OT: Sorry guys, but I need to vent to like-minded friends -- Election 2004
Daniel Harper
and I think I can keep this at least marginally on-topic, so please hold
the anti-election flames.
Right now it's right at nine o'clock Central Time, and the final vote
tallies haven't been done up yet. CNN has projected 254 electoral votes
for Bush, 252 for Kerry, with Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio being still
outstanding. Iowa and New Mexico could go either way as far as the
electoral college is concerned -- the big winner will be whoever gets
Ohio's 20 electoral votes. The Kerry camp is talking about waiting for
provisional ballots and overseas ballots, and that may very well be a
significant factor here.
Unfortunately, the margin looks to be too large -- Bush is a little over a
hundred thousand votes ahead in Ohio, and the provisionals would have to
be overwhelmingly in support of Kerry in order for it to swing the
election. As depressing as it is, absent evidence of major voter fraud as
happened in Florida in 2000, or some numerical miracle in Ohio, George W.
Bush will continue to be the President of the United States.
God help us all.
There are a lot of things that contributed to this event, not the least of
which is that the electoral map shifted even more in Bush's favor,
allowing for Kerry to actually pick up a state that Gore won in 2000 (New
Hampshire), while losing the electoral college. At least Bush actually won
the popular vote this time -- again, absent major vote fraud, it looks
like Bush won the popular vote by something like three and half million
votes.
Three and a half fucking million votes.
CNN pundits have been talking about the turnout issue (this is the highest
turnout we've ever had), and while high turnouts tend to favor Democrats,
in this case the majority of new voters look to be Republicans. It appears
that Karl Rove organized major "get-out-the-vote" campaigns through
evangelical churches, based primarily on ballot initiatives on social
issues like abortion and, most especially, gay marriage.
In other words, Bush and Rove used the evangelical community's dislike of
homosexuality to get out the vote and put themselves over the top.
(Estimates are that somewhere around four million evangelicals didn't vote
in 2000 -- add four million to Bush's 2000 vote difference with Gore and
you get approximately Bush's lead over Kerry.) I have no particular beef
with those like Klaus Hellnick and Fred Stone who sincerely believe that
Bush is the better man to run the country (although I wholeheartedly
disagree), but at least a point of view like theirs is honest and
reasoned. Bush and Rove didn't rely on people like Klaus and Fred to win
this election -- they traded on bigotry and fear. On hatred just as nasty
and virulent as the hatred that led Southerners to vote Dixiecrat sixty or
seventy years ago, just with a different target.
It quite honestly disgusts me to the pit of my soul, and I am ashamed of
my country that it has stooped to this level. May the rest of the world,
and history, please forgive us.
One final note, and then I'll shut up. That douchebag Robert Novak was
talking last night about how the Democratic party needed to reconsider
the candidates they put out, the platform they embraced, that the country
is more and more conservative, and that flaming liberals like John Kerry
<snort> wouldn't be able to win the support of rural voters. That's a load
of bull -- Barack Obama (the huge success story of the 2004 election, the
new Senator from Illinois) was voted in on huge margins, with good numbers
from even the most rural areas of his state. The problem is not the
candidates, but they way they're packaged and the way campaigns are run --
Bush and Rove simply ran a killer campaign, with all the negative ads, all
the mudslinging, and all the fearmongering that was needed to stay in
office.
A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How much
longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our electoral
process?
I'm done. Hate mail to the listed addy -- unmung it if you want to be
supportive. :->
--
BUSH Ite Domum, ad Crawford
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
Bobby D. Bryant
> CNN pundits have been talking about the turnout issue (this is the highest
> turnout we've ever had), and while high turnouts tend to favor Democrats,
> in this case the majority of new voters look to be Republicans. It appears
> that Karl Rove organized major "get-out-the-vote" campaigns through
> evangelical churches, based primarily on ballot initiatives on social
> issues like abortion and, most especially, gay marriage.
I suppose I can deal with four more years of having a clique of oilmen,
neocons, and religious nuts (Ashcroft) run the country. Things are so
screwed up already that it was going to be a bad four years regardless
of who won. (...though it would be nice to have leadership that would
start undoing the mess rather than making it worse...)
What horrifies me is (a) their opportunity to pack the supreme court,
and (b) the possibility that the Democrats will start catering to
religious fundamentalists in order to stay competitive.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
David
Daniel Harper wrote:
<snip heart felt rant>
> A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How
much
> longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our electoral
> process?
Below is a snippet from a previous post. Your above point is really
the root of the problem. Many voters have no clue about the candidates
other than the information they read on the biased leaflets and hear on
the propaganda infomercials.
Adam Marczyk wrote:
> I think what you're really trying to say here is that *the public*
should be
> informed and involved and should demand this level of specificity and
> evidentiary support from the candidates, such that any candidate who
> wouldn't address the issues, or who didn't have the facts to support
his
> position, would be rejected by the voters every time. Now, this is an
idea I
> could agree with. Unfortunately that's just not the level of
discourse in
> this country right now, and while I deplore that fact, the
alternative would
> be even worse, as I described above. In a democracy, there is no
substitute
> for an intelligent, skeptical public, and any attempt to shortcut to
such a
> state through legislation will invariably fail.
As you say the public is disengaged to say the least. I bet the
reason for that is the real information is hard to find in the
mountains of propaganda. More is not better. Sure free speech is
great but not when it is lies! That's why the public is so ignorant
they're fed up with lies and switch off.
> > Rule three, third parties should be held accountable for their
> > information and sources (and preferably banned from airing
anything,
> > since it is an obvious tool for special interest groups).
> This viewpoint would logically require that the two major political
parties
> in this country become the only sources of information on any topic,
and any
> group of citizens who were honestly concerned about an issue could
not speak
> out about it without the imprimatur of one or the other. Again, this
is an
> abhorrent infringement on free speech. A better solution is one where
anyone
> can put out any information they wish, and an informed public that
knows how
> to tell truth from falsehood rejects the latter, but there is no
shortcut to
> this state.
There is something very wrong when people go to the poles believing
more of the gossip and half truths than the facts. It's easy to blame
the voters for not doing their own research but I don't think that is
a realistic expectation. The problem is the noise that is created by
the freedom of speech rules. This is great if people have something
important to say but most have nothing to say. Just go to speakers
corner at Hyde Park in London one time. It's great for freedom of
speech, but very bad for elections.
Is everything so politically warped in the USA that there is no
possibility of an independent source for data?
Tedd Jacobs
"Daniel Harper" wrote...
>I apologize for this, but I don't have a lot of moral support in my area,
> and I think I can keep this at least marginally on-topic, so please hold
> the anti-election flames.
(sitting back, pouring a coffee, listening and nodding...)
<snip legit rant>
> It quite honestly disgusts me to the pit of my soul, and I am ashamed of
> my country that it has stooped to this level. May the rest of the world,
> and history, please forgive us.
"Love my country; Fear my Government"
<snip rest>
> I'm done. Hate mail to the listed addy -- unmung it if you want to be
> supportive. :->
/support.
(i draw the line at grouphugs)
--
Fo(u)r more wars! opps.. i mean YEARS! years, years, years!
Scott
"David" <da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1099497713....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> As you say the public is disengaged to say the least. I bet the
> reason for that is the real information is hard to find in the
> mountains of propaganda. More is not better. Sure free speech is
> great but not when it is lies! That's why the public is so ignorant
> they're fed up with lies and switch off.
The 527's now have a better chance of being reformed and guys like George
Soros' won't be able to pump $10,000,000+ into privately promoted
propagandas.
Larry Moran
>
> Daniel Harper wrote:
><snip heart felt rant>
>> A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How
>> much longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our electoral
>> process?
>
> Below is a snippet from a previous post. Your above point is really
> the root of the problem. Many voters have no clue about the candidates
> other than the information they read on the biased leaflets and hear on
> the propaganda infomercials.
There are actually two roots of the problem. The first is the one you
identify - false information and propaganda.
The second is more serious as far as I am concerned. It's about what
people do with that false information. In most modern countries it would
make no difference that Kerry was falsely accused of being an atheist.
The fact that it makes a difference to Daniel's friend is what really,
really, scares me.
It's possible to fix the problem of false information and lies but I'm
not sure it's possible to fix the problem of ignorance and religious
bigotry.
Larry Moran
David
Ken Shaw
Yes, we can reform the system so viewpoints contrary to those held by
the CEO's of ADM, Haliburton, GM etc. will not be heard. That is
obviously a good thing for Democracy, NOT!
What actually needs to happen is that some sort of penalty needs to be
applied to campaigns that create front groups to defame their opponents
while claiming to have nothing to do with it. Karl Rove and his
compatriots have perhaps permanently damaged the ability of decent
people unwilling to engage in such tactics from running for high office.
Remember the 88 and 92 campaigns, in 88 Dukakis refused to engage in the
mudslinging and character assassination that Bush I had Lee Atwater do
to him. In 92 Clinton showed a willingness to get down in the mud with
Bush and Atwater and the republicans never forgave him for using their
strategy. Now Bush II and Rove have elevated the smear campaign to high
art and nobody did anything about it. What kind of person will the
Democrats have to find to run in 2008 against Bush's chosen successor?
Ken
Chris Thompson
news:pan.2004.11.03....@terralink.net:
Kerry has just conceded.
I fear the future more now than I ever have in my life. I foresee an
endless (four years will seem endless) nightmare of terror and
counter-terror, rampant and irreversible environmental degradation, and
a Sisyphian debt on my daughter's back incurred to fund tax relief for
multimillionaires.
I am also incredibly bitter about this election. I guess I am not as
detached as you, Daniel, but I do hold a grudge against almost all
people who voted for Bush this time around. Last time he was an unknown.
This time, it was obvious how bad he was, and people clung to their
hates and denials and faith-based wishes- people who should have known
better. I know people who could recite a list of disasters Bush has
perpetrated- the debt, the environment, Iraq- yet they still voted
Republican. Why? When I asked them, they recited the litany of lies used
to smear Kerry. This, when the truth of the matter was available to
anyone who could read- no, who *would* read.
--
Chris
aa#2186
Black helicopter mind-control-ray door-gunner
=====
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
A. Carlson
<daniel...@terralink.net> wrote:
<Snip>
>
>CNN pundits have been talking about the turnout issue (this is the highest
>turnout we've ever had), and while high turnouts tend to favor Democrats,
>in this case the majority of new voters look to be Republicans. It appears
>that Karl Rove organized major "get-out-the-vote" campaigns through
>evangelical churches, based primarily on ballot initiatives on social
>issues like abortion and, most especially, gay marriage.
>
>In other words, Bush and Rove used the evangelical community's dislike of
>homosexuality to get out the vote and put themselves over the top.
>(Estimates are that somewhere around four million evangelicals didn't vote
>in 2000 -- add four million to Bush's 2000 vote difference with Gore and
>you get approximately Bush's lead over Kerry.) I have no particular beef
>with those like Klaus Hellnick and Fred Stone who sincerely believe that
>Bush is the better man to run the country (although I wholeheartedly
>disagree), but at least a point of view like theirs is honest and
>reasoned. Bush and Rove didn't rely on people like Klaus and Fred to win
>this election -- they traded on bigotry and fear. On hatred just as nasty
>and virulent as the hatred that led Southerners to vote Dixiecrat sixty or
>seventy years ago, just with a different target.
>
>It quite honestly disgusts me to the pit of my soul, and I am ashamed of
>my country that it has stooped to this level. May the rest of the world,
>and history, please forgive us.
There is a possible silver lining in all of this, at least in the
future, The gay marriage issue appears to be a generational issue
which will subside with the younger generations replacing the older
ones. This will still probably take a while though.
I find it interesting that support for gay marriage is also becoming
more prevalent within the church as well, even to the point of
creating a potential for schisms within certain denominations.
Perhaps when such divisions become even more widespread and pronounced
within the religious community itself, more people will come to
realize that, like religion, it is a private matter that should not be
dictated from on high.
It's an evolving process ;)
>One final note, and then I'll shut up. That douchebag Robert Novak was
>talking last night about how the Democratic party needed to reconsider
>the candidates they put out, the platform they embraced, that the country
>is more and more conservative, and that flaming liberals like John Kerry
><snort> wouldn't be able to win the support of rural voters. That's a load
>of bull -- Barack Obama (the huge success story of the 2004 election, the
>new Senator from Illinois) was voted in on huge margins, with good numbers
>from even the most rural areas of his state.
A particularly relevant point especially considering the fact that he
was running against a candidate that Robert Novak would have been
proud of. Alan Keyes was definitely among the most socially
conservative candidates who ran a dogmatically religious campaign.
The fact that he was trounced should give us a little hope.
>The problem is not the
>candidates, but they way they're packaged and the way campaigns are run --
>Bush and Rove simply ran a killer campaign, with all the negative ads, all
>the mudslinging, and all the fearmongering that was needed to stay in
>office.
Which I would interpret to mean that the problem lies squarely with
the electorate. Unfortunately it is not politically smart to attack
the electorate as being ignorant, which poll after poll clearly shows
that they are.
It seems as though a killer winning strategy is to be better at taking
advantage and feeding the ignorance of the general populous.
Unfortunately, those who practice winning at all costs are far too
often the ones rewarded for their efforts.
>A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How much
>longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our electoral
>process?
Since the politicians cannot realistically attack and expose the
ignorance of the population they are trying to garnish support from it
is left up to the fourth estate, who is unfortunately also seeking the
loyalty and commercial support of the same audience.
It seems as though those with an exclusive viewpoint find it much
easier to take the gloves off than those who are trying to be
inclusive.
Heinz Kiosk
news:slrncohufc....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:52:00 +0000 (UTC), David <da...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Harper wrote:
>><snip heart felt rant>
>
>>> A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How
>>> much longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our
>>> electoral
>>> process?
>>
>> Below is a snippet from a previous post. Your above point is really
>> the root of the problem. Many voters have no clue about the candidates
>> other than the information they read on the biased leaflets and hear on
>> the propaganda infomercials.
>
> There are actually two roots of the problem. The first is the one you
> identify - false information and propaganda.
>
> The second is more serious as far as I am concerned. It's about what
> people do with that false information. In most modern countries it would
> make no difference that Kerry was falsely accused of being an atheist.
> The fact that it makes a difference to Daniel's friend is what really,
> really, scares me.
>
I agree, as someone who would if American would probably be a marginal,
reluctant Bush supporter despite his manifest failings (if I were an
American state I'd be Ohio) I am horrified at Daniel's friend's apparent
bigotry against Kerry for such an absurd reason. The problem with modern
America is that "atheist" is an insult, not that Kerry gets painted as one.
I thought one of the Founding Fathers' objectives was to keep religion _out_
of politics.
Tom
Dick C
The internet is my favorite example of this. And one of my favorite
sayings is that the good thing about the internet is that you can
post anything you want. the bad thing is that people post anything
they want.
>
> Is everything so politically warped in the USA that there is no
> possibility of an independent source for data?
There are independant sources, and they are not hard to find. Hell,
one of our local TV stations reqularly ran segments dealing with the
issues and campaign ads. Quite informative. Unfortunately, most all
to many people tuned them out or paid no attention.
Plus you have to remember that once a lie is told, it is very difficult
to get it removed from peoples minds. WMD as an example. Or Saddam as
an Al Quaeda supporter. We have seen people here who believe in those
fairy tales, and will post all sorts of tenous links to support them.
Another lie is that the Bush government is more moral than Kerry would
be.
I saw a survey where over a quarter of the voters said that morality was
the most important issue. While that maybe, I have a feeling that these
people really do not know, or have not actually looked at the supposed
morality of the Bush administration.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
dkomo
> Kerry has just conceded.
>
> I fear the future more now than I ever have in my life. I foresee an
> endless (four years will seem endless) nightmare of terror and
> counter-terror, rampant and irreversible environmental degradation, and
> a Sisyphian debt on my daughter's back incurred to fund tax relief for
> multimillionaires.
>
> I am also incredibly bitter about this election. I guess I am not as
> detached as you, Daniel, but I do hold a grudge against almost all
> people who voted for Bush this time around. Last time he was an unknown.
> This time, it was obvious how bad he was, and people clung to their
> hates and denials and faith-based wishes- people who should have known
> better. I know people who could recite a list of disasters Bush has
> perpetrated- the debt, the environment, Iraq- yet they still voted
> Republican. Why? When I asked them, they recited the litany of lies used
> to smear Kerry. This, when the truth of the matter was available to
> anyone who could read- no, who *would* read.
That's right, lose an election and blame it on the electorate and dirty
tactics of the other party. All those 58 million religious zealots,
bigots, homophobes, idiots, dupes, gun lovers and assorted good ol' boys
who voted for Bush.
By blaming the voters the Democratic Party can avoid taking a hard look
at itself and why it keeps losing national elections.
As a militant centrist and independent, I don't care much for either
liberals or conservatives. I just want them to balance each other out
so we end up with some modicum of decent government. But these days the
pendulum has swung too far to the right, thanks in large part to the
ineptitude of the Democrats.
