. I know that patriotism is reviled in this country right now by some sides, but you need to distinguish between undeserved pride, and the pride of doing something to help make the world a better place.

Rape chambers with little girls and boys in them, mass graves of people that had absolutely no chance to defend themselves, people being gassed in masse...things things exist and don't go away just because you don't like it.

The hardest thing in the world to do is to put aside "feelings" and make a concious choice from a field of tough decisions. In this world, the luxury of "feelings" disappeared when over 3,000 people were murdered in cowardly attacks.

I was really upset last night, as one could tell from my last couple of posts then on this thread. But you know, I had a good night's sleep, and today's a new day, and you're absolutely right, Rickshaw. This is not the time for divisiveness.

I think I'm entitled to my opinon, thank you.

As far as the "mandate" goes, although Bush won a clear majority of the popular vote his margin of victory (51% to 48%, with less than 1% going to Nader) proved to be far less than either of Clinton's wins over G.H.W. Bush (43% to 37% with 19% for Perot) or Bob Dole (49% to 41% with 8% for Perot). A majority yes, but hardly the resounding call to arms that a true "mandate from the people" suggests.

And you're right Jeff, the Republicans made significant gains in both the Senate and house, including ousting the Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, the first loss by a sitting party leader in Congress in some 60 years.

I agree, Prime. The country needs to heal and pull together for a while. The single interest stresses have been pulling the country apart. And yes, i have a single interest that i fight for, as well.

So is this how it begins? "We're right and you're wrong"?
I have hopes that the winners will be gracious and reach out to the people that have been so bitterly divided and alienated by this administration's secret meetings and behind closed doors deals but I don't have any faith that it will happen.

It's up to people like you guys and the Republican party to bring us together or to divide us even farther. Now that you've won it's in your hands, you have the opportunity to heal or hurt, to do what's right and stand against opportunism and disenfranchisement or to continue the hatred and this insane war of conquest.

You have the time and the power now to do it. Choose wisely.

Now let me get this straight... You're claiming the moral high ground for Clinton because he LIED about having sex with a woman other than his wife ? Don't forget the aspirin factory that he bombed in Somalia or Mogadishu in order to divert attention from Monica's testimony later that day. I bet some innocent people died in that... Also, I'm pretty sure that some of "our" children died in Clinton's "military" actions... didn't you see Blackhawk Down?

Clinton on the moral highground? Really? How soon they forget.

<edit for typo>

So you're claiming a better madate for Clinton, who didn't even win a majority of the popular vote, based on margin of victory? Look at the numbers for the third candidate and you'll find your reason for such a great Clinton margin of victory. I should know, I was one of the ones that voted for Perot the first time around.

Like it or not, Bush has what could be interpretted as a huge mandate... More votes than any other president in history (although this is skewed because of a greater population today than at any other time, still he did manage to rouse the voters into voting), and for all the reasons Prime pointed out. Just the fact that he received a majority of the popular vote blows away any mandate Clinton had.

<edit for quick fingers>

The rabid hatred for Clinton frustrates me at times.

And while we're on unity, let me just say that I think John McCain is the man who can unify this country. (And coming from a gay liberal Democrat, that's pretty huge!)

It makes me furious. I think Clinton was a great President, and I don't care what he did in the bedroom. I also like reading about Eisenhower, another President I like, and don't care about his personnel life either.

I'd take Clinton over Bush, Bush Jr. and especially Regan anyday. Carter, Ford and LBJ too. Hell, I'd take Nixon over most of them.

Actually, I don't recall claiming a mandate in favor of Clinton at all. I simply said that his margin of victory was larger. You can't deny me that. And just as you point to the 3rd party as a reason why the margin was so large you can also point to that 3rd party as a reason why Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote. Perot chipped away votes from both sides.

Kippy, your post on page 10 was... well, incredible. It really helped me understand just why Bush won. Thanks.

After just mentioning Eisenhower, I'd like to mention that I see McCain as the closest thing in politics there is to ol' Ike. I think I like that he seems so honest in his answers more than anything, and is more open and willing to find compromising solutions.

Of course, Rudy Giuliani is very honest and very likeable too, but I don't think I could ever vote for him b/c of his stance on things, even though I admire him immensely after 9/11.

((((Hugz for Mikey))))

Semi, you certainly do, and i wouldn't try to take it away from you. I just wish you felt the same about my side.

Yellow, war of conquest? Who? Afghanistan just held free elections. Iraq is on the path to it. The people voted and choose in Afghanistan, and they will do so in Iraq. As far as i know, we don't rule Japan or Germany. Certainly not germany, whose government has a recent history alone of backing murderous dictators. So, what conquest?

As for clinton, he lied about improving education in a poorer state. This meant that millions of kids didn't get the education they were entitled to or deserved. Their lives will be much tougher, much less fulfilling, met with many different issues they may feel powerless to overcome. Death, or the death of hope? Who can say which is worse. He could sleep with a horse for all i care. It was his cavalier lying about the destruction he presided over that i refer to.

Ah, but how does Mayavale feel about McCain???

You guys were the ones that brought up Clinton. Nowhere in my posts do I claim any rabid hatred of the man. You guys called Bush a liar and claimed he had no grounds for morality. I pointed out the FACTS about the man you brought up as having the moral high ground. Clinton has his flaws too, just like any other human being.

Not me, said the little red hen.

I'm perfectly content to let Clinton lie, at least until Hillary makes her bid for the Oval Office. Then, I fear, the debate'll be nothing but.

I have to say that today Prime is making the most sense of any poster, me included.

I think a line in the sand was drawn. The silent majority has felt like it has been under assault, that it has been looked down on and denigrated for things it thinks important, like family and morals. True or not, this is how it felt, and it voted that way.

They have watched the slow chipping away of the foundations of their society and they finally decided that they have had enough.

Its not that they hate gays, its more that instead of just accepting the fact that they will ignore it or put up with it, it was being pushed on them. They were being told that they would accept and embrace it whether they wanted to or not.

Do that to people for too long, and they fight back. Even a cornered dog will fight for it's life, or in this case, a way of life.

Personally, i don't care. Really. Who you choose to spend your life with is your business. Who i spend mine with is mine. But trying to force someone for too long will backfire. And it did.

Perot's campaign sounded very similar to the conservative platform back in that election. Of the 19% that he took that year, I doubt very much of that would have wound up going to Clinton. Can I back that up... no.

In all objectivity, I wouldn't say that too much of the Nader vote from 2000 would have gone to Bush Jr. either. If Nader wouldn't have been in that election, it's quite possible that Gore would have won one more state and been President instead of W.

You claim to not have claimed a "mandate" for Clinton, but when you use Clinton's margin of victory to dispell the mandate for Bush, you are implying a mandate for Clinton. That's all just semantics though. If you want to say you don't think Clinton had a mandate, then I believe you.

<edit: man I have to proof read these things better>

Now you're killing me.

I'll second the other sentiments around here, Prime is doing some awesome posting today. Makes me glad I voted for you for Leader.

Tell me about it, Miner. I have to race through them to get all my thoughts down. Hence, many, many mistakes.

I don't feel that Clinton had a mandate in either of his wins. Reagan in 1984 (59% to 40% over Mondale with a 525 to 13 edge in the electoral college) and Nixon in 1972 (60% to 37% over McGovern and 520 to 17 in the EC). Now THOSE were mandates from the people in favor of a candidate - a clear majority vote in favor and a large margin of victory in both the popular vote and the electoral college. IMO one large electoral "swing state" doesn't determine victory when you have a mandate from the people.

Ditto in response to prime.

*edited for clarification as to which part i was smiling about, lol.

Mandate is a bullcrap term anyway. The leader elected is the one that pursues his agenda. It is what it is.

Rickshaw, I'm just not in the mood to debate the issues I've been debating for months now. I'm telling you how many of us feel and that something needs to be done to make things a LOT more clear to us.

I always oppose violence. I'm very angry but today is NOT the day to continue the idealogical conflict in our country. Did the rest of my post not even register?

I agree rickshaw, I only brought it up in the first place because I found it funny that all of the sudden a race that was "too close to call" all night becomes a "mandate from the people" once Kerry decided not to persue a count of provisional ballots.

Interesting how you don't feel I, or other non-Americans, have the right to an opinion about the current state of affairs in America, because I am not an American citizen (although I've lived in this country for 22 years and am deeply affected by it.) It's not the first time I've faced this type of reaction when I've expressed disenchantment with the American government or American policy. Xenophobia seems to come up all too quickly as the first line of defense. And as you have demonstrated, it cuts across all political perusuasions. Now I expect that you will counter that I was not expressing an opinion, but "calling Americans" names. Whatever, my opinion is that half of the voters in this country are mean and have expressed it by re-electing a man and a party that has alienated virtually every other country in the world. There is a scary undercurrent to this vote that has many people in the world and this country very worried. I speak for many who feel less safe with Bush in the White House. Rather than combatting terrorism, I feel that his policies increase the chances of it. This is my opinion, and I will express it in the way I chose to do so, Jeff, whether you like it or not.