Since John Kennedy not a single Democratic presidential candidate who
was a Northern liberal (I include McGovern in this) has won. So what do
the Democrats do this time around? Put up Kerry, a close colleague of
Ted Kennedy and one of the most liberal members of the Senate. From
Massachusetts yet.
Brilliant.
I decided at the last minute not to make a protest vote for Nader, and
voted for Kerry instead because I agreed with more of his positions than
those of Nader or Bush. But I also didn't think Kerry could win.
As it turns out I think Kerry actually did pretty well considering how
left of center he was. Had it been someone who was more of a centrist
like Clinton, he would have beaten Bush easily.
I'm sad that now another four years will go by with nothing being done
about pressing environmental issues like global warming and pollution,
with continuing massive deficits because of irresponsible tax cuts, with
no energy policy to relieve our dependence on mid-East oil, etc.
But I don't blame the electorate, or even the Republican Party. I blame
the Democrats for this fiasco. It need not have happened.
Bobby D. Bryant
> It seems as though a killer winning strategy is to be better at taking
> advantage and feeding the ignorance of the general populous.
> Unfortunately, those who practice winning at all costs are far too
> often the ones rewarded for their efforts.
It seems also that appealing to people's fears and worse natures
works better than appealing to their hopes and better natures.
John Harshman
dkomo wrote:
Let's see. You agree with Kerry on the important issues, yet you don't
like that he's a Northern liberal. The thing is that lots of the people
who voted for Bush also agreed with Kerry on the important issues. But
they voted for Bush anyway. So what does "Northern liberal" actually
mean here?
I'm sure we'll find out more about why people voted the way they did,
but one important immediately pre-election poll result says a lot to me:
75% of likely Bush voters thought that Saddam Hussein had provided major
support for Al Qaeda or was directly involved in 9/11, and 56% of them
thought the 9/11 commission had found good evidence of this. 48% thought
that Saddam had large stockpiles of WMDs at the beginning of the war,
and a further 25% thought he had major, ongoing programs to produce
them. You're going to have to go a little farther than your rant above
to convince me that people aren't idiots.
Robert Grumbine
A. Carlson <amc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>There is a possible silver lining in all of this, at least in the
>future, The gay marriage issue appears to be a generational issue
>which will subside with the younger generations replacing the older
>ones. This will still probably take a while though.
Or can reverse wholesale. Hatred sells, the election proved in
spades. The 'tolerance' of the younger crowd, particularly towards
homosexuals (vs. women, or blacks) is one that can easily be erased
as it's shallow in the first place.
>I find it interesting that support for gay marriage is also becoming
>more prevalent within the church as well, even to the point of
>creating a potential for schisms within certain denominations.
I don't take much comfort from that. a) the churches involved
are already losing members and b) they're not voting in droves.
(The membership growth is among the hate-filled denominations, not
the more or less tolerant ones.)
[snip]
>>One final note, and then I'll shut up. That douchebag Robert Novak was
>>talking last night about how the Democratic party needed to reconsider
>>the candidates they put out, the platform they embraced, that the country
>>is more and more conservative, and that flaming liberals like John Kerry
>><snort> wouldn't be able to win the support of rural voters. That's a load
>>of bull -- Barack Obama (the huge success story of the 2004 election, the
>>new Senator from Illinois) was voted in on huge margins, with good numbers
>>from even the most rural areas of his state.
>
>A particularly relevant point especially considering the fact that he
>was running against a candidate that Robert Novak would have been
>proud of. Alan Keyes was definitely among the most socially
>conservative candidates who ran a dogmatically religious campaign.
>The fact that he was trounced should give us a little hope.
He was something like the 4th string injury-replacement candidate for
the Republicans. He did not win the IL primary; he stepped in/was
drafted after Ryan pulled from the race, and a couple other attempts by
the party to draft people either failed or bailed. i.o.w., he was
nobody, had little time to mount the campaign, was not even fully backed
by the party (party having printed up all that Ryan material, etc.),
and _still_ got those votes.
Take even less hope, as Illinois is not a particularly 'socially
conservative' (read: conservativism defined by hatred of classes of
people (other than, if it's downstate voters, hatred of Chicago, but
that's a different issue)) state. Conservative, yes, but more in
the sense of keeping the government nose out of people's lives.
These days, granted, that makes them 'liberal'.
>>A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How much
>>longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our electoral
>>process?
>
>Since the politicians cannot realistically attack and expose the
>ignorance of the population they are trying to garnish support from it
>is left up to the fourth estate, who is unfortunately also seeking the
>loyalty and commercial support of the same audience.
And is owned by people who wanted Bush to win, irrespective of
what the audience wanted.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Scott
"Ken Shaw" <non...@your.biz> wrote in message
news:Qa8id.60645$OD2....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Scott wrote:
>> "David" <da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1099497713....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>As you say the public is disengaged to say the least. I bet the
>>>reason for that is the real information is hard to find in the
>>>mountains of propaganda. More is not better. Sure free speech is
>>>great but not when it is lies! That's why the public is so ignorant
>>>they're fed up with lies and switch off.
>>
>>
>> The 527's now have a better chance of being reformed and guys like George
>> Soros' won't be able to pump $10,000,000+ into privately promoted
>> propagandas.
>>
>
> Yes, we can reform the system so viewpoints contrary to those held by
> the CEO's of ADM, Haliburton, GM etc. will not be heard. That is
> obviously a good thing for Democracy, NOT!
http://reforminstitute.org/cgi-data/issues/files/17.shtml
http://reforminstitute.org/about/
http://reforminstitute.org/about/advisorycommittee.shtml
>
> What actually needs to happen is that some sort of penalty needs to be
> applied to campaigns that create front groups to defame their opponents
> while claiming to have nothing to do with it. Karl Rove and his
> compatriots have perhaps permanently damaged the ability of decent
> people unwilling to engage in such tactics from running for high office.
>
> Remember the 88 and 92 campaigns, in 88 Dukakis refused to engage in the
> mudslinging and character assassination that Bush I had Lee Atwater do
> to him. In 92 Clinton showed a willingness to get down in the mud with
> Bush and Atwater and the republicans never forgave him for using their
> strategy. Now Bush II and Rove have elevated the smear campaign to high
> art and nobody did anything about it. What kind of person will the
> Democrats have to find to run in 2008 against Bush's chosen successor?
Of course they did....and Michael Moore's doc's are all honest, too.
http://www.freep.com/entertainment/movies/moore28_20040228.htm
http://www.workingpsychology.com/fahrenheit.html
Scott
Of course it is. BUT I never heard Kerry talk against how the 527's were
being abused. And why would he with Soros' 527 money
just remember Hillary is looking to '08
Scott
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:41892863...@pacbell.net...
Here's the Bush/Gore electoral map by state. It changed very little this
time around
http://www.sptimes.com/election2000/map.shtml
and here's how that same map shakes out by county. It'll be interesting to
see how this '04 election shakes out by county.
http://www.oakparkgop.org/imgs/e2000map.jpg
I guess the country is swimming in idiots
Louann Miller
Yep. The religion of hate is so much more interesting to belong to
than the religion of love.
Goodness knows we've had bad presidents before. And goodness knows
we've had bad situations to deal with as a nation before. But this
combination is like dealing with Pearl Harbor under Warren G. Harding.
Ken Shaw
Tell you what you choose the single worst misrepresentation, lie, smear
whatever and I'll contrast it to the worst of Karl Rove.
Ken
John Harshman
Scott wrote:
No argument here. Or was that supposed to be sarcasm?
Ken Aaker
Why don't you mention Richard Mellon Scaife(NewsMax), and Sun Myung
Moon(Washington Times and UPI) who have spent BILLIONS promoting their
private agendas for the past decade?
Ken Aaker
John Wilkins
History is a river that carves its own channels. We have been watching
the arrival of an Age of Unreason now for thirty or more years; why are
we so surprised to see it come to fruition? It's going to happen in your
country and mind too, Larry; and in Europe and in Asia. The "liberal
experiment" is running out of current.
People who are not religious, who don't conform to the majority view,
whose political opinions rely on tolerance and freedom - they are in
trouble in the coming decades. We mustn't make the mistake of thinking
that what for a brief period of liberty was the ideal after the second
world war is somehow the historical norm. Human nature is relatively
constrained, and we are constrained to behave in bigoted ways, overall.
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
Gary Bohn
news:1gmpwbv.a9b4o7fiu33cN%john...@wilkins.id.au:
It's time to build a hobbit house in the mountains, I'm afraid.
--
Gary Bohn
If you aren't an ape, why do you act like one?
Gary Bohn
> I apologize for this, but I don't have a lot of moral support in my
My heartfelt condolences Daniel. I know how frustrating it can be living
among those that hold political values opposite to your own; I live in
right-wing central. To watch your values belittled by the lies and
manipulation of people who are more concerned with their pocketbook than
humanity is enough to stoke your anger to almost uncontrollable heights.
Let's just hope the increased terrorism that is bound to occur will
affect our lives as little as possible.
Louann Miller
Wilkins) wrote:
>History is a river that carves its own channels. We have been watching
>the arrival of an Age of Unreason now for thirty or more years; why are
>we so surprised to see it come to fruition? It's going to happen in your
>country and mind too, Larry; and in Europe and in Asia. The "liberal
>experiment" is running out of current.
Hey, who is George _really_ going to hurt? Just terrorists and women
who want abortions, and they have it coming.
And people who might be mistaken for terrorists, like Arabs. And gay
people. And the friends and families of gay people. And people who
might otherwise be cured of serious diseases because of stem-cell
research. And people who invest in their company 401k plans.
And families and friends of women who want abortions. And kids who
don't get adopted because gay people can't be part of the
adoptive-parents pool. And people without health insurance, including
their kids. And people with bad health insurance. And people who _had_
good health insurance, but they got downsized. And people who want to
sue large corporations for putting arsenic in the drinking water near
their kids' school. And minorities. And blue-collar workers. And
foreigners, the whole damn planet of them. And people who get injured
on the job. And people who get old and need medical care. And people
who join the military.
(And just to keep it on-topic, kids whose shiny new high school
diplomas include lots of goddidit but no actual biology in biology
class, who then want to go to college.)
John Wilkins
Abortion has raised its head here too, although there are many elected
MPs in the conservative party who are standing firm against it (women,
mainly). If they do raise it as a policy issue, though, many folk will
get noisy - at no time was it raised in the election campaign or in any
policy statement (we have had a remarkably bipartisan approach since the
70s), and the PM has said that he won't do anything under his full
control of the Senate and House that is radical or novel - in principle
he is saying that he realises he has a mandate only for the
extraordinary policies already mooted. *I* certainly did not vote for
any revision of abortion law.
I note with some pleasure that stem cell research has been approved in
the EU.
Larry Moran
dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Chris Thompson wrote:
>
>> Kerry has just conceded.
>>
>> I fear the future more now than I ever have in my life. I foresee an
>> endless (four years will seem endless) nightmare of terror and
>> counter-terror, rampant and irreversible environmental degradation, and
>> a Sisyphian debt on my daughter's back incurred to fund tax relief for
>> multimillionaires.
>>
>> I am also incredibly bitter about this election. I guess I am not as
>> detached as you, Daniel, but I do hold a grudge against almost all
>> people who voted for Bush this time around. Last time he was an unknown.
>> This time, it was obvious how bad he was, and people clung to their
>> hates and denials and faith-based wishes- people who should have known
>> better. I know people who could recite a list of disasters Bush has
>> perpetrated- the debt, the environment, Iraq- yet they still voted
>> Republican. Why? When I asked them, they recited the litany of lies used
>> to smear Kerry. This, when the truth of the matter was available to
>> anyone who could read- no, who *would* read.
>
> That's right, lose an election and blame it on the electorate and dirty
> tactics of the other party. All those 58 million religious zealots,
> bigots, homophobes, idiots, dupes, gun lovers and assorted good ol' boys
> who voted for Bush.
Sounds about right to me. What's the problem? Isn't it true that bigots,
religious zealots, homophobes, idiots, dupes, and gun lovers voted
overwhelmingly for George Bush?
> By blaming the voters the Democratic Party can avoid taking a hard look
> at itself and why it keeps losing national elections.
As an ousider it looks pretty clear to me. The Democrats lost because
they didn't pander to bigots, religious zealots, homophobes, idiots,
dupes, and gun lovers. Is there another explanation?
> As a militant centrist and independent, I don't care much for either
> liberals or conservatives. I just want them to balance each other out
> so we end up with some modicum of decent government. But these days the
> pendulum has swung too far to the right, thanks in large part to the
> ineptitude of the Democrats.
>
> Since John Kennedy not a single Democratic presidential candidate who
> was a Northern liberal (I include McGovern in this) has won. So what do
> the Democrats do this time around? Put up Kerry, a close colleague of
> Ted Kennedy and one of the most liberal members of the Senate. From
> Massachusetts yet.
>
> Brilliant.
>
> I decided at the last minute not to make a protest vote for Nader, and
> voted for Kerry instead because I agreed with more of his positions than
> those of Nader or Bush. But I also didn't think Kerry could win.
>
> As it turns out I think Kerry actually did pretty well considering how
> left of center he was. Had it been someone who was more of a centrist
> like Clinton, he would have beaten Bush easily.
>
> I'm sad that now another four years will go by with nothing being done
> about pressing environmental issues like global warming and pollution,
> with continuing massive deficits because of irresponsible tax cuts, with
> no energy policy to relieve our dependence on mid-East oil, etc.
>
> But I don't blame the electorate, or even the Republican Party. I blame
> the Democrats for this fiasco. It need not have happened.
There seem to be only two choices for the Democrates.
1. Abandon everything you believe in and try to win the bigot vote.
2. Stand up for what you believe in and try and convince Americans
than they need to change.
I know which one I'd vote for.
Larry Moran
Chris Thompson
news:z_qdnQe5KIY...@comcast.com:
> Chris Thompson wrote:
>
>> Kerry has just conceded.
>>
>> I fear the future more now than I ever have in my life. I foresee an
>> endless (four years will seem endless) nightmare of terror and
>> counter-terror, rampant and irreversible environmental degradation,
>> and a Sisyphian debt on my daughter's back incurred to fund tax
>> relief for multimillionaires.
>>
>> I am also incredibly bitter about this election. I guess I am not as
>> detached as you, Daniel, but I do hold a grudge against almost all
>> people who voted for Bush this time around. Last time he was an
>> unknown. This time, it was obvious how bad he was, and people clung
>> to their hates and denials and faith-based wishes- people who should
>> have known better. I know people who could recite a list of
>> disasters Bush has perpetrated- the debt, the environment, Iraq- yet
>> they still voted Republican. Why? When I asked them, they recited the
>> litany of lies used to smear Kerry. This, when the truth of the
>> matter was available to anyone who could read- no, who *would* read.
>
> That's right, lose an election and blame it on the electorate and
> dirty tactics of the other party. All those 58 million religious
> zealots, bigots, homophobes, idiots, dupes, gun lovers and assorted
> good ol' boys who voted for Bush.
You're darn straight I blame the electorate, and for one simple reason:
they cast the votes. They cast the votes for despite knowing we have
assumed a debt more crushing than any liberal- or even Reagan!- ever
dreamed of.
They cast the votes despite knowing we were mired in an arid Vietnam,
with no victory possible and no end in sight.
They cast the votes based on any possible lie the Republicans could
possibly dream up to smear a Silver Star veteran, in favor of a
coke-addled smarmy cheerleader who never even finished his country-club
National Guard obligation.
They cast the vote based on "moral values" instead of the candidate's
grasp of the issues, ability to govern, or track record of
accomplishments- in favor of a candidate who believes God has told him
its ok to kill 10000 Iraqi civilians.
> By blaming the voters the Democratic Party can avoid taking a hard
> look at itself and why it keeps losing national elections.
>
> As a militant centrist and independent, I don't care much for either
> liberals or conservatives. I just want them to balance each other out
> so we end up with some modicum of decent government. But these days
> the pendulum has swung too far to the right, thanks in large part to
> the ineptitude of the Democrats.
And the electorate ignored the fact that any pork-barrel legislation, or
special-interest giveaway, or fruitcake religious claptrap was passed by
this congress (despite those inept Democrats voting as a bloc in
protest) and gleefully signed by this president. Bush didn't veto a
single act in his time in office.
When he was even in his office, that is. Did you know he has spent 27%
of his first 3 years on vacation? In times when we were threatened so
terribly, he was in Crawford, engaged in photo ops. For all I know, he
was still working his way through "My Pet Goat". But that sure didn't
stop them from sliming Kerry as "The absentee senator". If you google
that for talk.origins, you'll even see Klaus Hellnick repeat it.
> Since John Kennedy not a single Democratic presidential candidate who
> was a Northern liberal (I include McGovern in this) has won. So what
> do the Democrats do this time around? Put up Kerry, a close colleague
> of Ted Kennedy and one of the most liberal members of the Senate.
> From Massachusetts yet.