How you feel is fine, Yellow and Semi. No problem. But we feel that the rest of the world lives in denial about quite a bit. And as much as we aren't going to change you, or your opinions of "violence", you aren't going to chance ours. Feel good coombaya didn't depose Hitler, Saddam, Castro, Kadafi, etc... whether you want to believe it or not.

No hard feelings on my part. Your feelings are fine. But not expecting us to express ours while you express yours is unrealistic.

And Xenophobia extends both ways. Europeans have for years given us the impression that we are lesser because we are a newer country, that we don't have the 'history', etc...

I hear in movies all the time "stupid americans", its in commercial, like the dockers ad with the guy in paris... removing the blinders on both sides seems to be in order.

And many of us find it hard to reconcile that european governments are willing to regularly sacrifice the lives of their people to keep terrorism at 'managable levels'. That is far more cold blooded to many of us that fighting to stop the culture of death.

But like you say, perhaps we should give it a rest, and let both sides cool off.

I can agree with that.

I hate to say this, but I really don't see the Republican Party reaching out and trying to include everyone. Bush and his government will continue to "improve" America with a domestic policy that will be partially based from a religious ground. We will continue to alienate the rest of the world by steamrollering our worldview with out really understanding or wanting to hear anyone else's point of view.

The biggest thing I had against Bush was his stance of making a constitutional amendment to define marriage as only being between a man and women. I hated that he would go to religious groups during campaigning and make that pledge. And I just don't understand why? Why are religious leaders and conservatives so afraid of homosexuality? Don't be hiding behind religion and Christianity. Church leaders and clergy preaching that God loves everyone great and small no matter what...except if you don't believe in him or your gay then you are automatically going to hell and a sinner. How do those to things fit together? Love all but hate what I have told you. That is what bugs me the most. I am not saying religion is bad. It has a place in our lives, mainly in our spirituality, but not in shaping our governmental polices like what marriage is. Not all of us are Christians and while we do share similar values, I don’t my life governed by your spiritual beliefs –which is something I feel Bush has done. If he wants to represent the American people, then he has to represent all the American people- old or young, white, black, brown, straight or gay, rich and poor. He has to step above himself and see the bigger picture for everyone. And to me he hasn’t.

I am sorry that you feel that way. But how is that any different from Bush using God to justify his actions and decisions? If you think that gays are telling you what way to think then how is that different from Bush telling you what to think?

For some of you this is a moot point. That there are larger issues like the war, the economy, and security. But for others, this is a very important matter. I find it an important matter and it will remain an important matter. All I see is America closing up becoming much less tolerant and more secular.

Yeah Kerry has not come on to support marriage for same sex couples, but he didn’t oppose it. That’s not the only reason I chose to vote for Kerry, but one of the reasons.

Brent, I love this land. There are times I lay down on the grass outside in my back yard and think to myself how much I love the land I'm lying next to. This election didn't go my way. In 2 and 4 years, we'll give it another go, but I'm not going to write off this place that has given me life, and freedom, and so much. We are divided in many ways, this is true. But WE ARE STILL AMERICANS.

We still cross the Mississippi to go from the east to the west. We still have a big canyon, and gigantic forests of redwoods, and our kids still watch Sesame Street, and we still go to high school football games on Friday night. We go to New York and marvel at the really big buildings and the incredible Broadway shows. THIS IS WHO WE ARE. We're a big place and sometimes we contradict ourselves. But we believe we can overcome any obstacle, even the ones we set in front of ourselves.

I guess what I'm saying is if you're forcing me to choose, and being an American means I have to be a mean person who bullies the rest of the world to you, then I will be an American, and I swear it by the tears falling down my face right now, because I LOVE THIS LAND.

Sorry Semi,

I don't see where we as Americans have to account for how other countries feel when we are electing our leader. I'm fairly certain that people in other countries don't care about what I think about them when they are electing their leaders. Why are Americans held to different standard than the rest of the world? If other countries don't feel safe, because Bush is in the White House... I don't know what to say other than you can't please everybody. I know I wouldn't feel safer if say... Kerry was in the White House.

Nowhere in Prime's response do I see him say that you're opinion is not valid. If you want to think that we are a country full of mean people, then by all means do so. I can introduce you to my wife, and if she doesn't convince you that there are some nice people in this country, well then I can introduce you to her parents. The problem is not that your opinion isn't valid, the problem is that you've lumped everyone in this country into one big meanie that wants to bully the rest of the world. It's hard to support that argument, but you are more than entitled to believe it.

Editorial note to self: Jeff, today you're an emotional froot loop.

This is one of the things that drives me nuts... The democrats ran rampid in this country for pert near 40 years. Every once in a while the GOP would sneak a President in there, but he was always facing a Dem controlled congress. Let's just say that they weren't into extending olive branches to conservatives during those days, and since there were no mass conservative media outlets until the 90's, they really didn't have to.

Now all of the sudden the conservatives gain power and they must reach out to the other side? It works both ways, and quite frankly if the GOP is perceived as getting things done and reaching across party lines, that's not really in the other party's best interests, pollitcally speaking. Politics in this country is about power and money and the minority can't get that by reaching across party lines so that it looks like the majority is actually getting things done. In a perfect world, sure I'd like to see both sides work together for the betterment of the people they are supposed to serve, but the reality is that the world is just not perfect.

As for America's World View... once again, you can't please everybody.

Man, I don't know about you guys, but this has been one fun and interesting thread to participate in. You guys are great.

Actually, I would say that JFK began a modern Democrat legacy that held until Reagan, with Clinton being a postscript to that legacy. We're totally living in Reagan's legacy right now, governmentally speaking. That seems to be the way we do things in this country, historically. We tend to follow the legacy of a visionary President long after his service has ended. Positive or negative, JFK and Reagan, they both had vision and their legacy has guided the country long after their service ended.

At the risk of sounding melodramatic or paranoid, I must say that as a homosexual I am rather disturbed by the implications of this election.

Though I don't think that Pres Bush is personally homophobic, the fact remains that his largest source of support is obviously the christian right, which is *very* homophobic. He owes them big-time.

And with the House and Senate even more firmly in Republican control, he will be obliged to pay back the far-right of the evangelical movement by appointing extremely conservative Supreme Court judges. And since most people expect at least three of them to step down over the next four years, it seems Bush will have his chance. And with a Republican Congress to cheer him on.

Even more depressing is that eleven states have voted to ammend their constitutions to define marriage as a heterosexual institution. Now, if that were all, I wouldn't be so worried. But even worse, most of these ammendments also state that homosexual couples don't deserve such basic civil rights as health insurance, inheritance, adoption, hospital visitation rights etc.

And the icing on the cake is that these proposals passed by a staggering margin. Even in Oregon and my home state of Michigan.

I'm beginning to wonder if this is the country I thought i was....

There are a LOT of "hard feelings" on MY part. Saddam was empowered by the US and Hitler was funded by Bush family businesses, you picked some pretty poor examples. 120 Saudis and over 20 members of the bin Laden family were rushed out of the US in the aftermath of 911. Why? Sing the praises of that why don't you?

I never offered you a chorus of "We Are the World", I preached anti-violence. The only way to combat violent protest is to escalate the violence? Is war the only way to spread Democracy? That really doesn't speak well for the philosophy of it, does it?

I didn't ask to be insulted but I did offer to swallow my resentment and agree to work together toward the common good but you've just made me feel as if that's going to be impossible to do.

I'm sorry you feel persecuted by people that didn't want to spend 200 billion dollars to fight a war for Haliburton's profit margin and I'm sorry if you feel put down by people that don't want to listen to Buchannon and Graham preach racial and religious hatred. I quit my church in the 90's over political prosletyzation from the pulpit and I've never looked back.

Putting aside the issues, and whether or not I agree with Bush's position on them...

I could never support Bush because his life is the antithesis of the American way.

America stands for hard work, making an honest living, and being recognized for one's own merits and achievements. It's a country where anyone, no matter how humble their origins, can make something of themselves through faith, dedication, and perseverance.

Bush is the polar opposite of that: he got everything he has through family connections, the Old Boys' Club, and corruption. In that sense, his achievements are a slap in the face of everyone who's toiled day and night to make an honest living for themselves and their family.

Frankly, supporting Bush is about as unpatriotic and un-American as one can get.

Stu, you just described alot of politicians. On both sides of the aisle... including Kerry.

Well, I believe Kerry got into the game the old fashioned way. He married it.

However, I meant for my last post here to be my final one in this thread. I'm tired of the fight and I want to take a break.

So with that in mind my final parting shot:
Long Live the Legion!

WELL...I know you are cool and I know the missus is cool...but oh boy! is this going to become a BBQ thread?
Habenero mango pineapple BBQ sauce
I got the recipe

The point is that while other countries don't matter much to the US electorate the foreign policy of whoever is in the White House is critical to many other people in the rest of the world.

Look at how France was vilified by the US for not supporting the US invasion of Iraq! An invasion which is completely unjustified because the premise was bogus - where are the WMD?

It also sets a worrying precident. Because the US was effectively unopposed it now looks like your country can now invade/take military action against any of the other countries on the "axis of evil" list. And say Bush gets through those countries by the next election? Will the Republican party need to start on another soft target country?