>
> Brilliant.
What's your point? I seem to recall a certain southern liberal senator
didn't fare too well 4 years ago.
>
> I decided at the last minute not to make a protest vote for Nader, and
> voted for Kerry instead because I agreed with more of his positions
> than those of Nader or Bush. But I also didn't think Kerry could win.
>
> As it turns out I think Kerry actually did pretty well considering how
> left of center he was. Had it been someone who was more of a centrist
> like Clinton, he would have beaten Bush easily.
>
> I'm sad that now another four years will go by with nothing being done
> about pressing environmental issues like global warming and pollution,
> with continuing massive deficits because of irresponsible tax cuts,
> with no energy policy to relieve our dependence on mid-East oil, etc.
>
> But I don't blame the electorate, or even the Republican Party. I
> blame the Democrats for this fiasco. It need not have happened.
>
>
> --dk...@cris.com
So all the democratic party has to do is pander, preferably to the
lowest common denominator. Become what most of us despise most about
the republicans.
No thanks.
Chris
--
Chris Thompson
news:ertio0hi1fbahu0c3...@4ax.com:
And if you don't fall into any of those categories, just move to
someplace close to sea level. They'll get you.
Chris
PS: If you or your kids have never seen a coral reef, go soon.
They're on the hit list too.
VoiceOfReason
> On Wed, 03 Nov 2004, "Daniel Harper" <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote:
>
> > CNN pundits have been talking about the turnout issue (this is the highest
> > turnout we've ever had), and while high turnouts tend to favor Democrats,
> > in this case the majority of new voters look to be Republicans. It appears
> > that Karl Rove organized major "get-out-the-vote" campaigns through
> > evangelical churches, based primarily on ballot initiatives on social
> > issues like abortion and, most especially, gay marriage.
>
> neocons, and religious nuts (Ashcroft) run the country. Things are so
> screwed up already that it was going to be a bad four years regardless
> of who won. (...though it would be nice to have leadership that would
> start undoing the mess rather than making it worse...)
>
> What horrifies me is (a) their opportunity to pack the supreme court,
> and (b) the possibility that the Democrats will start catering to
> religious fundamentalists in order to stay competitive.
My take on all this?
Bugger. Just..... aw, bugger.
I agree it will take 4 more years of foulups to get rid of the
far-right weenies. I'm nervous about the amount of damage they'll do
in the meantime though. I mean, they've had the narrow-minded
arrogance to get us into a real fustercluck in Iraq, and it'll be
years extracting us from that quagmire, let alone the damage to
America's international standing in the meantime. In think Bush's
Brain(dead) Trust has erased years of progress made in the region with
a series of royal blunders in a country that apparently was no threat
to us.
Bugger.
I saw a special the other night that mentioned Bush's "faith-based
initiatives." Supposedly they're help-the-downtrodden types of
programs, but in many ways it's often money comandeered to help push
the religious right's agenda.
Mutter...
Re: "It quite honestly disgusts me to the pit of my soul, and I am
ashamed of
my country that it has stooped to this level. May the rest of the
world,
and history, please forgive us."
Betcherass.
AC
VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> I saw a special the other night that mentioned Bush's "faith-based
> initiatives." Supposedly they're help-the-downtrodden types of
> programs, but in many ways it's often money comandeered to help push
> the religious right's agenda.
Look, what kind of man would even come up with faith-based initiatives in a
secular state with separation of church and state. Perhaps Fred Stone, the
biggest Bush fan around here, could explain how this is a legitimate
activity. Or maybe, once Bush stacks the Supreme Court with the kind of
people who will undermine science education, there won't be a problem at
all.
I can understand the Fundies, and I can even understand the folks in Middle
America, feeling threatened by what they feel are foreign values (though
those values have been part of the United States since its inception), but I
cannot figure out how guys like Fred and Klaus can possibly think poisoning
the secular well, which assures that all faiths are protected from the nasty
tendency of majorities to abuse minorities, is a good thing. What do they
think this sort of thing is? Why do you think the leader of a secular state
would permit such an intrusion upon the sphere of governance?
You know, I'd vote for a man who committed my country to disasterous
military ventures in foreign lands and simultaneously cut taxes, plunging my
country's finances into a precipitous financial situation rather than a man
who would accept, nay, work towards entangling church and state. The US, it
seems, has got the worst of the both worlds.
Maybe all the Catholics, Muslims and other religious moderates who voted for
Bush due to abortion and gay marriage will consider that they are allies of
convenience for the Southern Baptists and other Fundies. In due course
those who do not at least publicly proclaim whatever tangled religious and
social policies that the Fundies come up with will be marginalized.
Think it's ridiculous? Try to be an atheist or some extreme minority faith
like Wicca and rise to even modestly high office. Being called an atheist
in the US is now only a notch or two down from being called a pedophile.
The United States, while mouthing all the quaint history about Pilgrims
sailing to the New World, seem to have forgotten why they were compelled to,
and why the Founding Fathers understood that and formulated the basic laws
of the United States. Liberty has become an empty word, a meaningless
ritual that leaders pay homage to as they undermine it.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
Ken Shaw
AC wrote:
For those not living in the US a small example of the accepted bigotry
against atheists here, the first president Bush said, in public in front
of the press while campaigning for president on 8-27-87, "No, I don't
know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be
considered patriots. This is one nation under God.". With the exception
of the atheist reporter to whom this question was directed reported it.
It never became a scandal and after Bush's election he continued to
stand by his remarks in the face of a letter writing campaign asking for
clarification of his stand on atheism.
I can only imagine what would have happened if Kerry had said "No, I
don't know that Christians should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.".
Ken
AC
Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> wrote:
>
> I can only imagine what would have happened if Kerry had said "No, I
> don't know that Christians should be considered as citizens, nor should
> they be considered patriots.".
I think the word "exile" would fit into a sentence describing the scene.
Randy
> > A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How
> > much longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our
> > electoral process?
>
> among those that hold political values opposite to your own; I live in
> right-wing central. To watch your values belittled by the lies and
> manipulation of people who are more concerned with their pocketbook than
> humanity is enough to stoke your anger to almost uncontrollable heights.
Well, I live in left-wing central and feel just as frustrated. I guess
it just depends upon your point of view.
R
Stefan Kruithof
The entire world had hope, now it's horrible.
Hillary Clinton 2008!
Glenn
"Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:slrncohufc....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:52:00 +0000 (UTC), David <da...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Daniel Harper wrote:
> ><snip heart felt rant>
>
How
> >> much longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our
electoral
> >> process?
> >
> > the root of the problem. Many voters have no clue about the
candidates
> > other than the information they read on the biased leaflets and hear
on
> > the propaganda infomercials.
>
> There are actually two roots of the problem. The first is the one you
> identify - false information and propaganda.
>
> The second is more serious as far as I am concerned. It's about what
> people do with that false information. In most modern countries it
would
> make no difference that Kerry was falsely accused of being an atheist.
> The fact that it makes a difference to Daniel's friend is what really,
> really, scares me.
>
> It's possible to fix the problem of false information and lies
Really?
>but I'm
> not sure it's possible to fix the problem of ignorance and religious
> bigotry.
>
You have a problem with Daniel's friend thinking that Kerry is an
atheist, but it doesn't appear you have a problem with people claiming
that Bush is a "fundamentalist", or most anything else for that
matter.*That* isn't bigotry, is it. Nah.
From posts in this thread:
"a clique of oilmen, neocons, and religious nuts (Ashcroft) run the
country", "religious fundamentalists", "dislike of homosexuality",
"traded on bigotry and fear", "nightmare of terror and counter-terror,
rampant and irreversible environmental degradation, and a Sisyphian debt
on my daughter's back incurred to fund tax relief for
multimillionaires","list of disasters Bush has perpetrated"," litany of
lies","fairy tales","supposed morality of the Bush
administration","appealing to people's fears and worse natures","Hatred
sells, the election proved in spades","religion of hate","bad
president","lies and manipulation of people who are more concerned with
their pocketbook than humanity", Louann Miller's entire post,"coral
reefs on the hit list too","Karl Rove and his compatriots have perhaps
permanently damaged the ability of decent people","Bush II and Rove have
elevated the smear campaign to high art", "the country is swimming in
idiots","bigots,religious zealots, homophobes,idiots,dupes, and gun
lovers voted overwhelmingly for George Bush","coke-addled smarmy
cheerleader who never even finished his country-club National Guard
obligation","God has told him its ok to kill 10000 Iraqi
civilians","fruitcake religious claptrap was passed by this
congress","spent 27% of his first 3 years on vacation","when we were
threatened so terribly, he was in Crawford, engaged in photo ops","what
most of us despise most about the republicans","worst misrepresentation,
lie, smear whatever"
Out of dozens of posters, only two or three *appeared* to have any sense
at all. But I suppose you would say that the majority is "right" and has
"accurate" information, and is not "falsely accusing", eh?
"As an ousider it looks pretty clear to me. The Democrats lost because
they didn't pander to bigots, religious zealots, homophobes, idiots,
dupes, and gun lovers. Is there another explanation?"
"There seem to be only two choices for the Democrates.
1. Abandon everything you believe in and try to win the bigot vote.
2. Stand up for what you believe in and try and convince Americans
than they need to change.
I know which one I'd vote for."
You're a hypocritical bigot. You have your own views of change, gun
laws, marriage laws and religion. And it's ok for you to stand up for
what you believe in. But the ones who you disagree with are bigots,
Bill Rogers
> >
> > A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How
> > much longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our
> > electoral process?
> >
> > I'm done. Hate mail to the listed addy -- unmung it if you want to be
> > supportive. :->
> >
>
> My heartfelt condolences Daniel. I know how frustrating it can be living
> among those that hold political values opposite to your own; I live in
> right-wing central. To watch your values belittled by the lies and
> manipulation of people who are more concerned with their pocketbook than
> humanity is enough to stoke your anger to almost uncontrollable heights.
> Let's just hope the increased terrorism that is bound to occur will
> affect our lives as little as possible.
I voted with Daniel and was similarly disappointed. But I do not think
it's the end of civilization as we know it.
The Democrats do indeed need to put up more appealing candidates;
Novack is right on that, in a way. In 2000 with all the advantages of
peace, prosperity, incumbency, and a weak challenger we lost. Now with
a war going badly, a weak economy, and OBL still on the loose, we blew
it again. We need candidates who are not cold fish. GWB is hugely
rich, but manages to come across as a "regular guy," JK just couldn't
come across. (I remember him refering to Orwell in one of the debates
- his reference was dead on point, and wasted on 95% of the audience).
We need a Clinton who can behave himself, someone smart, charismatic,
and appealing to ordinary people. We also probably need a Southern
Baptist Democrat, hopefully one who is not a creationist or rabidly
homophobic, but one who looks comfortable talking about his religion.
I'm worried about terrorism, too. I live in Africa and will likely
move to SE Asia soon, and sometimes feel like I've got a bull's eye
painted on my back, but I doubt the election of Kerry would have
greatly changed the motivation of the bad guys. Clinton was president
and peace in the ME looked in sight when they were planning 911. Those
folks will try to hurt us no matter who is in power in the US. They
were still plotting things in Spain after Spain pulled out of Iraq,
the French dislike of American foreign policy has not made them any
less eager to plan attacks in France, and all you need do in the
Netherlands is make a movie critical of the position of women in Islam
to get assassinated. Electing Kerry would have helped relations
between the US and Europe, but while the French may mock us and
condemn our "simplisme" they tend not to throw bombs.
So I think it's bad news, particularly on the environment, deficit,
relations with Europe and the rest of the world, but not the end of
the world. We survived 12 years of Reagan-Bush I. We'll make it
through the next four.
Lilith
> john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
> news:1gmpwbv.a9b4o7fiu33cN%john...@wilkins.id.au:
>
> >
> > whose political opinions rely on tolerance and freedom - they are in
> > trouble in the coming decades. We mustn't make the mistake of thinking
> > that what for a brief period of liberty was the ideal after the second
> > world war is somehow the historical norm. Human nature is relatively
> > constrained, and we are constrained to behave in bigoted ways,
> > overall.
> >
>
> It's time to build a hobbit house in the mountains, I'm afraid.
I've been seriously contemplating asking to be transferred over into
Europe as of late, but I'm told it's not much better over there,
either.
I somehow doubt it's "lies and propoganda" that is swaying the average
Bush voter. I think it's what they're not told.
But more overtly, I think it may also be hubris and spite mixed with
"home team" rah-rah attitude. Someone very close to me is a Bush
supporter, not because this person really likes Bush all that much,
but because "voting against Bush shows the terrorists we don't believe
in ourselves". I point out that just maybe voting for Bush gives the
wrong impression to the rest of the world and any extermists what they
can play with best: a picture of an ugly Christian America. No better
country to polarize against, right? The Bush supporter told me that it
was a matter of pride, not to knuckle under what every other country
in the world was hoping for (Bush out/Kerry in).
I also think the Democrats should have spent more time before the
election season working against their invisibility, but it's very
difficult to criticize a war and a set of policies that they endorsed
themselves. They gave Bush the keys to the kingdom, and then
complained when Bush used them...leaving themselves very few
opportunities to portray themselves as leaders with a different and
better agenda and deep personal convictions.
Old Major
Not being allowed to foist your worldview on everyone else is
not persecution.
Bobby D. Bryant
> You have a problem with Daniel's friend thinking that Kerry is an
> atheist, but it doesn't appear you have a problem with people claiming
> that Bush is a "fundamentalist", or most anything else for that
> matter.*That* isn't bigotry, is it. Nah.
> From posts in this thread:
>
> "a clique of oilmen, neocons, and religious nuts (Ashcroft) run the
> country",
Do you disagree with my claim that Ashcroft is a religious nut?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Chris Thompson
news:slrncoje0a.or....@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
snip
>
> Think it's ridiculous? Try to be an atheist or some extreme minority
> faith like Wicca and rise to even modestly high office. Being called
> an atheist in the US is now only a notch or two down from being called
> a pedophile. The United States, while mouthing all the quaint history
> about Pilgrims sailing to the New World, seem to have forgotten why
> they were compelled to, and why the Founding Fathers understood that
> and formulated the basic laws of the United States. Liberty has
> become an empty word, a meaningless ritual that leaders pay homage to
> as they undermine it.
>
Heh. The Pilgrims sailed to and colonized North America so they could be
the ones doing the suppressing, instead of being suppressed.
Ask any Quaker.
Religious intolerance was here from the start. It faded a bit in the last
225 years, but we're talking the comeback kid. Rather like an
exceptionally nasty bolus,
--
Chris
aa#2186
Black helicopter mind-control-ray door-gunner
=====
Daniel Harper
Hillary Clinton will never, ever be elected president. She is simply too
polarizing a figure. Hillary barely got enough votes to be elected
Senator, in New York, against a very weak challenger.
You want to hand the election over to right-wing nutjobs again in four
more years, run Hillary.
(I also think that she's by no means the best candidate, but that's
another issue.)
--
Romani Ite Domum
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
Daniel Harper
> Gary Bohn <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9596B63C0...@130.133.1.4>...
>> john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
>> news:1gmpwbv.a9b4o7fiu33cN%john...@wilkins.id.au:
>>
>>
>> > People who are not religious, who don't conform to the majority view,
>> > whose political opinions rely on tolerance and freedom - they are in
>> > trouble in the coming decades. We mustn't make the mistake of thinking
>> > that what for a brief period of liberty was the ideal after the second
>> > world war is somehow the historical norm. Human nature is relatively
>> > constrained, and we are constrained to behave in bigoted ways,
>> > overall.
>> >
>> >
>> It's time to build a hobbit house in the mountains, I'm afraid.
>
> I've been seriously contemplating asking to be transferred over into
> Europe as of late, but I'm told it's not much better over there, either.
>
> I somehow doubt it's "lies and propoganda" that is swaying the average
> Bush voter. I think it's what they're not told.
>
I think that the lies and propaganda had a lot to do with it (i.e. Kerry
being an atheist), but the major issue here seems to be that Bush got the
fundie vote out in droves, due to the increased influence of social issues
like gay marriage and abortion.
It really came down to the fact that people would rather have a shitty
economy, war without end, detainment camps for suspected terrorists, than
allow gays to marry. It's astonishing to think of, but that seems to be
how those that I know who voted for Bush really thought of this election.
> But more overtly, I think it may also be hubris and spite mixed with "home
> team" rah-rah attitude. Someone very close to me is a Bush supporter, not
> because this person really likes Bush all that much, but because "voting
> against Bush shows the terrorists we don't believe in ourselves". I point
> out that just maybe voting for Bush gives the wrong impression to the rest
> of the world and any extermists what they can play with best: a picture of
> an ugly Christian America. No better country to polarize against, right?
> The Bush supporter told me that it was a matter of pride, not to knuckle
> under what every other country in the world was hoping for (Bush out/Kerry
> in).