The US is the world's only super power which is a frightening prospect - because the message that many governments around the world is getting is "support the US presidency, or you're next."

They don't. I can go on forever about it. They vote in order to legislate away personal freedoms, but when you want to impose majority rule on real structural issues, especially economic ones, they say you're impinging the personal rights of the individual or corporation. Republicans are trying to privatize the whole government (remember that an expanded public sector in America is still historically smaller than the public sector in European countries now that they're privatizing more). So basically they think they can legislate morality. Not the way America (or Democracy in general...some Americans think that they're in the only "free" country in the world, because it's repeated so often) was explained to me.

And the ignorance is widespread. A huge segment of Fox News viewers and Bush supporters say they wouldn't approve of Bush's invasion of Iraq if there were no WMD found. Obviously they are none, which Bush has admited, but they don't let inconveniences like truth and facts get in the way.

Really? You think he's a positive reflection on the military? Not a disgrace? The man is a CRIMINAL! And not just that, he's a traitor to this country. This isn't opinion, this is fact.

Yeah, it's worse. Stop believing the distorted statistics the Republicans are giving. The economy isn't improving. The only ones making out are the Leland McCauleys and R.J. Brandes of the world. Job creation can't keep up with new entrants to the workforce, and unemployment only looks low(er) because all the people who have given up looking for work in despair have been dropped from the ranks of those counted. So thanks for the shining future! Waid's run on the new book will be more relevant than ever, although the authority figures will seem pretty harmless in comparison. Bush/Cheney is more like the 5 Year Gap/TMK.

Well we'll never know for sure since all of those Diebold electronic voting machines that the CEO promised to deliver to Bush DON'T HAVE A PAPER TRAIL!

I understand that, but my point is that Americans have a responsibility to themselves to pick the leaders that are best for America. If taking into account what other countries think is part of that equation for some Americans, then that's fine. Other countries should do the same, and they do. I never said that our process and results weren't important to other countries, I said Americans shouldn't be held to a different standard when choosing their leaders just because we are the "only" superpower left.


That's a huge leap. You actually sound like America, behind Bush, is likely to invade France, and not because another occupying force is already there. I know those aren't your exact words, but it doesn't take long to connect those dots.

The reason France was villified is because we have bailed them out numerous times in recent history, most notably WWII and Vietnam. That's right, it was our involvement with France that got us involved in Vienam in the first place.

"1950 - The U.S., recognizing Boa Dai's regime as legitimate, begins to subsidize the French in Vietnam; the Chinese Communists, having won their civil war in 1949, begin to supply weapons to the Viet Minh.

August 3, 1950
A U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) of 35 men arrives in Saigon. By the end of the year, the U.S. is bearing half of the cost of France's war effort in Vietnam."

Quotes from here . It looks like some type of .edu source.

France was villified, and rightly so, because they refused to help us when we've been there for them in the past. France's motivations for slapping our hand away when we asked for help is a debate best left for another thread.

As for being the World's only super power... I think The United States has a pretty good record, with regards to civil rights and expansionism, when compared to other historical super powers at the height of their power.

The only ones making out are the Leland McCauleys and R.J. Brandes of the world. Job creation can't keep up with new entrants to the workforce, and unemployment only looks low(er) because all the people who have given up looking for work in despair have been dropped from the ranks of those counted. So thanks for the shining future! Waid's run on the new book will be more relevant than ever, although the authority figures will seem pretty harmless in comparison. Bush/Cheney is more like the 5 Year Gap/TMK.

Much props for working in a coherent Legion reference.

Well, we're in Afghanistan right now; we were in the first Irak war with you...

And we thank you for that FK... but the popular sentiment in the US is that France should have been with us on this trip to Iraq as well.

May I ask why France isn't in Iraq with us this time? I know what has been reported here, but I'd like to hear another, more local take on it.

You have some facts in their, let's see... Yes G. Gordon was a criminal. He went up the river for breaking into DNC headquarters. Yes that was disgraceful. That's about where your facts end. He is an extreme friend to this country's military, with numerous children serving/having served proudly in just about every branch. He himself was an artillery officer that was stationed at the same base where I went through basic training.

You're throwing around the words "traitor to this country" rather loosely. You got some proof for that, something like campaign contributions from foreign powers or the selling of missile technology to other countries? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy? You got anything to back that up?

As for the media discussion, I thought that was over. I thought I had already given examples of liberal bias in the mass media, but you want some more.

-to review: the way they treated Reagan and Bush Sr. on the homeless issue vs. how it just disappeared when Clinton took office. The homeless didn't disappear, just the story.

-the villification of black conservatives... Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell.

-how they accused conservatives of wanting to starve children and make sure the elderly are sick.

-the free pass for Clinton on his sexaul deeds vs. Packwood's sexual harrassment scandal

-here's some links documenting instances of CNN's liberal bias

That Liberal Media

Free Republic.Com

CNN bias

CNN bias

here\'s one for Fox\'s Conservative Bias

Column from Boston Globe

chiming in from 2001

There are tons of other links that you can find to support the other side just as well. Either that there is a conservative bias or that there is no bias. Ultimately its going to come down to how you want to see it, and I doubt that anything I show as "proof" is going to change your mind on this. My whole point is that it's good for the country that both sides be heard.

edit for grammar

I don't understand why so many Americans go on about France as if they're some great betrayers or something.

America asked France to help them invade Iraq. France said no because America's reasons for invading - WMD and what-not - were incredibly flimsy. Now that all of America's justifications for the invasion have been exposed as woefully innacurate at best and completely fabricated at worst, and the invasion itself declared illegal by an international court, France should be being applauded for following its conscience and not letting itself be drawn into the personal vendettas of the White House hawks. They saw that the war was wrong and called it. And yet some Americans still bitch about them! What do they want? The rest of the world to say "How high?" whenever the U.S. says "Jump!"?

And don't give me Vietnam and World War 2! America entered World War 2 after a little thing called Pearl Harbour remember. And it was in their best interest anyway - a Nazi-controlled Europe wasn't going to be helping the U.S. any. Same thing with Vietnam. "Reds under the Bed" America wasn't going to feel comfortable with communism spreading itself toward *both* shores of the homeland, especially not in an area as strategically important (and resources rich) as South East Asia.

And one last thing - didn't France help America out in that little ol' war called the War of Independence? If you're going to go to the history books for help why not go back all the way?

Yellow and i talked before i saw his last post, but i am gonna do what i said and basically say i disagree with some of what he said and let it go at that.

That's reaching across the aisle.

As to the "opposed to violence", let me ask you this, how do you propose to stop the terrorists when we know that life does not matter to them, except for their own? When they are willing to cut throats, to blow up children? One of the biggest arguements i continously hear is the Isreali conflict. The world has tried to set up a state, Bush is being bashed for not supporting it, yet he is one that supported Sharon doing a pull out, etc... and yet it was Arafat that continously nixed it, used Hamas to murder people to disrupt the talks, and smiled in people's face as he ordered those murders.

Reality has to come into play at some point. "well, what about sanctions and inspections?" Great, which one of you gets to condemn the people of Iraq to another twenty years under Hussein, another 10,000 murders on average a year? Which one of you is going to go into Iraq and choose the children the sticks in his rape, torture, and prison chambers? Because that is the reality of Sanctions. Oil for food gets subverted to food for Saddams army, while the people struggle to make it through the day.

Hoping for a great outcome doesn't get it done. YOU get to feel good about yourself. "I'm always opposed to violence." but you aren't the one that is feeling it safe here in the US.

It sounds great, but ultimately, its empty because you put nothing on the line.

EVEN their own by the looks of things. Threatening them doesn't stop them, it makes them martyrs to their cause when they blow themselves up, or you blow them up as they stand defiant.

And one question for you - the Iraqi elections. Just suppose for a moment Islamic fundamentalists wanted to stand. Would you stop them? And if you didn't, what would you do if they won.

Well, from my point of view, after the horror that was 9/11, we were really happy to help in the war against the Talibans.

Everything was great, everybody was joining in the War on Terror, the Talibans were defeated, there was many talks about the hard work that was the reconstruction of Aghanistan... suddenly, out of nowhere, we see Bush on TV claiming that Irak must be invaded because of the WMD.

After that, I perceived things going like this:

Bush & Co:"Let's invade Irak!"

Chirac & Co:"Come on. We must fight terrorists in the right places. As far as we know, Saddam has nothing to do with terrorists, and we're not even sure he still has WMDs. Let's see before attacking if he has them."

Bush & Co:"He has them! he is dangerous! He is evil!"

C & C:"OK. We know he is a monster, but we still have to find Oussama, rebuilt Afghanistan, and pressure the countries where terrorists could hide. If you're that afraid of him, the ONU can always pressure him. That should be enough."

B & C:"We're telling you we must invade. And by the way, we don't care about ONU."

Chorus:"WMD! Traitors! WMD!"

C & C:"Yes, but..."

B & C:"If you're not with us, you're against us!"

Chorus:"Cheese-eating surrender Monkey! Freedom Fries!"

C & C:"What? Listen, you..."

B & C :"We don't need you anyway, your the old Europe. And by the way, you'll pay it, one way or another."