>
This is also an important issue. A friend of mine (lifelong Republican,
coudln't bring himself to vote for either candidate this year so he became
one of 588 people in my state to vote Nader) brought up the metaphor of
hiring either Bush or Kerry. Would you hire the ignorant hayseed who can
barely talk straight, or the erudite intellectual with a firm grasp of
himself and the issues? For me and those like me, it's a slam-dunk, but it
seems that there are plenty of people out there who really would hire Bush
over Kerry -- he's a "straight shooter", he "talks the way I talk" et
cetera.
May God Forgive Us.
> I also think the Democrats should have spent more time before the election
> season working against their invisibility, but it's very difficult to
> criticize a war and a set of policies that they endorsed themselves. They
> gave Bush the keys to the kingdom, and then complained when Bush used
> them...leaving themselves very few opportunities to portray themselves as
> leaders with a different and better agenda and deep personal convictions.
Kerry ran on Vietnam. That's pretty much it. Sure, he cleaned up in the
debates -- Bush never stood a chance against him, and there he dealt
pretty squarely with the issues. But the entire basis of his campaign, the
entire reason for his being the national candidate, is that people thought
he was more electable than Howard Dean.
Now that we've lost, I wish we could've taken Dean all the way -- if
you're going to lose, at least lose with the guy you like.
Daniel Harper
That's true, but the issue I brought up wasn't necessarily one of
"right-wing vs. left-wing", but "ignorance, bigotry, and hatred vs the
values of a secular democracy". I'm highly upset that Bush has now won the
election, it terrifies me that he now has pretty much carte blanche to do
whatever he wants, but what really gets my goat is the lying and
misinformation and hate-baiting that Bush used to get there.
The way it looks right now based on exit polling data, the average Bush
voter voted not due to any policy difference between the two men, not
because of leadership or personality or anything of the sort, but because
Bush was perceived as the one who'd make sure that them fags weren't gonna
git married. (And all the other social causes that go with that.)
If a majority of those Bush voters justified their beliefs in the way that
Horowitz and Sullivan do, or in the way that Fred Stone and Klaus Hellnick
here are able to, then I would disagree but not be despondent. It's the
ignorance, hatred, and bigotry that bother me.
> R
Daniel Harper
> On Wed, 03 Nov 2004, "Daniel Harper" <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote:
>
>> CNN pundits have been talking about the turnout issue (this is the
>> highest turnout we've ever had), and while high turnouts tend to favor
>> Democrats, in this case the majority of new voters look to be
>> Republicans. It appears that Karl Rove organized major
>> "get-out-the-vote" campaigns through evangelical churches, based
>> primarily on ballot initiatives on social issues like abortion and, most
>> especially, gay marriage.
>
> I suppose I can deal with four more years of having a clique of oilmen,
> neocons, and religious nuts (Ashcroft) run the country. Things are so
> screwed up already that it was going to be a bad four years regardless of
> who won. (...though it would be nice to have leadership that would start
> undoing the mess rather than making it worse...)
>
> What horrifies me is (a) their opportunity to pack the supreme court, and
> (b) the possibility that the Democrats will start catering to religious
> fundamentalists in order to stay competitive.
That's exactly right, and precisely why I'm so glum over this. Four more
years of damage is very bad, but it's something that can be dealt with --
if nothing else, there are moderating influences in Congress to handle
that mess. But Supreme Court nominations? Bush will almost certainly get
two or three, and I guarantee that they'll all be right-wing nutjobs.
The next Democratic candidate (assuming there even is one) will probably
have very similar politics to Zell Miller.
Louann Miller
<mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Think it's ridiculous? Try to be an atheist or some extreme minority faith
>like Wicca and rise to even modestly high office. Being called an atheist
>in the US is now only a notch or two down from being called a pedophile.
>The United States, while mouthing all the quaint history about Pilgrims
>sailing to the New World, seem to have forgotten why they were compelled to,
>and why the Founding Fathers understood that and formulated the basic laws
>of the United States. Liberty has become an empty word, a meaningless
>ritual that leaders pay homage to as they undermine it.
It's the Grandma's Good China model of democracy. Sure we're proud of
it, we like to talk about it and display it. We feel we're better than
other people for having it. But if we actually took it out from behind
glass and _used_ it, it might get chipped or dirty or something.
Chris Thompson
news:b5c74326.04110...@posting.google.com:
> I am disgusted that so many Americans can be so sick to vote for Bush.
It appears that not everyone who voted for him....voted for him:
*****
WASHINGTON - U.S. voters calling in to a toll-free number had reported
more than 1,100 separate incidents of problems with electronic voting
machines and other voting technologies by late Tuesday during the
nationwide election.
In more than 30 reported cases, when voters reviewed their choices
before finalizing them, an electronic voting machine indicated they had
voted for a different candidate.
*****
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/11/02/HNevoteglitch_1.html
And some who didn't, weren't heard:
*****
Ed Pond says when the numbers didn't match up manufactures told him, “Of
the votes we have 3006 is all we can recover, we said what do you mean?”
What that means is of 7537 voters, every one made after 3005 were not
saved in the computer memory.
*****
http://www.wnct.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WNCT/MGArticle/NCT_BasicAr
ticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031778939157&path=
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H2AB222B9
And:
*****
WEST PALM BEACH - Nine voting machines ran out of battery power and
nearly 40 votes may have been lost in Palm Beach County, the first major
problem reported on Election Day in the state that was the epicenter of
the election fiasco four years ago.
The nine machines at a Boynton Beach precinct weren't plugged in
properly, and their batteries wore down around 9:30 a.m., said Marty
Rogol spokesman for Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Theresa
LePore.
Poll clerk Joyce Gold said 37 votes appeared to be missing after she
compared the computer records to the sign-in sheet. Elections officials
won't know exactly how many votes were lost until after polls close.
*****
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/10083861.htm
And:
*****
TAMPA - Rob MacKenna, Democratic challenger for supervisor of elections,
accused incumbent Buddy Johnson Friday of providing an "inaccurate and
misleading account" of his office's loss of 245 votes in the August
primary and suggested Johnson "should be drawing a paycheck elsewhere."
In a noon news conference, MacKenna backed his charges with evidence
from an internal report on 245 votes lost when an elections worker
mistakenly left a touch screen voting machine in the "test" mode.
*****
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/23/Hillsborough/Lost_votes_should_ous.shtm
l
Feel safer now?
> The entire world had hope, now it's horrible.
>
> Hillary Clinton 2008!
>
There is so much unreasoning hatred of Hillary Clinton in this country
is boggles the imagination.
Robert Grumbine
Daniel Harper <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote:
[snip]
>That's exactly right, and precisely why I'm so glum over this. Four more
>years of damage is very bad, but it's something that can be dealt with --
>if nothing else, there are moderating influences in Congress to handle
>that mess. But Supreme Court nominations? Bush will almost certainly get
>two or three, and I guarantee that they'll all be right-wing nutjobs.
He only needs 1, replacing Rehnquist, to finish off habeus corpus.
Rehnquist wrote the 5-4 majority opinion that very marginally decided
that holding people without charge, counsel, etc., indefinitely was
not really quite entirely in keeping with the constitution.
I read the opinion. It was screaming that Rehnquist really, really
_wanted_ to let the president do what he was, but that Bush had so
blatantly been thumbing his nose at even the concept of the existence
of due process Rehnquist had to rule against the administration.
Next guy will have no such compunction, I wager, being either a yes
man to Scalia (another Thomas), or another Scalia.
Speaking of civil liberties and other quaint* concepts, US folks
who haven't done so already should consider http://www.aclu.org/
*quaint: A lawyer friend was reading some of the documents that were
the legal pretext^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hjustification for ignoring the Geneva
Conventions. One part of it, which had my friend practically sputtering,
was a passage which said that the Geneva Conventions had been 'rendered
quaint'. The sputtering was not because of disagreement about the Geneva
Conventions _per se_, but because there is absolutely no such legal
principle as 'rendered quaint'. From the reaction, I gather it is
equivalent to a geometer constructing a proof which relied on the
eyeball postulate. (some friends in high school liked that one --
proof that a line is a perpendicular bisector of another "It looks like
it is").
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Larry Moran
Glenn <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
> "Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> news:slrncohufc....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
[snip]
>> There are actually two roots of the problem. The first is the one you
>> identify - false information and propaganda.
>>
>> The second is more serious as far as I am concerned. It's about what
>> people do with that false information. In most modern countries it
>> would make no difference that Kerry was falsely accused of being an
>> atheist. The fact that it makes a difference to Daniel's friend is what
>> really, really, scares me.
>>
>> It's possible to fix the problem of false information and lies
>
> Really?
Yes. I'm an optimist. I think most people know that lying is bad and
eventually they'll start rejecting any politicians who lie to them.
Do you disagree?
>> but I'm not sure it's possible to fix the problem of ignorance and
>> religious bigotry.
>>
> You have a problem with Daniel's friend thinking that Kerry is an
> atheist, but it doesn't appear you have a problem with people claiming
> that Bush is a "fundamentalist", or most anything else for that
> matter. *That* isn't bigotry, is it. Nah.
I see your point but it doesn't reflect my own thinking on this issue.
I wouldn't reject candidates who are religious fundamentalists simply
because of their religion. I would only vote against them if they try
to impose their "moral" views on me. If I were American I would have
voted for religious people like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton even
though I don't agree with their religious views. They were still good
Presidents.
Daniel's friend seems to reflect a different point of view. Many
Americans (>50%) would not vote for an atheist under any circumstances.
This is called religious intolerance.
Not true. You've only quoted a few of the ones who make sense but there
are actually several others.
> But I suppose you would say that the majority is "right" and has
> "accurate" information, and is not "falsely accusing", eh?
Yes, the majority of the people posting to this thread are right.
> "As an ousider it looks pretty clear to me. The Democrats lost because
> they didn't pander to bigots, religious zealots, homophobes, idiots,
> dupes, and gun lovers. Is there another explanation?"
> "There seem to be only two choices for the Democrates.
> 1. Abandon everything you believe in and try to win the bigot vote.
> 2. Stand up for what you believe in and try and convince Americans
> than they need to change.
> I know which one I'd vote for."
>
> You're a hypocritical bigot. You have your own views of change, gun
> laws, marriage laws and religion. And it's ok for you to stand up for
> what you believe in. But the ones who you disagree with are bigots,
> religious zealots, homophobes, idiots, dupes, and gun lovers.
Those groups represent several different types of people. It was wrong
for me to imply that they are all bigots - I just used that as a
short-hand example of what some people are suggesting the Democrats
should do. I'm sorry if it looked like I was saying that all idiots
are bigots, all dupes are bigots, and all gun lovers are bigots.
On the other hand, there does seem to be a strong correlation between
those who oppose gay marriage and those who dislike homosexuals. There
may be some exceptions but to a first approximation we can assume that
bigotry is rearing its ugly head when 11 states voted to restrict the
rights of gays and lesbians. Large majorities voted in favor of those
propositions. It's not clear to me why those people feel they should
impose their "moral" values on other people who disagree with them.
Perhaps you can explain this in ways that don't invoke bigotry and
homophobia? I've heard Jerry Falwell try to do this but he ends up
sounding like a bigot to me. Can you do a better job?
Larry Moran
Scott
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:OOaid.4840$fC4...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:41892863...@pacbell.net...
>>
>>
>> dkomo wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kerry has just conceded.
>>>>
>>>>I fear the future more now than I ever have in my life. I foresee an
>>>>counter-terror, rampant and irreversible environmental degradation, and
>>>>a Sisyphian debt on my daughter's back incurred to fund tax relief for
>>>>
>>>>I am also incredibly bitter about this election. I guess I am not as
>>>>detached as you, Daniel, but I do hold a grudge against almost all
>>>>people who voted for Bush this time around. Last time he was an unknown.
>>>>This time, it was obvious how bad he was, and people clung to their
>>>>hates and denials and faith-based wishes- people who should have known
>>>>perpetrated- the debt, the environment, Iraq- yet they still voted
>>>>Republican. Why? When I asked them, they recited the litany of lies used
>>>>to smear Kerry. This, when the truth of the matter was available to
>>>>anyone who could read- no, who *would* read.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's right, lose an election and blame it on the electorate and dirty
>>> tactics of the other party. All those 58 million religious zealots,
>>> bigots, homophobes, idiots, dupes, gun lovers and assorted good ol' boys
>>> who voted for Bush.
>>>
>>> at itself and why it keeps losing national elections.
>>>
>>> As a militant centrist and independent, I don't care much for either
>>> liberals or conservatives. I just want them to balance each other out
>>> so we end up with some modicum of decent government. But these days the
>>> pendulum has swung too far to the right, thanks in large part to the
>>> ineptitude of the Democrats.
>>>
>>> was a Northern liberal (I include McGovern in this) has won. So what do
>>> the Democrats do this time around? Put up Kerry, a close colleague of
>>> Ted Kennedy and one of the most liberal members of the Senate. From
>>> Massachusetts yet.
>>>
>>> Brilliant.
>>>
>>> voted for Kerry instead because I agreed with more of his positions than
>>> those of Nader or Bush. But I also didn't think Kerry could win.
>>>
>>> As it turns out I think Kerry actually did pretty well considering how
>>> left of center he was. Had it been someone who was more of a centrist
>>> like Clinton, he would have beaten Bush easily.
>>>
>>> I'm sad that now another four years will go by with nothing being done
>>> about pressing environmental issues like global warming and pollution,
>>> with continuing massive deficits because of irresponsible tax cuts, with
>>> no energy policy to relieve our dependence on mid-East oil, etc.
>>>
>>> But I don't blame the electorate, or even the Republican Party. I blame
>>> the Democrats for this fiasco. It need not have happened.
>>
>>
>> like that he's a Northern liberal. The thing is that lots of the people
>> who voted for Bush also agreed with Kerry on the important issues. But
>> they voted for Bush anyway. So what does "Northern liberal" actually
>> mean here?
>>
>> I'm sure we'll find out more about why people voted the way they did,
>> but one important immediately pre-election poll result says a lot to me:
>> 75% of likely Bush voters thought that Saddam Hussein had provided major
>> support for Al Qaeda or was directly involved in 9/11, and 56% of them
>> thought the 9/11 commission had found good evidence of this. 48% thought
>> that Saddam had large stockpiles of WMDs at the beginning of the war,
>> and a further 25% thought he had major, ongoing programs to produce
>> them. You're going to have to go a little farther than your rant above
>> to convince me that people aren't idiots.
>
> Here's the Bush/Gore electoral map by state. It changed very little this
> time around
> http://www.sptimes.com/election2000/map.shtml
>
> and here's how that same map shakes out by county. It'll be interesting to
> see how this '04 election shakes out by county.
> http://www.oakparkgop.org/imgs/e2000map.jpg
over it didn't change much
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
> I guess the country is swimming in idiots
>
>
>
>
Scott
"Ken Aaker" <kena...@silverbacksystems.com> wrote in message
news:Iccid.30$oA.4...@news.uswest.net...
>> "David" <da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1099497713....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> As you say the public is disengaged to say the least. I bet the
>>>> reason for that is the real information is hard to find in the
>>>> mountains of propaganda. More is not better. Sure free speech is
>>>> great but not when it is lies! That's why the public is so ignorant
>>>> they're fed up with lies and switch off.
>>
>>
>> The 527's now have a better chance of being reformed and guys like George
>> Soros' won't be able to pump $10,000,000+ into privately promoted
>> propagandas.
>>
>
> Why don't you mention Richard Mellon Scaife(NewsMax), and Sun Myung
> Moon(Washington Times and UPI) who have spent BILLIONS promoting their
> private agendas for the past decade?
what do they have to do with national elections?
dkomo
> Larry Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:52:00 +0000 (UTC), David <da...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Daniel Harper wrote:
>>><snip heart felt rant>
>>
>>>>A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How
>>>>much longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our electoral
>>>>process?
>>>
>>>Below is a snippet from a previous post. Your above point is really
>>>the root of the problem. Many voters have no clue about the candidates
>>>other than the information they read on the biased leaflets and hear on
>>>the propaganda infomercials.
>>
>>There are actually two roots of the problem. The first is the one you
>>identify - false information and propaganda.
>>
>>The second is more serious as far as I am concerned. It's about what
>>people do with that false information. In most modern countries it would
>>make no difference that Kerry was falsely accused of being an atheist.
>>The fact that it makes a difference to Daniel's friend is what really,
>>really, scares me.
>>
>>It's possible to fix the problem of false information and lies but I'm
>>not sure it's possible to fix the problem of ignorance and religious
>>bigotry.
>>
>
> History is a river that carves its own channels. We have been watching
> the arrival of an Age of Unreason now for thirty or more years; why are
> we so surprised to see it come to fruition? It's going to happen in your
> country and mind too, Larry; and in Europe and in Asia. The "liberal
> experiment" is running out of current.
>
> People who are not religious, who don't conform to the majority view,
> whose political opinions rely on tolerance and freedom - they are in
> trouble in the coming decades. We mustn't make the mistake of thinking
> that what for a brief period of liberty was the ideal after the second
> world war is somehow the historical norm. Human nature is relatively
> constrained, and we are constrained to behave in bigoted ways, overall.
>
You set off my irony meter because rich examples of behaving in bigoted
ways are found in the majority of posts in this thread. I think many
posters are blind to the fact that they are behaving in ways similar to
the people they are attempting to demonize. Nothing is more ironic than
that.
Beware of the marching armies of the enlightened and the virtuous.
Matt Silberstein
<daniel...@terralink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:04:58 +0000, Stefan Kruithof wrote:
>
>> I am disgusted that so many Americans can be so sick to vote for Bush.
>>
>> The entire world had hope, now it's horrible.
>>
>> Hillary Clinton 2008!
>
>Hillary Clinton will never, ever be elected president. She is simply too
>polarizing a figure. Hillary barely got enough votes to be elected
>Senator, in New York, against a very weak challenger.
55% to 43% is not exactly barely enough.
>You want to hand the election over to right-wing nutjobs again in four
>more years, run Hillary.
>
>(I also think that she's by no means the best candidate, but that's
>another issue.)
It depends on what "best candidate" means. She and I don't agree on
lots of issues, but she would have the best (as in most effective in
getting people elected) staff, the most money, and the ability to
continue to raise more money.
--
Matt Silberstein
Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball
Damien Rice
Scott
"Chris Thompson" <rockw...@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9596DB2CFF991r...@207.69.189.191...
> dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:z_qdnQe5KIY...@comcast.com:
>
>> Chris Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> Kerry has just conceded.
>>>
>>> I fear the future more now than I ever have in my life. I foresee an
>>> endless (four years will seem endless) nightmare of terror and
>>> counter-terror, rampant and irreversible environmental degradation,
>>> and a Sisyphian debt on my daughter's back incurred to fund tax
>>> relief for multimillionaires.
>>>
>>> I am also incredibly bitter about this election. I guess I am not as
>>> detached as you, Daniel, but I do hold a grudge against almost all
>>> people who voted for Bush this time around. Last time he was an
>>> unknown. This time, it was obvious how bad he was, and people clung
>>> to their hates and denials and faith-based wishes- people who should
>>> have known better. I know people who could recite a list of
>>> disasters Bush has perpetrated- the debt, the environment, Iraq- yet
>>> they still voted Republican. Why? When I asked them, they recited the
>>> litany of lies used to smear Kerry. This, when the truth of the
>>> matter was available to anyone who could read- no, who *would* read.
>>
>> That's right, lose an election and blame it on the electorate and
>> dirty tactics of the other party. All those 58 million religious
>> zealots, bigots, homophobes, idiots, dupes, gun lovers and assorted
>> good ol' boys who voted for Bush.
>
> they cast the votes. They cast the votes for despite knowing we have
> assumed a debt more crushing than any liberal- or even Reagan!- ever
> dreamed of.
>
> They cast the votes despite knowing we were mired in an arid Vietnam,
> with no victory possible and no end in sight.
>
> They cast the votes based on any possible lie the Republicans could
> possibly dream up to smear a Silver Star veteran, in favor of a
> coke-addled smarmy cheerleader who never even finished his country-club
>
> They cast the vote based on "moral values" instead of the candidate's
> grasp of the issues, ability to govern, or track record of
> accomplishments- in favor of a candidate who believes God has told him
> its ok to kill 10000 Iraqi civilians.
>
>> By blaming the voters the Democratic Party can avoid taking a hard
>> look at itself and why it keeps losing national elections.
>>
>> As a militant centrist and independent, I don't care much for either
>> liberals or conservatives. I just want them to balance each other out
>> so we end up with some modicum of decent government. But these days
>> the pendulum has swung too far to the right, thanks in large part to
>> the ineptitude of the Democrats.
>
> special-interest giveaway, or fruitcake religious claptrap was passed by
> this congress (despite those inept Democrats voting as a bloc in
> protest) and gleefully signed by this president. Bush didn't veto a
> single act in his time in office.
>
> When he was even in his office, that is. Did you know he has spent 27%
> of his first 3 years on vacation? In times when we were threatened so
> terribly, he was in Crawford, engaged in photo ops. For all I know, he
> was still working his way through "My Pet Goat". But that sure didn't
> stop them from sliming Kerry as "The absentee senator". If you google
> that for talk.origins, you'll even see Klaus Hellnick repeat it.
>
>> Since John Kennedy not a single Democratic presidential candidate who
>> was a Northern liberal (I include McGovern in this) has won. So what
>> do the Democrats do this time around? Put up Kerry, a close colleague
>> of Ted Kennedy and one of the most liberal members of the Senate.
>> From Massachusetts yet.
>>
>> Brilliant.
>
> didn't fare too well 4 years ago.
>
>>
>> I decided at the last minute not to make a protest vote for Nader, and
>> voted for Kerry instead because I agreed with more of his positions
>> than those of Nader or Bush. But I also didn't think Kerry could win.
>>
>> As it turns out I think Kerry actually did pretty well considering how
>> left of center he was. Had it been someone who was more of a centrist
>> like Clinton, he would have beaten Bush easily.
>>
>> I'm sad that now another four years will go by with nothing being done
>> about pressing environmental issues like global warming and pollution,
>> with continuing massive deficits because of irresponsible tax cuts,
>> with no energy policy to relieve our dependence on mid-East oil, etc.
>>
>> But I don't blame the electorate, or even the Republican Party. I
>> blame the Democrats for this fiasco. It need not have happened.
>>
>>
>
> So all the democratic party has to do is pander, preferably to the
> lowest common denominator. Become what most of us despise most about
> the republicans.
>
> No thanks.
>
> Chris
your entire rebuttal stinks of argent elitism.
Jeffrey Turner
> "Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>but I'm
>>not sure it's possible to fix the problem of ignorance and religious
>>bigotry.
>
> You have a problem with Daniel's friend thinking that Kerry is an
> atheist, but it doesn't appear you have a problem with people claiming
> that Bush is a "fundamentalist", or most anything else for that
> matter.*That* isn't bigotry, is it. Nah.
Are you trying to claim that Bush isn't a fundamentalist?
That's not the impression I got from "Faith in the White House."
Yes, there is a reality out there, even if it isn't always
flattering. You can ignore the "liberal" media because it
conflicts with your conservative propaganda networks but that
doesn't mean that the reporting of news is inherently
politically biased.
> "As an ousider it looks pretty clear to me. The Democrats lost because
> they didn't pander to bigots, religious zealots, homophobes, idiots,
> dupes, and gun lovers. Is there another explanation?"
> "There seem to be only two choices for the Democrates.
> 1. Abandon everything you believe in and try to win the bigot vote.
> 2. Stand up for what you believe in and try and convince Americans
> than they need to change.
> I know which one I'd vote for."
>
> You're a hypocritical bigot. You have your own views of change, gun
> laws, marriage laws and religion. And it's ok for you to stand up for
> what you believe in. But the ones who you disagree with are bigots,
> religious zealots, homophobes, idiots, dupes, and gun lovers.
If we don't want you to impose your narrow hatred on everyone
else then you are being discriminated against? That's a
bizarre redefinition of words.
--Jeff
--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Tecumseh Sherman
David Dalle
Funny how Canada is still somehow, going in a different direction--I
wouldn't be suprised if Marijuana is virtually legalized by the end of
Bush's second term, gay marriage will definitely be legalized, it is
already in about 50% of the country, the rest will follow, even
Alberta. The former, disgraced, leader of our most right-wing
federal party, Stockwell Day, was made a national laughing stock for
his previous support of creationism and evangelical leanings.
The only danger Canada really faces, is those who would adopt any
American values and follow any Bush-bs and push it in Canadian
politics for the sake of American cash. Like too many Albertan
politicians, who only see enormous profit from selling Albertan gas
and oil to the US. They are becoming like Saudi and U.A.E. oil
sheikhs who love America because it buys their oil.
Funny too, that Canada does not have a separation of church/religion
clause in its constitution (we have a freedom of religion, but nothing
preventing the state from supporting religion, as it does with
publicly funded Catholic schools)
Doesn't the UK have the most avowed atheists in the world? It
certainly seems like it. And isn't their head of state also the head
of the national church?
Maybe the problem IS separation of church and state! Maybe if
Americans grew up in a state that supported a state-religion, they
would actually become more tolerant! Maybe they lack the first-hand
experience of the problems that go with enforced religion, wich the
founding fathers of America faced.
This also reminds me of the growing "alternative-health" in Canada and
the US, which can be extremely anti-traditional medecine and doctors,
especially when it comes to things like vaccines and home-birth. This
often comes from people who have grown up in a world free from child
mortality, polio, smallpox--BECAUSE of vaccines and scientific
medecine. They take it for granted and don't appreciate it. If they
had firsthand experience with the high infant/mother mortality at
birth and high child mortality which is normal in human history, they
would suddently grasp and appreciate the importance of scientific
medecine, vaccines etc.
Maybe the best thing for the US would be for Bush to attack the 1st
amendment in the US constitution, I think most Americans, even in the
midwest and south, would be jolted awake by what this would really
mean for them, and why the church/state separation was such a good
idea in the first place!
David
AC
Lilith <lil...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> I've been seriously contemplating asking to be transferred over into
> Europe as of late, but I'm told it's not much better over there,
> either.
Well, the Right has made great strides over there due to immigration
concerns (it's Europe's version of the gay marriage issue). Come to Canada.
We're not perfect, but we block our own Conservative Party from gaining
power when it became clear that their agenda was to undermine civil
liberties.
<snip>
AC
Glenn <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>
> atheist, but it doesn't appear you have a problem with people claiming
> that Bush is a "fundamentalist", or most anything else for that
> matter.*That* isn't bigotry, is it. Nah.
> From posts in this thread:
Really? Bush proudly wears his Fundementalism on his sleeve. It's not like
he tried to deny it. I suppose your happy because the homos won't be
marrying (we all know your opinion on that) and there's a chance that the
Supreme Court will be stacked with Fundies, and the bullshit you believe in
may actually be taught to our kids.
Congrats, Glenn Sheldon, Soldier for Christ. You've made a huge victory.
AC
Is there a problem with elitism? I mean, I know it's an insult, but perhaps
you could explain why it's bad.
David
> "Chris Thompson" <rockw...@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote in message
> >> But I don't blame the electorate, or even the Republican Party. I
> >> blame the Democrats for this fiasco. It need not have happened.
> >>
> >>
> >> --dk...@cris.com
> >
> > So all the democratic party has to do is pander, preferably to the
> > lowest common denominator. Become what most of us despise most
about
> > the republicans.
> >
> > No thanks.
> >
> > Chris
>
> your entire rebuttal stinks of argent elitism.
Now you are delusional. Bush is not elitist??? Don't let the rolled
un shirt sleeves fool you, it's all choreographed. Same as the
clearing brush at his ranch crap.
The republicans are the biggest bunch of elitists out there. The only
reason they are nice to you is they want your vote, wake up for Gods
sake!
David
Matt Silberstein
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
[snip]
>You're a hypocritical bigot. You have your own views of change, gun
>laws, marriage laws and religion. And it's ok for you to stand up for
>what you believe in. But the ones who you disagree with are bigots,
>religious zealots, homophobes, idiots, dupes, and gun lovers.
It is ok for them to stand up for what they believe in. But if a bigot
stand up for bigotry, they are still a bigot, if an idiot stand up for
ignorance, they are still an idiot. And if a dupe stands up for the
success in the war against terrorism, they are still a dupe.
Robert Grumbine
Ken Aaker <kena...@silverbacksystems.com> wrote:
>> "David" <da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1099497713....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>> As you say the public is disengaged to say the least. I bet the
>>>> reason for that is the real information is hard to find in the
>>>> mountains of propaganda. More is not better. Sure free speech is
>>>> great but not when it is lies! That's why the public is so ignorant
>>>> they're fed up with lies and switch off.
>>
>> The 527's now have a better chance of being reformed and guys like George
>> Soros' won't be able to pump $10,000,000+ into privately promoted
>> propagandas.
>
>Why don't you mention Richard Mellon Scaife(NewsMax), and Sun Myung
>Moon(Washington Times and UPI) who have spent BILLIONS promoting their
>private agendas for the past decade?
Murdoch (Fox).
By the way, ozzies, we'll get you for that one.
Robert Grumbine
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:30:58 +0000 (UTC), "Daniel Harper"
><daniel...@terralink.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>Hillary Clinton will never, ever be elected president. She is simply too
>>polarizing a figure. Hillary barely got enough votes to be elected
>>Senator, in New York, against a very weak challenger.
>
>55% to 43% is not exactly barely enough.
No, a comfortable win. But winning 55/43 in a state that went something
like that for Kerry (iirc) is far from impressive.
If it's a figure of current office the Democrats run, their best chance
would be someone who is currently getting elected to statewide office in a
state that went 55/45 or more for Bush. Preferably a state that also
has a lot of electoral votes. Any Democrats still holding statewide
office in Texas?
>>You want to hand the election over to right-wing nutjobs again in four
>>more years, run Hillary.
It'd make the Mondale and Dukakis races look close. The depth
of hatred for her is amazing.
>>(I also think that she's by no means the best candidate, but that's
>>another issue.)
>
>It depends on what "best candidate" means. She and I don't agree on
>lots of issues, but she would have the best (as in most effective in
>getting people elected) staff, the most money, and the ability to
>continue to raise more money.
Given just how hated she is nationally, there's not enough money
in the world for her to win the election. Bill was disliked or
hated from a distance, as it were. The Hillary talk is as if she,
personally, were going to come in to every home and knife the
residents. She could win the nomination. That's a different
matter. Goldwater, McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis all won nomination.
Chris Thompson
news:xDrid.15351$bP2....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
I note you fail to mention any particulars in which I am incorrect.
But I find it telling that some find it "elitist" to base your vote on
taking the time to find out the facts behind issues, or not, as the case
may be.
Noone Inparticular
"John Wilkins" <john...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gmpwbv.a9b4o7fiu33cN%john...@wilkins.id.au...
> Larry Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:52:00 +0000 (UTC), David <da...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Daniel Harper wrote:
>> ><snip heart felt rant>
>>
>> >> A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How
>> >> much longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our
>> >> electoral
>> >> process?
>> >
>> > Below is a snippet from a previous post. Your above point is really
>> > the root of the problem. Many voters have no clue about the candidates
>> > other than the information they read on the biased leaflets and hear on
>> > the propaganda infomercials.
>>
>> There are actually two roots of the problem. The first is the one you
>> identify - false information and propaganda.
>>
>> The second is more serious as far as I am concerned. It's about what
>> people do with that false information. In most modern countries it would
>> make no difference that Kerry was falsely accused of being an atheist.
>> The fact that it makes a difference to Daniel's friend is what really,
>> really, scares me.
>>
>> not sure it's possible to fix the problem of ignorance and religious
>> bigotry.
>>
> the arrival of an Age of Unreason now for thirty or more years; why are
> we so surprised to see it come to fruition? It's going to happen in your
> country and mind too, Larry; and in Europe and in Asia. The "liberal
> experiment" is running out of current.
>
> People who are not religious, who don't conform to the majority view,
> whose political opinions rely on tolerance and freedom - they are in
> trouble in the coming decades. We mustn't make the mistake of thinking
> that what for a brief period of liberty was the ideal after the second
> world war is somehow the historical norm. Human nature is relatively
> constrained, and we are constrained to behave in bigoted ways, overall.
I disagree.
I know this is a dark day for many of us and I certainly agree that we stand
on the edge of a cliff. But I would point out to you that this was one of
the closest elections in US history with one of the highest voter turnouts
ever. We have an incumbant war time president running for reelection and
almost half the country voted to throw him out. That is HIGHLY unusual. The
anger and viceral dislike of this adminstration and what it stands for
surely suggests that there is a very large amount of discontent. This deep,
gutteral disenchantment is palpable in many parts of the country. I am
somewhat encouraged by the fact that most of the people who voted for Bush
do not support his war nor do they support his economic policies. Every
Repubulican I know -every single one- does not support Bush's social agenda,
but they would never have, even with burning bits of bamboo up their
fingernails, voted for Kerry. Bush and his campaign were successful in
instilling fear in Americans. That's what won this election. Fear.
You say this is the dawning of the Age of Unreason, and your activity on
this board is reason enough to understand why you come to this conclusion.
However, despite the teeth gnashing and hair-pulling that I see whenever we
see some ridiculous effort made by creationists to have their drivel foisted
on school kids, I believe that there is no evidence that these efforts are
(1) more common today or (2) more successful. At least here in the U.S. In
fact, I would argue that exactly the opposite is true. This is not to
suggest that we can safely ignore any new efforts or stay silent when
creationists come ableating. Quite the contrary. As a scientist myself, I
think owing to our historical tendancy to ignore morons, we scientist are
partly to blame for what cache creationist blither still has. Please note; I
am making a restrictive claim here. I believe that these creationist
efforts, bad as they are, are LESS successful today they they have ever
been. I am NOT claiming that they don't occur. They do, with distressing
regularity. In a way, I think you may be feeling this pinch a bit more than
us USans. We've lived with systemic, pervasive, even *codified* religious
nonsense so long we hardly notice it anymore. You folks (IANM), and Dr.