Epilogue:

Bush: "Dear Americans, Oussama is no longer my priority; we must invade his best friend's country, Irak."

France: :rolleyes:

The End

In no way France wanted to hurt the interest of the US, but it was clear to us that Bush wanted to go in Irak for the wrongs (and falses) reasons.

Thanks, Blacula!

Rickshaw,

I'm not sure that violence really help either; look at Israel, or Russia: the more violent they are in their answers to terrorisms, the more determined are the terrorists .

Why do so many conservatives (and hell, maybe even liberals too?) still confuse the War in Iraq with the War on Terror? Because Fox News told you so?

Despite what that idiot Dick Cheney would have you believe the War on Terror and the War in Iraq are 2 completely different things. There are no connections between Saddam Hussein and Al-Quaeda! Even George Bush has admitted as such! NONE of the September 11th attackers were Iraqi! NONE of the Yemen ship bombers were Iraqi!

If America *really* wanted to do something about the terrorists they'd go for Saudi Arabia where (along with Palestine and Libya) traditionally most of the world's terrorists have come from. That's not going to happen of course and we all know why. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have huge business interests between each other. A war between them and who knows what will happen to that precious black gold?

So with terrorism and WMD out of the way what was that reason for invading Iraq again? Oh that's right - because Saddam Hussein was a bad man who tormented his people. Oh how humanitarian of the Republican administration! If that's all the justification you need to invade I can't wait to see where you go next. Zimbabwe? North Korea? Kazhakistan? Iran? China? Liberia? Sudan?

There comes a time when people need to stop and think 'What the hell are our leaders telling us? What the hell are our money and our lives being spent on?' instead of just following them blindly because you've always been a conservative (or a liberal). If more people had done that properly before Tuesday, Goerge Bush would not be in power again today.

No prob Frog Kid.

Frog Kid and Blacula, your points are well taken (and I of course, agree with them). Remember also that almost one-half of American voters are just as appalled by the result of this election and the blindness of those who re-elected Bush. Despite the predictable yet meaningless call for unity by Bush after his victory, and his promises to earn trust, I doubt that he will do anything to promote unity or earn the trust of those who opposed his re-election. This country will remain divided on Bush's policies, and I fear that the division will widen as he runs roughshod over personal liberties and the sovereignty of additional foreign nations.

I also fear that a "war on terrorism" which ignores the causes of terrorist activity, will exacerbate the problem and make it increasingly difficult for Americans and citizens of other nations to travel safely in the world.

The mood in San Francisco is very dark indeed.

It's pretty dark here in the North East too almost all over. Except where I work in Greenwich, where almost everyone is a millionaire. They seem to understand and take great delight in the fact that they are going to be making even more millions in the next four years.

I feel guilty knowing that I'm in the same industries...

Minesurfer,

You have stated above your response to the Iraq War, foreign policy, the economy and such. However you have ignored everything to do with Bush's stand on domestic policy-the volition of civil liberties, the stand on same sex marriages and such. Why have you ignored this?

You have stated that their is no great schism happening in America today and that it started long before Bush came into power and can be traced back as far as Nixon. I am not saying it has not started before but what I want to make clear is I think Bush and his polices have formed the catalyst that has divided everyone. Just look at all the elections and how close they are. Just in my home state many candidates have yet to declare victory because the votes are so close. Loser Lad also mentioned above about an election in his state that was to close to call. Can't you see that the people have drawn the line in the sand and you are on one side or another? You have even stated that. If that is not a division then what is?.

As I have stated earlier, all I see is America that is closing ranks. That is becoming less tolerant and more secular to benefit the part but not the whole.

Also, it's worht noting that if the UK government had paid attention to anything the British public has sadi about the proposed Iraq war we wouldn't have been part of it and, presumably, we'd have got the same treatment France has.

The biggest public demonstration in Britain afte the poll tax riots from 15 years ago was about Iraq - most people in the UK were opposed to the invasion. Our soldiers are only getting blown up there now because the Prime Minister is infatuated with the idea of himself as a "world leader".

And you can be guaranteed that if Bush continues in his second term the way he has in his first then there will many more terrorists in the world, not less.

You can say what you want, but the facts are that America got involved in Vietnam directly because of its relationship with France... "Reds under the bed" or whatever you want to throw out. Communism was spreading to alot of places, but we decided to help our friends the French with their situation. Its well documented that Russia was trying to encircle Greece, Germany, and Turkey with communist states during the late 40's. Funny, I don't remember the United States having military actions against communists in those nations at that time. Saying America was afraid of Reds and would have ended up in Vietnam anyway, isn't a position that can be supported with facts.

Whatever the reasons we went to War in in WW 2, and Pearl Harbor is as good as any, the fact is we did go. Not only that, but we helped win the European theater first before going to the far east. I bet Churchill was dancing in his bunker when he heard we had entered the War. Where did American troops land on D-Day? How many American soldiers are buried on French soil?

A Nazi controlled Europe isn't in the best interests of America? I'd say a Nazi controlled Europe isn't in the best interests of the people of Europe. If Pearl Harbor was the reason for entering WW II, why didn't we just go paste the nation that did it?

When you say Nazi Europe isn't in the best interests of the US you also open the door for me to say, Saddam Hussein in power isn't in the best interests of the US either. Whether he presents a clear and present danger with WMD or not, he is anti-American. He was in charge of an Army and well funded. He was a known supporter of terrorists (whether he was tied to Al Qaeda or not), him being in power is not in the best interests of the American people (as well as the Iraqi people too). You sure you want to leave that door opened?

You want to bring in the War for Independence, fine. I'll bring WW I into play then. So far that's three big ones where America helped out France and some other European nations that were in big trouble.

We got one big one back from France and that was more in retaliation against the British for taking alot of their lands in the French-Indian War. So while France did help and it was appreciated, and we probably couldn't have gained independence without them, they also saw an opportunity to get some lost lands back if Britain was defeated. Their involvement in the American Revolution had some self serving interests as well.

I'm a little rusty on these details, but part of the ill feelings towards France for the recent refusal to help with Iraq, wasn't just the refusal to help, but (and this is where I can't remember the details crisply) they were working in the UN against the United States for wanting to go into Iraq. It's fine if they don't want to go along for the ride, but don't stick your foot out and trip us as we're going through the door. That's where alot of resentment built up.

Wasn't that we did in Hiroshma?

So for that reason Europe is obliged to go along with whatever military action the US wants to take for the rest of time?

The US is really keen on reminding the UK that "without us you'd all be speaking German." But that sort of stuffs up your moral high ground doesn't it? If you want to claim that the US joined the War (3 years after everyone else did) for altruistic reasons then doesn't it defeat your argument when you get outraged that European countries blindly do whatever you tell us 60 years later?

Like I said before, most people in the UK wish our government had the guts to follow France's example and not get involved.

Part of the reason I've not said much about this is that Quislet, Esq. and I debated the same sex marriage thing a while back. It's at this thread . Quis is a very intelligent debater and I respect that. I am a happily married man to a wonderful woman. Do I think that Gay Marriage Ban amendments to State and Federal Constitutions violate the 14th amendment? There certainly is a compelling argument for it. It's a bit of a misnomer to think that America is a free society. It's actually a society that is governed by majority (not taking into account the electoral college). If the majority rules against gay marriage (which was what happened in the 11 states that had same sex marriage referendums this past tuesday), then there ain't much that can be done about it, except in the courts. My standard opinion on the issue is... If you are fighting for it, then I wish you well. It's not really an issue that affects me on personal level so I don't really have much of an opinion about it.

Not true... I said there is a great schism in this country, but that Bush was not the instigator. I said it's been going on for a long time and that it is the nature of a two party system. I also said that Bush has not been able to bring the country together, and that I don't really see anybody on the political scene that can. Although Prime suggested McCain since then, and I must admit that it is an intriguing idea.

You're right. But if there is a division in this country, you really can't blame it on one side. Just like I can't blame it on the other side either. It always takes both sides to want to come together. Like I said before, that is not in the best interests of the minority party. The minority party always wants to be the majority party and they have a much more difficult time becoming so if the majority party looks like they have healed the country and brought everyone together for the common good. I'd be very surprised if Dems ever found a Repub to get behind and vice versa. It would be nice if that wasn't the way, but I don't know if we'll see that again in my lifetime. I think that open debates like the one we are having now between cordial people who genuinely listen to the other side can do more to heal the schism in this country than any politician can.

It just so happens that the other side won this time and that hurts. I know what it's like as I recall the 1996 election. You're thinking something like, "Oh my god. How could all those idiots have voted that man another term." All I can say is that in four more years we are going to go through this whole thing again. It comes around alot quicker than it seems.


I'd have to think about this some more before commenting. My initial response is that you have to be careful about generalizing and lumping America into one increasingly intolerant nation. If you do, and you're in America (Texas I see), then you've just claimed that you are becoming intolerant, which I'm sure is not the case. You see what I mean? Generalizing like that is usually pretty hard to defend.

We did that at Nagasaki too, but after the European theater was decided. Blacula was saying that Nazi Europe wasn't in America's best interests. And he's right, but he also said that America was drawn into WW2 by Japan. I just pointed out that we helped defeat the Nazi's before we really focused on the far east theater. We could have just gone up against Japan and left Europe to figure things out on its own. That was my point.

I never said Europe was morally obligated to follow the US's military lead... I never said the speaking German thing. I purposely stayed away from that. I said we helped win the European theater. That implies that we weren't the only ones there. Being a former military man myself, I would never downplay the sacrifices that soldiers make.

What I did say is that we've been there to help in the past. When France wasn't there to help this time and then politicked behind our backs at the UN against our cause, there was some resentment felt by alot of Americans. If Europe doesn't want to go to war, that's really fine by me.

Let me clarify me position and how I came to see it that way. Earlier you stated that the line was drawn in the sand. That people were fed up with having to accept something that the are morally opposed too. 11 states (or is it 8) states passed measures not only banning same sex marriages but eliminating any rights these people hold with each other from any legal standpoint. Many Republican ran on a platform of family values built upon their own church values. And they won.

How am I as a gay and Asian supposed to feel about that? Not only am I morally objectionable but I am also a "foreigner" -even though I was born and have spent my entire life in Texas. These people hate who I am and where I come from are the ones I have lay my fate too. I consider myself and foremost a Texan and an American. I feel lucky that my parents had the forethought to leave and give me the great life I have here. I grew up in Texas and learned that everyone is welcome in the US and that we respect everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So how can I help but to feel that the majority of Americans are becoming less tolerant and more secular. The leaders that have been elected are trying to curtail my freedom to live by legislating my morals and values and marginalizing my rights as an American. Not as a gay American or an Asian American, but as an American. These are the people that the majority chose to elect to office and this is what they are asking for. So now I have to live through it and hope that nothing really bad happens to curtail my rights to live freely. I know that you stated that you don't care and it doesn’t bother you, but there are people out there that would love nothing better but to outlaw/ban or whatever with homosexuality. So can you see where my statement is coming from?

Maybe I should change my statement too this-- I feel that a majority of Americans, based upon this last election and it results, have shown themselves to be less tolerant and more secular then I believed them to be.

Let me add this too. This is not about being in power or not the majority. This is not about being a sore loser. This is not about FOX news or CNN. This is me seeing with my eyes, people who don't feel I deserve the same rights and previlegs that they have. The same people who think that I shouldn't have any rights at all becasue of my sexual orientaion or my personal beliefs. Debates about war, the economy, media bias, and foregin policy have been prevelant in all the major elections. But I feel that in this election people really voted for a way of life. And that way of life dosen't include me. I don't like the way I put it, but I hope you get the geist of waht I am trying to say.

Hey RTVU2,

I don't think you're quoting me. I never said anything about sand or people having to accept something they are morally opposed to. That's not even my style.

Go back and check the posters who typed that, because that is not me speaking.

To clarify, I really don't care if people are black, white, red, yellow, polka dot, striped, handicapped, gay, normal, stinky, clean smelling or whatever. Sometimes if people are stinky, I try to move upwind... but that's my own personal failing . Those things are all traits, not defining characteristics. Words and actions go alot farther to defining a person's character than any physical property I've ever noticed. I'm sure you are quoting someone else but thinking it was me.

As for how you are supposed to feel about something... I'm sorry but I can't tell you how to feel. The only thing I can do is give you hope that in four more years you'll have another chance to do something about it.

As for America becoming more secular and intolerant, I don't have any numbers here in front of me to back up any conclusion. If Kerry would have won the election, would it be right for me to conclude that America is becoming more homosexual? There's alot of people that think America has been steadily moving away from the church for years. I don't know what to think about that, to be honest with you.

Mike - minesurfer

I found the post you're referring to... It was by Rickshaw on page 12, fifth post.

He talks about the silent majority speaking up after feeling like other people's morality was being forced on them. No where did I see him specifically state that he was morally opposed to gays and gay marriage. In fact he pretty much states that who you want to spend your life with is your business.

edit for typo

Sorry about that, so many long posts from everybody and I am getting confused.

Didin't mean to attribute anything that you didin't state yourself. I am done wiht this. I am goig to go home and watch the OC and wait four more years.

Hi STF : I hope none of my comments made it seem like I had a blanket dislike for any or all Americans because that couldn't be further from the truth. I don't even dislike conservatives - just some of their ideologies.

I actually lived in Ohio for a long time and have many friends and family scattered all over the country. Its a country I visit regularly and I know it to be full of many wonderful people. I just wish that some Americans would remember that there are also many other wonderful people around the world who don't deserve to have U.S. bombs falling on them or to see their country remoulded as America II.

Hi minesurfer : I feel bad that it seems like there are about 3 or 4 of us liberals ganging up on you in this thread and you're having to debate all of us on your own as the lone Bush-supporter. When really you should be out there celebrating!

I don't really have much to add to this thread at the moment (other than I think France were perfectly in their right to prevent what they perceived as an illegal invasion - if that were the case) but I will say that its a pleasure debating with someone who doesn't lose their temper or slip into condescending mode (as I regretfully am wont to do sometimes - apologies). Hats off to you minesurfer.

Hi everyone else : Its just four more years. You can make it!

First of all, France's war in Vietnam was to regain control over its former colony which was later occupied by Japan. So of course Vietnamese are going to assert their national sovereignty. They fought off the Japanese during WWII. More power to them for throwing off the yolk of colonialism! And they established a constitution almost identical to that of the US. So why didn't the US help support this fledgling democracy? I don't know, but it fits its track record. They fought to help turn it back into a European colony. Way to go! That led the Vietnamese to the realization that US-style democracy isn't what the US wants in the third world (due to economic interests), and that socialism was the only real viable avenue open to colonized peoples in the third world. The Eastern Bloc offered them more chance of freedom than cooperation with the US (which only got them the likes of Ngo Dinh Diem). Maybe if you understood the real history, you could help prevent a sad chapter in the US's history from being repeated.

Second of all, WWI was a distaster of a war that shouldn't be glorified. It was an imperialist war to the highest degree. An example of capitalism-run-amok. The US stepped in at the last minute just in time to rebuild Europe and make a killing of it. Meanwhile veterans were denied their benefits, the national guard called on them when they protested. Blacks who had fought in the war came home to find the same institutionalized racism that they'd left. And no jobs. Meanwhile the postwar order put in place by the Versailles treaty was one of the biggest factors in Hitler's rise to power.

As for France and the US in the UN... welcome to the international community. The world became a smaller place after the atom was split. The stakes are too high (Yet Bush says he's willing, if not eager, to experiment with the use of tactical nukes preemptively). You're letting emotions and narrowness of perspective rule your judgement. "...slapping away our hand," indeed!

I cheered for France and Germany when they opposed the US' plans for invasion in the UN. I felt more represented by them than I did by my own government. I was glad someone was standing up to Bush's insanity. (not that I think Chirac really represents the people of France, or has an enlightened foreign policy) Turns out that I and the millions of people who protested across the world were right, and the Deulfer report and the 9/11 commision have borne this out in painfully obvious detail. This is what the "global test" Republicans harp about means, but I guess this concept is too complex for Republicans to understand, so they have to lie about "permission slips."

But Bush didn't want international support. He wanted it to fail so that he could come back to Congress, say diplomacy had failed (and convince the easily mislead that the world had turned its back on us, which was especially potent since they mislead Americans into believing that there were ties between Iraq and Al-Qeida) and rush us to war. Anyone who watched saw that. It's the same thing they do with education or social security or medicare. Project for a New American Century. I'd like to be in a new millenium about now. (L*)

Oh not to mention that Osama is splitting his sides laughing at us. Looks like the joke is on us. As a New Yorker who watched 9/11 happen, I feel like I've been betrayed by Bush. He's hijacked 9/11 to excuse every piece of his radical right-wing agenda from attacking Iraq to giving airlines huge cash giveaways, and allowing said airlines to lay off massive amounts of employees anyway. New York is DEAD LAST in the country in per capita Anti-terror spending. Our Republican mayor shut down many of our firehouses. So we have less firemen, what the hell do we do if there's another attack (because Kansas isn't a terrorist target, WE are). Mayor Bloomberg thinks it's smart to slash the city budget and rely on homeland security money for everything, and yet we're getting very little. I wonder if it will get worse if we elect a Democrat mayor and the the Republicans decide to show us the error of our ways. Bush gives lip service to troops and firemen, but he's all talk. Meanwhile people on the other side of the country are using it to justify everything under the sun. People who value the lives of some over others based on where they live are wrong. But I'm not talking about Bush rewarding the red states and punishing the blue states with federal funding (although I could), in this case I'm talking about which country they live in. That includes both bin Laden and George W. Bush. Most New Yorkers don't support using one tragic loss of innocent human lives to justify another.

Okay I HAD to respond. I'll keep responding as long as you keep making factual errors. He bombed those targest in pursuit of OSAMA BIN LADEN, something Bush could never be bothered to do before 9/11 or after the invasion of Iraq.

And let me respond to the G. Gordon Liddy comment in this post so I can be done. He is the highest form of traitor. He may be loyal to the army, but he's an enemy of the people. Interfering with United States elections, especially on behalf of a political campaign, is morally reprehensible. It's a crime against democracy. It's not as bad as staging a military coup, but it's up there.