Moran and those across the pond, come from a very different socio/religious
milleu. So maybe, because of more recent creationist inroads in Oz, Canada,
and Europe, having less experience with xtian fundamentalist nonsense, you
feel the icey-cold slimy embrace of creationism more intently.
In the U.S., despite the efforts to ban gay marrage (and, no offense to my
Gay/Lesbian friends; this issue is one of the reasons why Bush is back in
office. The specter of gay and lesbian people living together in happiness
with all attendant legal protections enjoyed by their fellow humans was much
to much for the religious right. That issue got out the vote for them, the
fear did the rest.) the very fact that the issue is seriously debated argues
against the Age of Unreason. In the U.S., this issue HAS NOT been portrayed
as one of those inscrutible, hopeless and irrelevant causes that sometimes
arises with gay rights issues. This debate is *serious*. That is not, in my
book, an indication that the Age of Unreason is upon us. Stem cell research;
yeah yeah yeah, Bush has a policy that is wrong in almost every aspect. But
natianl sentiment is *against* him. By very large margins. A woman's right
to choose is still favored by the same percentage of people it has since Roe
V Wade (U.S. referent, I'm sure you know). That Americans have begun
adopting a more nuanced stand on this right; majorities believe some
reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right, as have been placed on
the right to free speech, free association, free press, armed bears etc.
Again, this seems to me to be more evidence that the dawn of the Age of
Unreason has yet to appear. What about the environment? Yeah, Bush is a
disaster on this. Well, more than 70% of the Amrican populace AGREES. This
includes Republicans. The environment is one issue the republicans in
general and this adminstration in particular have very little support.
Unfortunately, in the voting booth, the environment comes a distant fifth
behind the terror, the war, the economy, health care and local value issues.
Still, I don't think a populace in the throes of the Age of Unreason would
care much for the environment.
There are many dangers and many forces of unreason pushing us this way and
that. I will certainly concede that we may be at a crossroads here, but (and
I know I'm setting myself up for flamebait with what I'm about to say), the
rise of religious terrorism as a mechanism for social change will destroy
itself. It will consume to very ones who so desperately believe in it. A
snake eating it's own tail. Now, due to US arrogance, stupid mistakes of the
recent past, and no clear way out of the mess we've made it seems that
religious intolerance is ascendant in the Muslim world and the attendant
fear that such intolerance will spread to other religious traditions. I
won't argue that it isn't or that it won't spread. I will argue, however,
that it will kill itself. There is NO broad support anywhere for religious
fundamentalism. There is a mix of fear, social injustice, poverty, cultural
inertia and repressive regimes that feeds this trend. All of which are
slowly- and maybe to slowly- becoming no more than skid marks on the
underpants of human history. Religious fundamentalism as a domineering
political force will die, here and abroad. It may take a generation or two,
but I am confident it will.
I'm discouraged. Scratch that. I'm pissed off. More than I've ever been.
Before the election I used to say it bothered me it was even going to be
close. By my reckoning, we should have been getting the tar boiling and the
feathers collected long ago. But fear, disinformation and honest differences
in opinion conspired against us and put us in this dangerous, knife edge
position. I, like numerous of my friends I met while working for MoveOn and
other groups, are going to disengage from the newscycle for a bit. We're
going to lick our wounds, trying not to pick at the scabs and when we can
finally breathe again come back fighting. More and harder than ever.
To those whose are contemplating leaving the country over this election,
while I understand your feelings, I hope you will forgive me thinking you
cowards.
Longest damn post I've ever made. And OT to boot! Woohooo.
>
> --
> John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au
> web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
>
> God cheats
>
mvillanu
[snip]
> Hey, who is George _really_ going to hurt? Just terrorists and women
> who want abortions, and they have it coming.
1-
If he manages to limit abortion, then the only poeple that are going
to have abortions are the daughters of the rich and the powerful, and
their mistresses.
2-
Bin Laden is quite happy now. Terrorists love the Bush
administration. Bush creates more terrorists faster than we can kill
them. Not to mention validating their propaganda.
Giant Sloth
to be a consensus in this thread that anyone who voted for Bush did so
because they succumbed to propaganda, lies and/or failed to reason
properly. There are conservatives who say the exact same thing with
regard to people who voted for Kerry. I disagree with both points of
view. There is plenty of reliable information and reasoning to reach
a conclusion either way. My impression is that people on the extremes
tend to trust information that they know will support the position
they already hold.
I don't trust any one source of information, but seek to have
everything confirmed. Even so, there is so much information out there
on any particular political subject, there is no way I could exhaust
it all. Unlike the creation/evolution debate, in which investigation
reveals that only the evolution side of the debate can be said to base
their ideas on science, on evidence and reason, political debates are
much more uncertain. You cannot do controlled experiments in dealing
with Iraq, for example, to find out what the best outcome will be.
You have to take a course of action, and no one can say for sure
whether it's the correct one. Historians may reach a consensus, but
their conclusions (when they reach them) cannot be based on trial and
error.
So I am suspicious when people, either on the right or the left, tell
me the "facts", how they're right, and everyone else is ignorant
and/or stupid; sometimes the implication is that the other side is
simply evil. Often I find reason to believe that they are coming from
an emotional reaction to the other side. For example, many diehard
liberals are reacting emotionally to a childhood in which they had a
painful emotional reaction to fundamentalism. The way many go after
the most nonsensical, ridiculous statements of creationists on this
site causes me to ponder their motivation. Many extreme conservatives
and fundamentalists have trouble with ambiguity, and have their fears
allayed by a concrete and inflexible belief.
As for myself, when I attempt to use the best information I know of
and reason alone, and am open to both sides of the argument, I find
that sometimes a end up on the liberal side, sometimes on the
conservative side of a political position. I had a tough time
deciding between Bush and Kerry. Ultimately I voted for Kerry with
many misgivings. People talk about how horrid Bush is, but Kerry took
anything going wrong at the time and blamed Bush, as though nothing
would go wrong in his administration. Kerry ran as the anti-Bush,
much more than as his own man. Why is it impossible to have a
presidential candidate appear as though he cares about the country and
the issues, rather than appear to be doing whatever he can to get
elected?
So my suggestion to some on this thread is not to be so sure of
yourselves. The world of politics is more complex and ambiguous than
you think. If you think all conservative ideas are completely
wrong-headed, maybe you aren't really listening with an open mind.
I'm speaking of well-reasoned conservative ideas, as opposed to the
"God said and I believe it" crowd, of course. (And I notice that
Daniel below mentions some examples of this, before he goes on to say
that he is ashamed of the country for stooping to the level of Bush.)
I remember liberals moaning about how horrible things were going to be
under Reagan. Instead of ending up with nuclear war, we ended up with
the collapse of Communism. I'm not saying that happened because of
Reagan's policies (although some would argue that with good reason),
I'm saying that just maybe things won't be so bad under Bush, either.
"Daniel Harper" <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.03....@terralink.net>...
> I apologize for this, but I don't have a lot of moral support in my area,
> and I think I can keep this at least marginally on-topic, so please hold
> the anti-election flames.
>
> Right now it's right at nine o'clock Central Time, and the final vote
> tallies haven't been done up yet. CNN has projected 254 electoral votes
> for Bush, 252 for Kerry, with Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio being still
> outstanding. Iowa and New Mexico could go either way as far as the
> electoral college is concerned -- the big winner will be whoever gets
> Ohio's 20 electoral votes. The Kerry camp is talking about waiting for
> provisional ballots and overseas ballots, and that may very well be a
> significant factor here.
>
> Unfortunately, the margin looks to be too large -- Bush is a little over a
> hundred thousand votes ahead in Ohio, and the provisionals would have to
> be overwhelmingly in support of Kerry in order for it to swing the
> election. As depressing as it is, absent evidence of major voter fraud as
> happened in Florida in 2000, or some numerical miracle in Ohio, George W.
> Bush will continue to be the President of the United States.
>
> God help us all.
>
> There are a lot of things that contributed to this event, not the least of
> which is that the electoral map shifted even more in Bush's favor,
> allowing for Kerry to actually pick up a state that Gore won in 2000 (New
> Hampshire), while losing the electoral college. At least Bush actually won
> the popular vote this time -- again, absent major vote fraud, it looks
> like Bush won the popular vote by something like three and half million
> votes.
>
> Three and a half fucking million votes.
>
> CNN pundits have been talking about the turnout issue (this is the highest
> turnout we've ever had), and while high turnouts tend to favor Democrats,
> in this case the majority of new voters look to be Republicans. It appears
> that Karl Rove organized major "get-out-the-vote" campaigns through
> evangelical churches, based primarily on ballot initiatives on social
> issues like abortion and, most especially, gay marriage.
>
> In other words, Bush and Rove used the evangelical community's dislike of
> homosexuality to get out the vote and put themselves over the top.
> (Estimates are that somewhere around four million evangelicals didn't vote
> in 2000 -- add four million to Bush's 2000 vote difference with Gore and
> you get approximately Bush's lead over Kerry.) I have no particular beef
> with those like Klaus Hellnick and Fred Stone who sincerely believe that
> Bush is the better man to run the country (although I wholeheartedly
> disagree), but at least a point of view like theirs is honest and
> reasoned. Bush and Rove didn't rely on people like Klaus and Fred to win
> this election -- they traded on bigotry and fear. On hatred just as nasty
> and virulent as the hatred that led Southerners to vote Dixiecrat sixty or
> seventy years ago, just with a different target.
>
> It quite honestly disgusts me to the pit of my soul, and I am ashamed of
> my country that it has stooped to this level. May the rest of the world,
> and history, please forgive us.
>
> One final note, and then I'll shut up. That douchebag Robert Novak was
> talking last night about how the Democratic party needed to reconsider
> the candidates they put out, the platform they embraced, that the country
> is more and more conservative, and that flaming liberals like John Kerry
> <snort> wouldn't be able to win the support of rural voters. That's a load
> of bull -- Barack Obama (the huge success story of the 2004 election, the
> new Senator from Illinois) was voted in on huge margins, with good numbers
> from even the most rural areas of his state. The problem is not the
> candidates, but they way they're packaged and the way campaigns are run --
> Bush and Rove simply ran a killer campaign, with all the negative ads, all
> the mudslinging, and all the fearmongering that was needed to stay in
> office.
>
> A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How much
> longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our electoral
> process?
>
> I'm done. Hate mail to the listed addy -- unmung it if you want to be
> supportive. :->
Alan Morgan
Stefan Kruithof <stefank...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I am disgusted that so many Americans can be so sick to vote for Bush.
>
>The entire world had hope, now it's horrible.
>
>Hillary Clinton 2008!
Cute and completely meaningless discovery: clintonobama2008.com is
taken. I know it's just someone cyber-squatting, but it made me
chuckle.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
Rich Mathers
Glenn wrote:
> "Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> news:slrncohufc....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
>
>>On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:52:00 +0000 (UTC), David <da...@hotmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>>>Daniel Harper wrote:
>>><snip heart felt rant>
>>
>>>>A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist.
>
> How
>
>>>>much longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our
>
> electoral
>
>>>>process?
>>>
>>>Below is a snippet from a previous post. Your above point is really
>>>the root of the problem. Many voters have no clue about the
>
> candidates
>
>>>other than the information they read on the biased leaflets and hear
>
> on
>
>>>the propaganda infomercials.
>>
>>There are actually two roots of the problem. The first is the one you
>>identify - false information and propaganda.
>>
>>The second is more serious as far as I am concerned. It's about what
>>people do with that false information. In most modern countries it
>
> would
>
>>make no difference that Kerry was falsely accused of being an atheist.
>>The fact that it makes a difference to Daniel's friend is what really,
>>really, scares me.
>>
>>It's possible to fix the problem of false information and lies
>
>
> Really?
>
>
>>but I'm
>>not sure it's possible to fix the problem of ignorance and religious
>>bigotry.
>>
>
> You have a problem with Daniel's friend thinking that Kerry is an
> atheist, but it doesn't appear you have a problem with people claiming
> that Bush is a "fundamentalist", or most anything else for that
> matter.*That* isn't bigotry, is it. Nah.
> From posts in this thread:
>
> "a clique of oilmen, neocons, and religious nuts (Ashcroft) run the
> country", "religious fundamentalists", "dislike of homosexuality",
> "traded on bigotry and fear", "nightmare of terror and counter-terror,
> rampant and irreversible environmental degradation, and a Sisyphian debt
> on my daughter's back incurred to fund tax relief for
> multimillionaires","list of disasters Bush has perpetrated"," litany of
> lies","fairy tales","supposed morality of the Bush
> administration","appealing to people's fears and worse natures","Hatred
> sells, the election proved in spades","religion of hate","bad
> president","lies and manipulation of people who are more concerned with
> their pocketbook than humanity", Louann Miller's entire post,"coral
> reefs on the hit list too","Karl Rove and his compatriots have perhaps
> permanently damaged the ability of decent people","Bush II and Rove have
> elevated the smear campaign to high art", "the country is swimming in
> idiots","bigots,religious zealots, homophobes,idiots,dupes, and gun
> lovers voted overwhelmingly for George Bush","coke-addled smarmy
> cheerleader who never even finished his country-club National Guard
> obligation","God has told him its ok to kill 10000 Iraqi
> civilians","fruitcake religious claptrap was passed by this
> congress","spent 27% of his first 3 years on vacation","when we were
> threatened so terribly, he was in Crawford, engaged in photo ops","what
> most of us despise most about the republicans","worst misrepresentation,
> lie, smear whatever"
>
> Out of dozens of posters, only two or three *appeared* to have any sense
> at all. But I suppose you would say that the majority is "right" and has
> "accurate" information, and is not "falsely accusing", eh?
>
> "As an ousider it looks pretty clear to me. The Democrats lost because
> they didn't pander to bigots, religious zealots, homophobes, idiots,
> dupes, and gun lovers. Is there another explanation?"
> "There seem to be only two choices for the Democrates.
> 1. Abandon everything you believe in and try to win the bigot vote.
> 2. Stand up for what you believe in and try and convince Americans
> than they need to change.
> I know which one I'd vote for."
>
> (snide snip) a hypocritical bigot.
Glenn don't be so hard on yourself.
You have your own views of change, gun
> laws, marriage laws and religion. And it's ok for you to stand up for
> what you believe in. But the ones who you disagree with are bigots,
> religious zealots, homophobes, idiots, dupes, and gun lovers.
No. He is accurate in most of crique of the Bush regime. Your are
allied with the "white horse" fascist. They talk about values that
exculde, denigrate humans. They are comparable to the southern racist
strategy of the old south started by the Democratic party and now housed
in the modern Republican party. The fundamentalist "value voter" is
against incorporating certain humans fully into modern society because
they view them as less than human. They are for restricting their life
chance and they are explicite about it. You may be comfortable with
this sort of human degragation coming form the Republican party but as
an old line Democrat I'm ashamed of the racist history of the Democratic
Party and particularly proud of LBJ for initiating legislation to
overcome some of the immoral savagery that was carried out in the name
of the Democratic party.
Do you see any faults in the values expressed by the Republican "value
voter?"
And if you see these denigrating values toward homosexuals as being
legitimate religious expressions based on scripture, remember so were
southern racist values.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Andy Groves
> Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:04:53 +0000 (UTC), john...@wilkins.id.au (John
> > Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > >History is a river that carves its own channels. We have been watching
> > >the arrival of an Age of Unreason now for thirty or more years; why are
> > >we so surprised to see it come to fruition? It's going to happen in your
> > >country and mind too, Larry; and in Europe and in Asia. The "liberal
> > >experiment" is running out of current.
> >
> > who want abortions, and they have it coming.
> >
> > people. And the friends and families of gay people. And people who
> > might otherwise be cured of serious diseases because of stem-cell
> > research. And people who invest in their company 401k plans.
> >
> > And families and friends of women who want abortions. And kids who
> > don't get adopted because gay people can't be part of the
> > adoptive-parents pool. And people without health insurance, including
> > their kids. And people with bad health insurance. And people who _had_
> > good health insurance, but they got downsized. And people who want to
> > sue large corporations for putting arsenic in the drinking water near
> > their kids' school. And minorities. And blue-collar workers. And
> > foreigners, the whole damn planet of them. And people who get injured
> > on the job. And people who get old and need medical care. And people
> > who join the military.
> >
> > (And just to keep it on-topic, kids whose shiny new high school
> > diplomas include lots of goddidit but no actual biology in biology
> > class, who then want to go to college.)
>
> Abortion has raised its head here too, although there are many elected
> MPs in the conservative party who are standing firm against it (women,
> mainly). If they do raise it as a policy issue, though, many folk will
> get noisy - at no time was it raised in the election campaign or in any
> policy statement (we have had a remarkably bipartisan approach since the
> 70s), and the PM has said that he won't do anything under his full
> control of the Senate and House that is radical or novel - in principle
> he is saying that he realises he has a mandate only for the
> extraordinary policies already mooted. *I* certainly did not vote for
> any revision of abortion law.