Okay, I was hoping to find an actual scan of this. This is just a quick mockup, although it's basically accurate, even if the fonts aren't quite right..;.

<font face="Arial">...ldiers[/b]</font s></font f>
<font face="Arial"><font size="3">The hopefuls in the Democrat camp really believed victory in the US election was within their grasp. How did they get it so wrong? They failed to appreciate, says Simon Schama, that their country is now in fact two nations that loathe and fear each other - Godly and Worldly America</font s></font f>

<font face="Geneva"><font size="2">Simon Schama</font s></font f>
<font face="Geneva"><font size="2">Friday November 5, 2004</font s></font f>
<font face="Geneva"><font size="2">The Guardian</font s></font f>

<font face="Geneva"><font size="2">In the wee small hours of November 3 2004, a new country appeared on the map of the modern world: the DSA, the Divided States of America. Oh yes, I know, the obligatory pieties about "healing" have begun; not least from the lips of the noble Loser. This is music to the ears of the Victor of course, who wants nothing better than for us all to Come Together, a position otherwise known as unconditional surrender. Please, fellow curmudgeons and last ditchers, can someone on the losing side just for once not roll over and fall into a warm bath of patriotic platitudes at such moments, but toot the flute of battle instead; yell and holler and snarl just a wee bit? I don't want to heal the wound, I want to scratch the damned thing until it hurts and bleeds - and then maybe we'll have what it takes to get up from the mat. Do we think the far-right Republican candidate Barry Goldwater, in the ashy dawn of his annihilation in 1964, wanted to share? Don't think so. He wanted to win; sometime. And now, by God, he has.</font s></font f>

<font face="Geneva"><font size="2">"We are one nation," the newborn star of Democrats, Senator-elect Barack Obama, exclaimed, even as every salient fact of political life belied him. Well might he invoke Lincoln, for not since the Civil war has the fault line between its two halves been so glaringly clear, nor the chasm between its two cultures so starkly unbridgeable. Even territorially (with the exception of Florida, its peninsular finger pointing expectantly at tottering Cuba), the two Americas are topographically coherent and almost contiguous. One of those Americas is a perimeter, lying on the oceans or athwart the fuzzy boundary with the Canadian lakes, and is necessarily porous and outward-looking. The other America, whether montagnard or prairie, is solidly continental and landlocked, its tap roots of obstinate self-belief buried deep beneath the bluegrass and the high corn. It is time we called those two Americas something other than Republican and Democrat, for their mutual alienation and unforgiving contempt is closer to Sunni and Shia, or (in Indian terms) Muslim and Hindu. How about, then, Godly America and Worldly America?</font s></font f>

<font face="Geneva"><font size="2">Worldly America, which of course John Kerry won by a massive landslide, faces, well, the world on its Pacific and Atlantic coasts and freely engages, commercially and culturally, with Asia and Europe in the easy understanding that those continents are a dynamic synthesis of ancient cultures and modern social and economic practices. This truism is unthreatening to Worldly America, not least because so many of its people, in the crowded cities, are themselves products of the old-new ways of Korea, Japan, Ireland or Italy. In Worldly America - in San Francisco, Chicago, San Diego, New York - the foreigner is not an anxiety, but rather a necessity. Its America is polycultural, not Pollyanna.</font s></font f>

<font face="Geneva"><font size="2">Godly America, on the other hand, rock-ribbed in Dick Cheney's Wyoming, stretched out just as far as it pleases in Dubya's deeply drilled Texas, turns its back on that dangerous, promiscuous, impure world and proclaims to high heaven the indestructible endurance of the American Difference. If Worldly America is, beyond anything else, a city, a street, and a port, Godly America is, at its heart (the organ whose bidding invariably determines its votes over the cooler instructions of the head), a church, a farm and a barracks; places that are walled, fenced and consecrated. Worldly America is about finding civil ways to share crowded space, from a metro-bus to the planet; Godly America is about making over space in its image. One America makes room, the other America muscles in.</font s></font f>

<font face="Geneva"><font size="2">Worldly America is pragmatic, practical, rational and sceptical. In California it passed Proposition 71, funding embryonic stem cell research beyond the restrictions imposed by Bush's federal policy. Godly America is mythic, messianic, conversionary, given to acts of public witness, hence the need - in Utah and Montana and a handful of other states - to poll the voters on amendments to their state constitution defining marriage as a union between the opposite sexes. But then Worldly America is said to feed the carnal vanities; Godly America banishes and punishes them. From time to time Godly America will descend on the fleshpots of Worldly America, from Gotham (it had its citadel-like Convention there after all) to Californication, will shop for T-shirts, take a sniff at the local pagans and then return to base-camp more convinced than ever that a time of Redemption and Repentance must be at hand. But if the stiff-necked transgressors cannot be persuaded, they can be cowed and conquered.</font s></font f>

<font face="Geneva"><font size="2">No wonder so many of us got the election so fabulously wrong even into the early hours of Tuesday evening, when the exit polls were apparently giving John Kerry a two- or three-point lead in both Florida and Ohio. For most of us purblind writers spend our days in Worldly America and think that Godly America is some sort of quaint anachronism, doomed to atrophy and disappear as the hypermodernity of the cyber age overtakes it, in whatever fastness of Kentucky or Montana it might still circle its wagons. The shock for the Worldlies is to discover that Godly America is its modernity; that so far from it withering before the advance of the blog and the zipdrive, it is actually empowered by them. The tenacity with which Godly America insists the theory of evolution is just that - a theory - with no more validity than Creationism, or that Iraqis did, in fact, bring down the twin towers, is not in any way challenged by the digital pathways of the information age. In fact, such articles of faith are expedited and reinforced by them. Holy bloggers bloviate, Pentecostalists ornament their website with a nimbus of trembling electronic radiance and, for all I know, you can download Pastor John Ashcroft singing the Praises of the Lord right to your Godpod.</font s></font f>

<font face="Geneva"><font size="2">Nor, it transpires, is the exercise of the franchise a sure-fire way for the Democrats to prevail. The received wisdom in these Worldly parts (subscribed to by yours truly; mea culpa) was that a massively higher turn out would necessarily favour Kerry. P Diddy's "Vote or Die" campaign was credited with getting out young voters en masse who ignored the polls in 2000. We saw a lot of Springsteen and Bon Jovi and ecstatic upturned faces. Who could possibly match their mobilisation, we thought? Answer: Jehovah and his Faithful Servant St Karl the Rove. The biggest story of all in 2004 is the astounding success of the Republicans in shipping millions of white evangelicals to the polls who had also stayed at home four years earlier. We thought we were fired up with righteous indignation - against the deceits of the propaganda campaign for the Iraq war, against the gross inequities of the tax cuts - but our fire was just hot air compared to the jihad launched by the Godlies against the infamy of a tax rollback, of merely presuming to diss the Dear Leader in a time of war. And the battalions of Christian soldiers made the telling difference in the few critical places where Godly and Worldly America do actually rub shoulders (or at least share a state), Ohio above all.</font s></font f>

<font face="Geneva"><font size="2">By the lights of the psephology manuals, Ohio ought to have been a natural for the Democrats: ageing industrial cities such as Akron and Dayton, with big concentrations of minorities, suffering prolonged economic pain from out sourced industries. Cleveland and Cincinnati are classic cities of the Worldly plain: half-decayed, incompletely revived; great art museums, a rock'n'roll hall of fame, a terrific symphony orchestra. But drive a bit and you're in deep Zion, where the Holsteins graze by billboards urging the sinful to return to the bosom of the Almighty, the church of Friday night high school football shouts its hosannas at the touchdowns, and Support Our Troops signs grow as thick as the rutabaga. At first sight there's not much distance between this world and western Pennsylvania, but were the state line to be marked in 20ft-high electrified fences the frontier between the two Americas couldn't be sharper. The voters of the "Buckeye State" cities did care about their jobs; they did listen when Kerry told them the rich had done disproportionately nicely from Bush's tax cut. But they were also listening when their preachers (both black and white) fulminated against the uncleanliness of Sodom and the murder of the unborn. In the end, those whose most serious anxieties were the state of the economy and the Mess-o-potamia were outvoted by those who told exit pollers their greatest concern in 2004 was "moral values".</font s></font f>

<font face="Geneva"><font size="2">Faith-driven politics may even have had a hand in delivering Florida to Bush by a surprising margin, since it seems possible that Jewish voters there who voted for "my son the vice-president" Joe Lieberman (not to mention Hadassah, oy what nachas) in 2000, actually switched sides as a result of the president's support for Ariel Sharon. It wasn't that the Kerry campaign didn't notice the confessional effect. It was just that they didn't know what to do about it. Making the candidate over as some sort of altar boy (notwithstanding directives from Rome instructing the faithful on the abhorrence of his position on abortion) would have been about as persuasive as kitting him out with gun, camouflage and dead Canada geese; a laboriously transparent exercise in damning insincerity.</font s></font f>

<font face="Geneva"><font size="2">In Godly America the politics of impassioned conviction inevitably trumped the politics of logical argument. On CNN a fuming James Carville wondered out loud how a candidate declared by the voting public to have decisively won at least two of the three televised debates could have still been defeated. But the "victory" in those debates was one of body language rather than reasoned discourse. It registered more deeply with the public that the president looked hunched and peevish than that he had been called by Kerry on the irrelevance of the war in Iraq to the threat of terror. And since the insight was one of appearance not essence, it could just as easily be replaced by countless photo-ops of the president restored to soundbite affability. The charge that Bush and his second war had actually made America less, not more safe, and had created, not flushed out, nests of terror, simply failed to register with the majority of those who put that issue at the top of their concerns.</font s></font f>

<font face="Geneva"><font size="2">Why? Because, the president had "acted", meaning he had killed at least some Middle Eastern bad dudes in response to 9/11. That they might be the wrong ones, in the wrong place - as Kerry said over and over - was simply too complicated a truth to master. Forget the quiz in political geography, the electorate was saying (for the popular commitment to altruistic democratic reconstruction on the Tigris is, whatever the White House orthodoxy, less than Wolfowitzian), it's all sand and towelheads anyway, right? Just smash "them" (as one ardent Bush supporter put it on talk radio the other morning) "like a ripe cantaloupe". Who them? Who gives a shit? Just make the testosterone tingle all the way to the polls. Thus it was that the war veteran found himself demonised as vacillating compromiser, the Osama Candidate, while a pair of draft-dodgers who had sacrificed more than eleven hundred young men and women to a quixotic levantine makeover, and one which I prophesy will be ignominiously wound up by next summer (the isolationists in the administration having routed the neocons), got off scot free, lionised as the Fathers of Our Troops.</font s></font f>

<font face="Geneva"><font size="2">Well, the autumn leaves have, just this week, fallen from the trees up here in the Hudson Valley and the scales from the eyes of us deluded worldlies. If there is to be any sort of serious political future for the Democrats, they have to do far more than merely trade on the shortcomings of the incumbents - and there will be opportunities galore in the witching years ahead (a military mire, a fiscal China syndrome and, hullo, right before inauguration, a visit from al-Qaida). The real challenge is to voice an alternative social gospel to the political liturgy of the Godlies; one that redefines patriotism as an American community, not just a collection of wealth-seeking individuals; one that refuses to play a zero-sum game between freedom and justice; one in which, as the last populist president put it just a week ago, thought and hope are not mutually exclusive. You want moral values? So do we, but let them come from the street, not the pulpit. And if a fresh beginning must be made - and it must - let it not begin with a healing, but with a fight.</font s></font f>

Interfering with a United States election? Please... CNN Link to Watergate info

They broke in and tapped some phones to keep track of what the other side was doing. It was all about knowing strategy. It happened in June. Elections are in what month? At best you could call it dirty politics (which both sides take part in). At worse you call it felony breaking and entering and that's what he did time for. Traitor status based on election tampering is just not supportable by the facts. If it was, I'm sure he'd have been charged with it.

Clinton going after Osama with those missiles... well you believe what you want to believe, but you'll never convince me that the timing of those strikes wasn't meant to be a smoke screen for the testimony given later that day. How many opportunities did Clinton have to go after Osama before that day? Nope, the "Clinton was going after Osama" defense is only part of the story. If you don't want to see the other side of it, then there ain't much I can say.

Hi Blacula:

I don't feel like I'm being ganged up on... but then I was prepared for it when I started talking in this thread. I'm glad things have remained civil too. It's a credit to this Board, the Founders, and the posters here. I've learned alot through these discussions. I find it interesting to hear other people's ideas, especially from other countries.

I think I'm going to take a few days off from this thread though as I really do have to get some work done . I think I'm going to hit some of the "quicker" threads for awhile.

Best to you.

I just wanted to say thanks to minesurfer for actually reading, comprehending, and relating what I said about the silent majority. It seems that most people still don't even though its right there in white on screen.

The majority feels that a distinct minority is trying to FORCE them to not just ignore or not care about gay marriage, but to accept and embrace it. Even though it goes against their personal beliefs. They feel that gays are now trying to co-opt their religions, their churchs, their system of faith.

You CANNOT argue against this, because that is what they FEEL. You may not see it that way, but your point of view on it is irrelevant to THEM.

You may see it as being a much more forgiving, tolerant, better society if you make those inroads into religious faiths, churchs, etc... and YOU may be RIGHT, because that is how YOU feel. And their point of view is irrelevant to YOU.

That is all i was saying.

So how is this any different from Bush trying to force his faith based intatives through goverment. Aren't we being force to accept his personal beliefs of faith? Last time I checked we are not all white anglo-saxon protestants here.

That is what I am trying to ask here. I just dont understand why we can't just accept our differences and move on. I hear what you are trying to say. I just don't understand how it can be.

Maybe you don't. I don't know. I will say that i have seen willful misunderstanding on BOTH sides of the arguements.

Maybe this will help.

People...are.

Each one is different, and believe their own beliefs. It isn't good or bad, people just believe as they believe, find comfort in what they find comfort in, etc...yada yada yada.

On the conservative side, i tend to see people that approach things in a very realistic, basic way. This doesn't mean that they don't understand the complex, its just that they see the complex as an excuse for paralysis. You can have endless committie's debating until eternity and nothing will get done. They believe in picking a direction and going, and trying to fix things as they go. But they think at least they have started the journey. The problem is that they don't tend to stop and think while they are doing at times, and others get lost in the shuffle.

On the liberal side, i have seen people...and here is where i may draw some heat, but please understand, this is just an observation in the most general of terms...basically wallow in woes. Yes, i happen to agree that quite a lot of what happens isn't fair, it isn't right. But the...what appears to me at times anyway...stubborn denial of what is as opposed to what you would like...doesn't help. It gets perceived as being weak and a bit dramatic. That probably isn't fair, but that is the perception that conservatives get.

You may not understand HOW it can be, but it is. Its that simple. What is...is. You have to get to the point where you aren't bogged down with the "how can this be in a civilized world?", or "how can they not understand we didn't choose this, its how we are?!" and get on with YOUR journey.

I will say that i have seen just as much prejudice from the left here as i have seen from the right. If you are christian, you are automatically fundamentalist and therefore bigoted. How is that any different from what you decry? And quite a few christians really need to unclench. Honestly. Get over some of the BS and realize that sexual preference or proclivity amoung adults not under duress is their business, not yours.

Maybe this has seemed harsh. Most likely. But hopefully you will see that i wasn't trying to be cruel, just open and honest, and you can glean some insight from it.

Hopefully.

I can agree with you on some points. I do think conservatives and Bush especially don't really think about the broader scope of things and how one simple action can have some many different ramifications. Then I do think liberals have a tendency to over think things to the point where it is too late to really do anything.

However how can I go on my journey or even start it when there are a very vocal few people who don't want me too? And those vocal people get all the moderates to agree on them by preying on their fears. But what exactly is there to be afraid of? That is what gets me. I realize that there are degrees of conservatism and liberalism. I realize that not all Christians are fundamentalists. And I know all conservatives don't agree with Bush. But it just gets me when I watch or read TV or the news and some conservative religious group is just sprouting all this hate. Not being raised in a church and knowing what I know from friends and readings, how can they say they have love in their heart for everyone yet come down on anyone that doesn’t agree with them? It seems to me to be hypocritical. My friend went home and visited his step-dad at Sunday school. He was awestruck to see a project that kids had just finished. It was called “What God Hates.” He was dumbfounded on how the Sunday school teacher could endorse and even think of this project because God was supposed to never hate and only love. One the list was that he hated gays.

Maybe i can help with this. "God only loves" is a fallacy. What far too many people seem to slide right past is that he loves everyone, gays included, but does hate some of the actions that they take. And it has to be a truly tough pill to swallow that your entire life, no matter how fine a person you are, is currently defined by your sexual proclivity, and that doesn't fit with what someone wrote down in a book hundreds of years ago. But it is what it is.

Understand, i tended to read the bible under my own understanding. I don't follow any religion, yet the judeo/christian most closely hits what i believe, as it was written to be, not what it has been turned into.

As for those that use the religion as a weapon, they aren't real christians. They like to think they are, but they forget a basic rule when they hate like that..."love thy neighbor". God says "love the sinner, hate the sin." And it has to hurt that your apparantly largest defining characteristic to others is deemed a sin by them, but that is where they fail in their faith.

It's like dining in high society if you are someone that has only led a poorer, casual life. Table manners are meant to put people at ease, that was their basic function and reason. Somewhere along the line, snobs turned that into a weapon to try and make others feel inferior. Who really gives a crap which fork is used, as long as your guests feel comfortable enough to eat and be at ease. At least, thats how i see it.

I know, not everyone is like that. There is a range of reaction, both good and bad. But, the best response is just living. And if the religion you subscribe to has proscriptions against homosexuality...there are reportedly millions of gay people in america alone. What is to stop you from starting your own version? Of finding fellowship with someone that believes like you?

If that seems harsh or callow, im sorry. It is reality as i see it. Maybe in time it will change. Then again, maybe it will get worse. There are millions more hetero than homo sexuals. You aren't going to outvote them. You simply don't have the numbers. That doesn't mean you go away or quit, just that you do what you can, and learn to accept that some people have distorted senses of love and compasion.