>
> I note with some pleasure that stem cell research has been approved in
> the EU.
And Kalifornia.....
Andy
Rich Mathers
Stefan Kruithof wrote:
> I am disgusted that so many Americans can be so sick to vote for Bush.
>
> The entire world had hope, now it's horrible.
>
> Hillary Clinton 2008!
No!!!!
Obama in 2008!
A breath of fresh air, exceptionally bright, hard working, compromiser,
personable, pragmatic, religious and not a divider.
N.B. e.g.
"It's important for me to show the voters of Illinois the degree to
which I am concerned with the people of Illinois, because I think that
the hype that's surrounded my campaign during this last phase needs to
be corrected," he said. "People need to recognize that the job I've
applied for and that they have hired me for is to be the best U.S.
senator possible for the state of Illinois." Chicago Sun-Times 11/4/04
Ridiculing it as "a silly question," Democrat Barack Obama pledged
Wednesday he would resist any overtures to run for president or vice
president before the end of his six-year term as a U.S. senator. (ibid.)
OK 2012 0r 2016!
I believe the country would be well served by talking him out of
resisting the overtures. Just watch and listen to him!! He more
clearly than Clinton is presidential material. He has been tested at a
young age and he knows who he is and he is above all honest and forthright.
>
syvanen
> Larry Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:52:00 +0000 (UTC), David <da...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Daniel Harper wrote:
> > ><snip heart felt rant>
>
> > >> A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How
> > >> much longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our electoral
> > >> process?
> > >
> > > Below is a snippet from a previous post. Your above point is really
> > > the root of the problem. Many voters have no clue about the candidates
> > > other than the information they read on the biased leaflets and hear on
> > > the propaganda infomercials.
> >
> > There are actually two roots of the problem. The first is the one you
> > identify - false information and propaganda.
> >
> > The second is more serious as far as I am concerned. It's about what
> > people do with that false information. In most modern countries it would
> > make no difference that Kerry was falsely accused of being an atheist.
> > The fact that it makes a difference to Daniel's friend is what really,
> > really, scares me.
> >
> > not sure it's possible to fix the problem of ignorance and religious
> > bigotry.
> >
> the arrival of an Age of Unreason now for thirty or more years; why are
> we so surprised to see it come to fruition? It's going to happen in your
> country and mind too, Larry; and in Europe and in Asia. The "liberal
> experiment" is running out of current.
>
> whose political opinions rely on tolerance and freedom - they are in
> trouble in the coming decades. We mustn't make the mistake of thinking
> that what for a brief period of liberty was the ideal after the second
> world war is somehow the historical norm. Human nature is relatively
> constrained, and we are constrained to behave in bigoted ways, overall.
Egad, what a pessimist and I thought you had cheery outlook on life.
Let's look at our current situation in a more optimistic way. For
example, uh, uh, uh. Hum, let me think about this some more.
Mike Syvanen
syvanen
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:04:05 +0000 (UTC),
> dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Chris Thompson wrote:
> >
[snip]
> > That's right, lose an election and blame it on the electorate and dirty
> > tactics of the other party. All those 58 million religious zealots,
> > bigots, homophobes, idiots, dupes, gun lovers and assorted good ol' boys
> > who voted for Bush.
>
> Sounds about right to me. What's the problem? Isn't it true that bigots,
> religious zealots, homophobes, idiots, dupes, and gun lovers voted
> overwhelmingly for George Bush?
>
> > By blaming the voters the Democratic Party can avoid taking a hard look
> > at itself and why it keeps losing national elections.
>
> As an ousider it looks pretty clear to me. The Democrats lost because
> they didn't pander to bigots, religious zealots, homophobes, idiots,
> dupes, and gun lovers. Is there another explanation?
>
> > As a militant centrist and independent, I don't care much for either
> > liberals or conservatives. I just want them to balance each other out
> > so we end up with some modicum of decent government. But these days the
> > pendulum has swung too far to the right, thanks in large part to the
> > ineptitude of the Democrats.
> >
> > Since John Kennedy not a single Democratic presidential candidate who
> > was a Northern liberal (I include McGovern in this) has won. So what do
> > the Democrats do this time around? Put up Kerry, a close colleague of
> > Ted Kennedy and one of the most liberal members of the Senate. From
> > Massachusetts yet.
> >
> > Brilliant.
> >
> > I decided at the last minute not to make a protest vote for Nader, and
> > voted for Kerry instead because I agreed with more of his positions than
> > those of Nader or Bush. But I also didn't think Kerry could win.
> >
> > As it turns out I think Kerry actually did pretty well considering how
> > left of center he was. Had it been someone who was more of a centrist
> > like Clinton, he would have beaten Bush easily.
> >
> > I'm sad that now another four years will go by with nothing being done
> > about pressing environmental issues like global warming and pollution,
> > with continuing massive deficits because of irresponsible tax cuts, with
> > no energy policy to relieve our dependence on mid-East oil, etc.
> >
> > But I don't blame the electorate, or even the Republican Party. I blame
> > the Democrats for this fiasco. It need not have happened.
>
> There seem to be only two choices for the Democrates.
>
> 1. Abandon everything you believe in and try to win the bigot vote.
>
> 2. Stand up for what you believe in and try and convince Americans
> than they need to change.
>
> I know which one I'd vote for.
Unfortunately, I believe some concessions to the bigots are necessary.
I think we should give them their ban on gay marriage and perhaps
restrictions on late term abortions. These are issues that mobilized
the fundamentalists to go to the polls this last Teusday. The gay
marriage ban on the ballot in Ohio was the major 'get out the vote'
devise for the Republicans. Many union members voted for Bush because
of the so called partial birth abortions.
I know this from personal experience. We worked phone banks and
talked to potential voters in Ohio and Wisconsin.
Mike Syvanen
F. Tost
> Gary Bohn
> > > A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How
> > > much longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our
> > > electoral process?
> >
> > among those that hold political values opposite to your own; I live in
> > right-wing central. To watch your values belittled by the lies and
> > manipulation of people who are more concerned with their pocketbook than
>
> Well, I live in left-wing central and feel just as frustrated. I guess
> it just depends upon your point of view.
>
> R
My husband and I don't just live in a state we do not agree with
politically (Montana) my husband comes from an entirely fundamentalist
family. They all were relieved Bush won and took great delight in
quoting Bush's lies about Kerry back at us. Most of my family is not
fundamentalist, but supported Bush anyway. My grandfather argued with
me that the congressional 9/11 committee found that Saddam was
responsible for the attack on the trade center towers. Of course, he
has had a lot of mini-strokes thanks to his several pack a day
lifetime habit, so I am not sure what sort of mixed up data he has
retained.
Rich Mathers
Scott wrote:
Argent isn't the word you want it's arrogant.
And it is not elitism to point out ignorance when it is demostable.
Indeed Republican ignorance of the relationship between Al Qaeda and
Hussein and 9/11 is an astounding 71 percent of their of supporters.
If this isn't unbridled willful ignorance then please send me $500
dollars so that I can cure your gullibility.
>
David Fritzinger
> Gary Bohn <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message news:<Xns9596B5930...@130.133.1.4>...> > news:pan.2004.11.03....@terralink.net:
> >
> <snip>
> > >
> > > A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How
> > > much longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our
> > > electoral process?
> > >
> > > supportive. :->
> > >
> >
> > among those that hold political values opposite to your own; I live in
> > right-wing central. To watch your values belittled by the lies and
> > manipulation of people who are more concerned with their pocketbook than
> > humanity is enough to stoke your anger to almost uncontrollable heights.
> > affect our lives as little as possible.
>
> I voted with Daniel and was similarly disappointed. But I do not think
> it's the end of civilization as we know it.
>
> The Democrats do indeed need to put up more appealing candidates;
> Novack is right on that, in a way. In 2000 with all the advantages of
> peace, prosperity, incumbency, and a weak challenger we lost. Now with
> a war going badly, a weak economy, and OBL still on the loose, we blew
> it again. We need candidates who are not cold fish. GWB is hugely
> rich, but manages to come across as a "regular guy," JK just couldn't
> come across. (I remember him refering to Orwell in one of the debates
> - his reference was dead on point, and wasted on 95% of the audience).
> We need a Clinton who can behave himself, someone smart, charismatic,
> and appealing to ordinary people. We also probably need a Southern
> Baptist Democrat, hopefully one who is not a creationist or rabidly
> homophobic, but one who looks comfortable talking about his religion.
I think you are underestimating the effect of "morality" on the
election, and how well the Bush campaign used it. By proposing a
Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Bush probably assured
his re-election. I say this because nothing he could have done would
have mobilized his base better. Remember, in 2000, approximately 4
million evangelical protestants stayed home, and Bush lost by about
half a million votes in the popular vote. This year, I am sure they
did come out, and Bush won by about 3.5 million votes. In addition, I
saw a survey that said the most important issue for approximately 22%
of the voters was morality, or whatever you want to call it. Of these
voters, Bush won >75%. Nicolas Kristof wrote an interesting article in
yesterday's NY Times (when he didn't know who would win) about how the
Republicans have made a major effort to win over the evangelicals, and
how it worked to the point that people vote against their own
self-interest because the Republicans somehow represent God, and are
against abortion, gay marriage, and on the "right" side of all the
social issues.
--
Dave Fritzinger
[snip]
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> > Larry Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:52:00 +0000 (UTC), David <da...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Daniel Harper wrote:
> >>><snip heart felt rant>
> >>
> >>>>A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How
> >>>>much longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our electoral
> >>>>process?
> >>>
> You set off my irony meter because rich examples of behaving in bigoted
> ways are found in the majority of posts in this thread. I think many
> posters are blind to the fact that they are behaving in ways similar to
> the people they are attempting to demonize. Nothing is more ironic than
> that.
Actually, I'm not trying to demonise anyone. The election is part of a
much larger historical process than this election or this party or this
administration, and it is the fact that calling someone an atheist is an
insult rather than a simple description that I was responding to. I have
friends who are Hindus - is it an insult to call them polytheists? And
this is not restricted to the US; it is a general thing that will come,
I think, to be known as the Age of Unreason, and historians will mark
its commencement at around 1950 in the western world. The Age of Reason
never really took in the Muslim world and it is... odd... in Asia
(particularly in Korea, China and Japan). I am impressed that Indonesia,
Malaysia, Singapore and the SE Asian countries got as far to a secular
society as they did before the tide turned. Indonesia may yet manage it,
and it is the largest Muslim country of all.
If you think I am trying to demonise the US, that *is* ironic.
John Wilkins
> In article <Iccid.30$oA.4...@news.uswest.net>,
> Ken Aaker <kena...@silverbacksystems.com> wrote:
> >> "David" <da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1099497713....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>>> As you say the public is disengaged to say the least. I bet the
> >>>> reason for that is the real information is hard to find in the
> >>>> mountains of propaganda. More is not better. Sure free speech is
> >>>> great but not when it is lies! That's why the public is so ignorant
> >>>> they're fed up with lies and switch off.
> >>
> >> The 527's now have a better chance of being reformed and guys like George
> >> Soros' won't be able to pump $10,000,000+ into privately promoted
> >> propagandas.
> >
> >Why don't you mention Richard Mellon Scaife(NewsMax), and Sun Myung
> >Moon(Washington Times and UPI) who have spent BILLIONS promoting their
> >private agendas for the past decade?
>
> Murdoch (Fox).
>
> By the way, ozzies, we'll get you for that one.
We're really sorry. Who knew that a guy from Adelaide could do so much
damage to the biggest English speaking market in the world? We thought
you'd swallow him up like Ankh-Morpork does invaders, and send him home
poorer and confused.
I suspect that Americans have been willing partners in that act of
ravishment.
Glenn
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:03:30 +0000 (UTC),
> > "Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> > news:slrncohufc....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> There are actually two roots of the problem. The first is the one
you
> >> identify - false information and propaganda.
> >>
> >> The second is more serious as far as I am concerned. It's about
what
> >> people do with that false information. In most modern countries it
> >> would make no difference that Kerry was falsely accused of being an
> >> atheist. The fact that it makes a difference to Daniel's friend is
what
> >> really, really, scares me.
> >>
> >> It's possible to fix the problem of false information and lies
> >
>
> Yes. I'm an optimist. I think most people know that lying is bad and
> eventually they'll start rejecting any politicians who lie to them.
> Do you disagree?
Yes I do, but not because I don't think people know that lying is bad.
Politics are not nearly so simple in many instances, and what one person
sees as a lie, another sees as truth.
>
> >> but I'm not sure it's possible to fix the problem of ignorance and
> >> religious bigotry.
> >>
> > You have a problem with Daniel's friend thinking that Kerry is an
> > atheist, but it doesn't appear you have a problem with people
claiming
> > that Bush is a "fundamentalist", or most anything else for that
> > matter. *That* isn't bigotry, is it. Nah.
>
> I see your point but it doesn't reflect my own thinking on this issue.
> I wouldn't reject candidates who are religious fundamentalists simply
> because of their religion. I would only vote against them if they try
> to impose their "moral" views on me. If I were American I would have
> voted for religious people like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton even
> though I don't agree with their religious views. They were still good
> Presidents.
>
> Daniel's friend seems to reflect a different point of view. Many
> Americans (>50%) would not vote for an atheist under any
circumstances.
> This is called religious intolerance.
>
As well as not voting for a Christian. I doubt there were many voters
who thought Kerry was an atheist and didn't vote for him for that
reason. And I doubt anyone thinks so. But Bush's religion and peoples
fear and hate of it played a major part in the election, not that people
didn't realize that Kerry was a Catholic. Look below.
> > From posts in this thread:
> >
> > "a clique of oilmen, neocons, and religious nuts (Ashcroft) run the
> > country", "religious fundamentalists", "dislike of homosexuality",
> > "traded on bigotry and fear", "nightmare of terror and
counter-terror,
> > rampant and irreversible environmental degradation, and a Sisyphian
debt
> > on my daughter's back incurred to fund tax relief for
> > multimillionaires","list of disasters Bush has perpetrated"," litany
of
> > lies","fairy tales","supposed morality of the Bush
> > administration","appealing to people's fears and worse
natures","Hatred
> > sells, the election proved in spades","religion of hate","bad
> > president","lies and manipulation of people who are more concerned
with
> > their pocketbook than humanity", Louann Miller's entire post,"coral
> > reefs on the hit list too","Karl Rove and his compatriots have
perhaps
> > permanently damaged the ability of decent people","Bush II and Rove
have
> > elevated the smear campaign to high art", "the country is swimming
in
> > idiots","bigots,religious zealots, homophobes,idiots,dupes, and gun
> > lovers voted overwhelmingly for George Bush","coke-addled smarmy
> > cheerleader who never even finished his country-club National Guard
> > obligation","God has told him its ok to kill 10000 Iraqi
> > civilians","fruitcake religious claptrap was passed by this
> > congress","spent 27% of his first 3 years on vacation","when we were
> > threatened so terribly, he was in Crawford, engaged in photo
ops","what
> > most of us despise most about the republicans","worst
misrepresentation,
> > lie, smear whatever"
> >
> > Out of dozens of posters, only two or three *appeared* to have any
sense
> > at all.
>
> Not true. You've only quoted a few of the ones who make sense but
there
> are actually several others.
And we are back to the beginning, and I am left thinking now that you
don't care if you and other people occasionally lie to get what they
want.
>
> > But I suppose you would say that the majority is "right" and has
> > "accurate" information, and is not "falsely accusing", eh?
>
> Yes, the majority of the people posting to this thread are right.
I disagree, but then you'll likely claim I'm no different than Bush.
>
> > "As an ousider it looks pretty clear to me. The Democrats lost
because
> > they didn't pander to bigots, religious zealots, homophobes, idiots,
> > dupes, and gun lovers. Is there another explanation?"
> > "There seem to be only two choices for the Democrates.
> > 1. Abandon everything you believe in and try to win the bigot vote.
> > 2. Stand up for what you believe in and try and convince Americans
> > than they need to change.
> > I know which one I'd vote for."
> >
> > You're a hypocritical bigot. You have your own views of change, gun
> > laws, marriage laws and religion. And it's ok for you to stand up
for
> > what you believe in. But the ones who you disagree with are bigots,
> > religious zealots, homophobes, idiots, dupes, and gun lovers.
>
> Those groups represent several different types of people. It was wrong
> for me to imply that they are all bigots
You didn't.
>- I just used that as a
> short-hand example of what some people are suggesting the Democrats
> should do. I'm sorry if it looked like I was saying that all idiots
> are bigots, all dupes are bigots, and all gun lovers are bigots.
It didn't in the slightest look that way. What it "looked like", was the
implicit correlation between "bigots, religious zealots, homophobes,
idiots, dupes, and gun lovers" and who voted for Bush.