And if you don't have enough to form your own church in a place where you live, and it is that important to you, then realistically, the answer is to find a city that CAN support one and be there.

Everyone has to make hard choices in life. It simply is. I don't want to drive three hours a day just to take my wife back and forth to work. But right now i have certain limitations that force this. I am working to change it, and that means a move. It's not fair or right. It simply is.

Thats the only way i know to say it. But speaking as a straight male with a conservative bent, i do truly wish you the best. Take some comfort in the fact that the widely held belief that all christians are fundamentalist bigots ...isn't true. Some of us...i would guess a quiet majority of us, believe in live and let live. You just have to remember that the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

Matthew 5:38-42

Sure, we'll give Matthew the old "eye for an eye" treatment for not posting here in so long.

Just got pointed at this. My god...

Certainly makes one wonder, Reboot.

www.blackboxvoting.org

www.votergate.tv

There will be an attempt to use the Freedom of Information Act (a concept so basic and central to democracy, yet always resisted in practice by the government)to obtain the records from the voting machines. I think Nader might also do something in New Hampshire, since it is within his rights as a candidate.

By the way, I've been to Cuba, and Fidel Castro has a mandate. A lot more of a mandate than Bush, who is quick to mention he got the highest amount of votes of any presidential candidate ever, but fails to mention that Kerry got the second highest amount of any presidential candidate ever. If Bush can't be honest and trust the American people to make INFORMED rational decisions (note I didn't say CHOICES), how are we supposed to trust him? Transparency became a thing of the past soon after the first day of the Bush presidency, and now he's even trying to impose a standard one-question limit on White House reporters.

BTW Bush won on national security. How is that a mandate to gut social security? My whole generation has been betrayed, and those who don't feel that way now will learn the hard way unfortunately.

Gut social security? C'mon, quit the rhetoric.

He wants to let people control 2%. Thats .002 of THEIR money. Its not yours. Its not mine. Its not the Dems. Its not the Repubs. Its not even the governments. It belongs to each individual that pays that money in.

And just investing in a simple Dow or Nasdaq fund is gonna generate approximately 14%, instead of the 3 to 5 that the government does. And the ones it is designed to work for are people that have come of age in the market and know how to invest it for a better modest income. Sorry, but 14 percent is a heckuva lot better than 3 to 5, which barely covers average yearly inflation.

Stop watching the scare tactics and actually investigate what is being said. Here in SC, Inez Tennenbaum tried to scare the hell outta people about jim demints 23% sales tax. She repeatedly made out like it is to be put on top of allll the taxes people already pay.

What it was was a system that would remove income taxes, remove Fica, etc..., stop the horrific abuses perpetrated by some irs officials, and make the system work for people instead of being used as a weapon to take their life's work, homes, ruin their credit and future. And don't tell me it doesn't happen, my parents were ruined by them when i was a kid.

Try doing a little digging that isn't based on proving some crazy conspiricy theory. I don't agree with demint on a lot of things, but anything that pays the bills for America, and doesn't break the average working man that cant afford the lawyers to fight the mega powerful irs is a great thing in my opinion.

But if you are gonna look at everything as nothing more than an attempt to break the little man, we are gonna miss out on opportunities to actually help them. Stop letting others do your thinking for you. Investigate and do it yourself.

Learn the basics of money, the monetary system, and the way it is impacted by government. Quit relying on others to tell you what to think.

Uh oh, the exit polling was wrong! Just like the last two elections? Dan, Peter, and Tom didn't get to influence the election again....Ohhh, woe is the world.

Yup, just like Bush didn't really win 2000, only the times, the washington post i believe it was, along with two or three other big media outlets against bush then went down and did their own recount, and bush won every time.

Now, if i really wanted to run to the conspiracy theory, i would have to wonder about those machines that were cut own and had about 1,400 votes already on them for Democratic candidates, wouldn't i?

Hmmmm, i want to say that aliens from the planet whackjob have secretly been influencing the minds of democratic officials with their mind altering rays from the planet pluto for the last thirty years. Their secret purpose, global nuclear war that would kill everyone, leaving bodies everywhere for them to come down and eat. Ho'boy, is thet a good'un er whut?

Look, the exit polls were wrong because certain members of the polling groups wanted to skew it. They picked more Kerry-likely voters than Bush-likely voters. Go back and look at the internal questions and numbers from groups like gallop and zagby without your personal bias on. The numbers match up with the election.

An i'm glad to see that reboot understands that Bush and his crew never stop thinking about the way enemies would like to hurt the US, and ways to prevent them.

I mean, that is what Bush was talking about in Reboots sig.

Bush ****ed up. That may be what he was TRYING to say, but that's not what he DID say.

And on your "magic 2%", take a look at how all the UK "personal pensions" crashed and burned in the mid-90s...

Oh my gosh, you mean Bush misspoke? Why that must be a first for anyone on earth, ever, right?

See, thats why it is so hard to take your side seriously on those types of things. A simple mis-speak from someone known to NOT be a polished public speaker is used as a 100% perfect indictment. Rather than being an effective tool, it just comes across as spiteful, silly, and ...and here's a magic bullet for you...MEAN.

As for those in england or wherever, the simple fact is that the US stock market has trended upwards at a steady rate over the last forty years. Did it have dips? Yes. Did it have huge gains? Yes. But, if you invested long term, forgot the stupid get rich quick scheming, and just left it solidly invested, YOU GAINED MUCH MORE THAN THE US GOVERNMENT MAKES, THAT IS A FACT!

Again, i ask you to actually study US ecomonics, monetary systems, etc... and have a realistic picture of what is happening, not just skewed reporting to validate what you "feel".

Have you any idea how much I hate being called English? England and the UK are NOT synonymous. Get YOUR frelling facts straight with that.

And as for the US stock market trendline:

http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=578479&host=3&dir=97 (site's down right now, so I can't link directly)

David Schwartz, a stock market historian, said: "Over the last three centuries in every index in every country where the market has had a vast rally it always returns to its long-term trend line. There's never been an exception and the long-term trend for the Dow is currently around 5,000. There's two ways it can play out, with another sharp fall or a long drift sideways."

And I've changed my signature. Happy?

First, you didn't invalidate my arguement. That is the US historic trend i mentioned. Due to inflation rates, business cycles, etc... the market has trended upwards in a steady climb. This climb has exceeded the inflation rate as well as the returns the US gov gets.

Second, Bush obviously was correct. Of course it would be easier if the US was run under a dictatorship. That is only common sense. And it would be easier for him if he was running it, just as it would be for you or I. Not having to answer to anyone is much easier than having to answer to EVERYONE. Nothing wrong with that statement. As to his running it, hell, i would trust me to run the government better than i would trust you. Just as you would trust you to run it better than me.

Again, it just comes across as petty to those of us on the other side of the aisle. But the great thing about this REPUBLIC, is that you are allowed to state your dislike. Wouldn't get that under a dictatorship. Just ask the people in cuba or Iraq under Hussein.

C'mon, man, i know you are smarter than this. You want us to 'reach across the aisle', try it yourself, this is beneath you.

Alright, you know what, there is just tooooo much bile and rancor right now. When i try to be respectful in posting it still comes across as heavy, just because its like trying to tiptoe through a minefield of bruised feelings and egos.

So, i think this is gonna be my last response to this thread. I would rather have nice feelings here than a constant battle against those that only wish to see the worst, from BOTH sides of the aisle.

It's been fun, but just remember, zealous defense from either side looses in the end. You turn off many more people than you convert.

I tried to post a few times to this thread, Rickshaw. Every time I took a look at my post to see if there was any sign of gloating, harsh sarcasm, or general meanness. While I didn't think there was anything objectionable, I kept seeing things that would be misconstrued as arrogant or condescending so I just decided to leave it alone. There were alot of hurt feelings in this election, and I can't help but think that I would be pretty upset myself if Bush had lost. While I am certainly excited for the clear, decisive Republican victory and utter defeat of Kerry, Edwards, and Dsachle (OK, maybe a little gloating time here ) Legion World has had a pretty good record for civil discussions, and I'd just as soon keep that record and let the "other guys" have their say. I think I'm going to leave well enough alone for a month or two before I decide to jump into political discussions.

The president had a victory speech Wednesday, a press conference Thursday and a radio address Saturday.

He didn't talk about his vote tally in any of the three. And I'm not aware of any interviews he's done since.

And even if the President did, so what? It's kinda like Ric Flair (any wrestling fans here?) and the dozen times he won the WCW belt, more than anyone else. Is it really necessary for him to always say that he lost the championship 12 times, more than anyone else?

I think this is part of what Rick was getting at a few posts ago when he was talking about people complaining about nonsensical stuff.

I saw the press conference where Bush talked about a one-question limit. I didn't take it seriously. None of the reporters took it seriously, as they laughed at the remark and continued to ask more than one question at a time. And based on the fact that the President answered multiple questions from the reporters as the press conference went on, I'm pretty sure he didn't take it seriously either.

It was clearly a joke, just as Bush clearly misspoke in Rick's example.