>
> On the other hand, there does seem to be a strong correlation between
> those who oppose gay marriage and those who dislike homosexuals. There
> may be some exceptions but to a first approximation we can assume that
> bigotry is rearing its ugly head when 11 states voted to restrict the
> rights of gays and lesbians. Large majorities voted in favor of those
> propositions.
You see a strong correlation, I do not. You may have "seen" different
yourself had you heard Bush say he wasn't against civil unions. Of
course, you won't *believe* that, will you.
>It's not clear to me why those people feel they should
> impose their "moral" values on other people who disagree with them.
Then you would have a serious problem with governments representing the
people's will. Not all have the same morals, values or idiologies.
>
> Perhaps you can explain this in ways that don't invoke bigotry and
> homophobia? I've heard Jerry Falwell try to do this but he ends up
> sounding like a bigot to me. Can you do a better job?
>
With what? The subject of morals in general or marriage acts? Something
that affects all the people empowers all the people their opinion in the
form of a vote. If you are asking about homosexuality, I already have
discussed the subject, and shared my opinion. I was accused of being a
liar, homophobe, and a closet homosexual (among others). But those
accusations didn't match what I actually said and how I actually regard
homosexuality and gay marriage. You may think it is a cut and dried
subject, that the "facts" are in and anyone who disagrees with you is a
"bigot, religious zealot, homophobe, idiot, dupe, or gun lover" (I'm
sure you could think of more), but the real fact is that people
disagree, and changing the course of the future is never certain.
I've read the posts in this thread, and one thing stands out among most
every article is stereotyping people to the point of absurdity. Church
goers, even the most radical of fundamentalists, are not all automotons,
and have the ability to opinionize on more than what they are being
accused of. It is simply, not so simple to say that Bush got
eveangelicals to vote for him because he is against gay marriage.
It is preposterous to assume that is the whole story, and anyone who
advances or implies such a thing is part of the real problem - ideology.
My opinion is that it is wrong to go so far as to say that this election
was decided by moral values. I support Bush, but I happen to disagree
that there should be a constitutional amendment to define marriage, that
this is an issue which should be left to individual states. I do,
however, agree with him that marriage should be between a man and a
woman. But so does Kerry.
Many issues affect everyone, not just those who are not fundamentalists,
which I disagree Bush being. But even fundamentalists are concerned with
jobs, taxes, health care, security...
I agree with you only one one point; that it is scary that some people
vote without bothering to make even the slightest effort to educate
themselves in at least the issues they are concerned with. Another group
similar to the ones in Daniel's friend's group, are people who vote for
one or the other because of the way they look/body language. That is
*real* scary to me, as it shows more than an ignorance of a simple fact
such as whether a person is an atheist or not, it shows that those
people can be fooled easily and have not *learned in their whole
lifetime" that it is not possible to judge someones character on a
glance, that beauty on the outside does not always translate to beauty
on the inside. All those types of people do exist (including some
fundamentalists who vote simply because "Bush is a Christian"), and some
even vote. And there are also some who vote against simply because "Bush
is a Christian". They are all scary. But the 51% that voted for Bush
aren't all scary, and not all the 48% that voted for Kerry aren't all
scary, and don't all have an "intense dislike" of Bush. I really don't
know how divided the US is, and how much of the division has been here
far before Bush arrived on the national scene. There has been some
division from even before the beginning of Independence. I'm not even
sure how much division there is with regards to Iraq. Perhaps all of the
51% supports the current war in Iraq, and half of the 48% also does.
Mistakes were made, but I believe that invading Iraq and staying the
course of freedom in that country in the Middle East is the responsible,
right call to make, and to pursue. And not all who are *informed* agree
with the arguments made against Bush regarding Iraq, that he knew about
9/11 before it happened and fiddled while NY burned reading "My Pet
Goat", or that he lied about WMD, or that he didn't have a plan, etc
etc. The real "division" though lies not in "facts" or in false
information or lies, but in different ideologies. I believe with Bush
that the Islamic fundamentalist terrorism problem will not be won or
reduced to a nuisance by killing Osama, or Saddam, or pressuring Israel
to give land to Palestine. It will only be solved by enabling people
with the ability to govern themselves without the pressure of a sword
over their heads. You may disagree with that assessment, and if we
discussed the issue, you or I may change our outlook, or at least agree
to come to a compromise - but that solution is exactly what I mean by
"govern themselves". I can point out hate, lies and propaganda, which
works to defeat that goal. Point out where you see compromise or
objectivity:
> > "a clique of oilmen, neocons, and religious nuts (Ashcroft) run the
> > country", "religious fundamentalists", "dislike of homosexuality",
> > "traded on bigotry and fear", "nightmare of terror and
counter-terror,
> > rampant and irreversible environmental degradation, and a Sisyphian
debt
> > on my daughter's back incurred to fund tax relief for
> > multimillionaires","list of disasters Bush has perpetrated"," litany
of
> > lies","fairy tales","supposed morality of the Bush
> > administration","appealing to people's fears and worse
natures","Hatred
> > sells, the election proved in spades","religion of hate","bad
> > president","lies and manipulation of people who are more concerned
with
> > their pocketbook than humanity", Louann Miller's entire post,"coral
> > reefs on the hit list too","Karl Rove and his compatriots have
perhaps
> > permanently damaged the ability of decent people","Bush II and Rove
have
> > elevated the smear campaign to high art", "the country is swimming
in
> > idiots","bigots,religious zealots, homophobes,idiots,dupes, and gun
> > lovers voted overwhelmingly for George Bush","coke-addled smarmy
> > cheerleader who never even finished his country-club National Guard
> > obligation","God has told him its ok to kill 10000 Iraqi
> > civilians","fruitcake religious claptrap was passed by this
> > congress","spent 27% of his first 3 years on vacation","when we were
> > threatened so terribly, he was in Crawford, engaged in photo
ops","what
> > most of us despise most about the republicans","worst
misrepresentation,
> > lie, smear whatever"
Because Bush and Cheney were involved in private with the oil industry
does not indicate wrongdoing. The conspiracy theories are not "facts".
Religious people have just as much a right to express their views as
anyone else.
Not all people who disagree with gay marriage are homophobes, or hate
homosexuals.
Environmental concerns are a most complex issue, and it is not so simple
to provide a political solution to current complex problems of a
national and global scale that the US faces, by simply advocating
research into new energy sources.
The debt is not simply a result of Bush's policies and he is not alone
in causing the debt to rise. Again, complex issues involving big
companies, the stock market, 9/11, increased homeland security, global
trade, job loss, all affected the deficits.
What "appealed to people's worst fears" was the Taliban and Al Qaeda,
Saddams regime and record, the Cole attack, the 93 attack on the WTC,
9/11, among many others, not someones rant about Bush.
"Decent people" do not consist exclusively of 48% of the voting
population, nor are all 51% indecent or duped by indecent people.
Mud slinging was done by both sides of this political race.
Some bigots likely voted for Kerry as well as Bush, and it is not
possible to prove otherwise.
Not all those that voted for Bush were "duped", and it is not possible
to prove otherwise. These are not *facts*, they are called what is known
as *propaganda*.
Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, a "gun lover" himself.
Bush *did* fulfill his military obligation. He received an honorary
discharge.
There is absolutely no evidence that Bush thought that God told him it
is "ok to kill 10000 Iraqis".
Spending time in Crawford does not constitute what is commonly known as
"vacation", which implies an absence from work.
There is actually evidence contradicting much if not all of this
propaganda. You are swimming in the middle of it.
Glenn
news:6b1053df.04110...@posting.google.com...
This requires an opinion of what the candidates really believed, and
whether their behavior matched their characters. It may be that the
uncertainty you mention above is also present in this issue, that it is
impossible to have a candidate appear a certain way that would enable
everyone to determine exactly where the person stands on all the issues
(especially without saying or doing something that could very well be
misinterpreted or abused), just as it is impossible to determine
uncertainty.
>
> So my suggestion to some on this thread is not to be so sure of
> yourselves. The world of politics is more complex and ambiguous than
> you think. If you think all conservative ideas are completely
> wrong-headed, maybe you aren't really listening with an open mind.
> I'm speaking of well-reasoned conservative ideas, as opposed to the
> "God said and I believe it" crowd, of course. (And I notice that
> Daniel below mentions some examples of this, before he goes on to say
> that he is ashamed of the country for stooping to the level of Bush.)
> I remember liberals moaning about how horrible things were going to be
> under Reagan. Instead of ending up with nuclear war, we ended up with
> the collapse of Communism. I'm not saying that happened because of
> Reagan's policies (although some would argue that with good reason),
> I'm saying that just maybe things won't be so bad under Bush, either.
>
Great post!
It appears that we weighed things differently, but realized that many
issues are partly based on uncertainty.
Perhaps many of the people in this thread should listen to Kerry's and
Bush's speech given after the election with respect to division and
unity, and drop all this blind propaganda.
snip
Glenn
"Rich Mathers" <R-Ma...@wiu.edu> wrote in message
news:cme3r9$144$1...@mail1.wiu.edu...
LOL! Now I'm accused of being a fascist. You know little if anything
about me, yet you can rant on and on about what I am without batting an
eye. I doubt you know who you really are.
>
> Do you see any faults in the values expressed by the Republican "value
> voter?"
I see a fault in your implication that values ruled the vote, and what
that implies.
>
> And if you see these denigrating values toward homosexuals as being
> legitimate religious expressions based on scripture, remember so were
> southern racist values.
>
Intimating of course that these racist values still exist in proportion
to the Republican vote, I'm sure. There is likely no reason to hope that
arguing with you would do any good whatsoever. I do not dislike
homosexuals, but I do not believe that marriage should be defined as
between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. This appears to be the
issue that you hate opponents for, and you'd likely argue with me till
you convinced yourself that I hate homosexuals, on the outside chance
that you haven't made up your mind already of my being a liar and a
homophobe. You've already decided that I am one of "they" that
participate in "human degredation" and view homosexuals as "less than
human".
If this person is exemplary of one side of the division in the US, does
anyone have a solution? I wonder how this poster viewed and came to his
opinion about the many complex issues facing the US and who to vote for.
David Canzi -- non-mailable address
Yeah, what he said. DOWN WITH THE SILVER SNOBS!
--
David Canzi
Glenn
"F. Tost" <fel...@aspenmt.com> wrote in message
news:38a2fd20.04110...@posting.google.com...
Glenn
"syvanen" <syv...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:fc3e7e23.04110...@posting.google.com...
interest in a State issue also punched Bush's ticket because they
disaprove of gay marriage, and that implies that your concept of
"fundamentalists" is that they aren't concerned with other issues such
as jobs, debt, social security, terrorism and others, or perhaps that
they didn't believe the arguments against Bush but just didn't bother to
educate themselves to some extent or that they just aren't smart enough
to make their own decisions.
One problem you have here with "bigots", is that you must also call
Kerry one as well, as he is on record in opposition to gay marriage, and
explain why "fundamentalists" didn't think about voting for Kerry
because of his position on that.
As far as late term abortions, you are shaky ground with many people,
not just your "fundamentalist bigots".
Glenn
Daniel Harper
> bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in message
> news:<cmauqu$alh$2...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...
>> On Wed, 03 Nov 2004, "Daniel Harper" <daniel...@terralink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > CNN pundits have been talking about the turnout issue (this is the
>> > highest turnout we've ever had), and while high turnouts tend to favor
>> > Democrats, in this case the majority of new voters look to be
>> > Republicans. It appears that Karl Rove organized major
>> > "get-out-the-vote" campaigns through evangelical churches, based
>> > primarily on ballot initiatives on social issues like abortion and,
>> > most especially, gay marriage.
>>
>> I suppose I can deal with four more years of having a clique of oilmen,
>> neocons, and religious nuts (Ashcroft) run the country. Things are so
>> screwed up already that it was going to be a bad four years regardless
>> of who won. (...though it would be nice to have leadership that would
>> start undoing the mess rather than making it worse...)
>>
>> What horrifies me is (a) their opportunity to pack the supreme court,
>> and (b) the possibility that the Democrats will start catering to
>> religious fundamentalists in order to stay competitive.
>
> My take on all this?
>
> Bugger. Just..... aw, bugger.
>
> I agree it will take 4 more years of foulups to get rid of the far-right
> weenies. I'm nervous about the amount of damage they'll do in the
> meantime though. I mean, they've had the narrow-minded arrogance to get
> us into a real fustercluck in Iraq, and it'll be years extracting us from
> that quagmire, let alone the damage to America's international standing in
> the meantime. In think Bush's Brain(dead) Trust has erased years of
> progress made in the region with a series of royal blunders in a country
> that apparently was no threat to us.
>
Next year: Syria! Then Iran! Then North Korea!
> Bugger.
>
> I saw a special the other night that mentioned Bush's "faith-based
> initiatives." Supposedly they're help-the-downtrodden types of programs,
> but in many ways it's often money comandeered to help push the religious
> right's agenda.
>
Like NARAL. <shudder>
> Mutter...
>
> Re: "It quite honestly disgusts me to the pit of my soul, and I am ashamed
> of
> my country that it has stooped to this level. May the rest of the world,
> and history, please forgive us."
>
> Betcherass.
I'm thinking of adapting that into a new .sig.
--
Romani Ite Domum
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
Glenn
> Scott wrote:
> > "Chris Thompson" <rockw...@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote in message
> > >> But I don't blame the electorate, or even the Republican Party. I
> > >> blame the Democrats for this fiasco. It need not have happened.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --dk...@cris.com
> > >
> > > So all the democratic party has to do is pander, preferably to the
> > > lowest common denominator. Become what most of us despise most
> about
> > > the republicans.
> > >
> > > No thanks.
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > your entire rebuttal stinks of argent elitism.
>
> un shirt sleeves fool you, it's all choreographed. Same as the
> clearing brush at his ranch crap.
>
> The republicans are the biggest bunch of elitists out there. The only
> reason they are nice to you is they want your vote, wake up for Gods
> sake!
>
"The republicans"? Can you say "fundamentalist", David? Perhaps you
should consider whether you are one, and look up what "elitist" means.
Daniel Harper
> Gary Bohn <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9596B5930...@130.133.1.4>...
>> "Daniel Harper" <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote in
>> news:pan.2004.11.03....@terralink.net:
>>
> <snip>
>> >
>> > A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How
>> > much longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our
>> > electoral process?
>> >
>> > I'm done. Hate mail to the listed addy -- unmung it if you want to be
>> > supportive. :->
>> >
>> >
>> My heartfelt condolences Daniel. I know how frustrating it can be living
>> among those that hold political values opposite to your own; I live in
>> right-wing central. To watch your values belittled by the lies and
>> manipulation of people who are more concerned with their pocketbook than
>> humanity is enough to stoke your anger to almost uncontrollable heights.
>> Let's just hope the increased terrorism that is bound to occur will
>> affect our lives as little as possible.
>
> I voted with Daniel and was similarly disappointed. But I do not think
> it's the end of civilization as we know it.
>
> The Democrats do indeed need to put up more appealing candidates; Novack
> is right on that, in a way. In 2000 with all the advantages of peace,
> prosperity, incumbency, and a weak challenger we lost. Now with a war
> going badly, a weak economy, and OBL still on the loose, we blew it again.
> We need candidates who are not cold fish. GWB is hugely rich, but manages
> to come across as a "regular guy," JK just couldn't come across. (I
> remember him refering to Orwell in one of the debates - his reference was
> dead on point, and wasted on 95% of the audience). We need a Clinton who
> can behave himself, someone smart, charismatic, and appealing to ordinary
> people. We also probably need a Southern Baptist Democrat, hopefully one
> who is not a creationist or rabidly homophobic, but one who looks
> comfortable talking about his religion.
>
> I'm worried about terrorism, too. I live in Africa and will likely move to
> SE Asia soon, and sometimes feel like I've got a bull's eye painted on my
> back, but I doubt the election of Kerry would have greatly changed the
> motivation of the bad guys. Clinton was president and peace in the ME
> looked in sight when they were planning 911. Those folks will try to hurt
> us no matter who is in power in the US. They were still plotting things in
> Spain after Spain pulled out of Iraq, the French dislike of American
> foreign policy has not made them any less eager to plan attacks in France,
> and all you need do in the Netherlands is make a movie critical of the
> position of women in Islam to get assassinated. Electing Kerry would have
> helped relations between the US and Europe, but while the French may mock
> us and condemn our "simplisme" they tend not to throw bombs.
>
> So I think it's bad news, particularly on the environment, deficit,
> relations with Europe and the rest of the world, but not the end of the
> world. We survived 12 years of Reagan-Bush I. We'll make it through the
> next four.
Part of me still has hope that you're correct. But I have lately become
convinced that we are in a major transition phase in the USA (and in the
world in general) towards a more conservative and less democratic way of
life, largely due to informed posters here on talk.origins.
Bush has _no one_ to stand in his way -- he is likely to get whatever the
hell he wants. And what he wants may be autocratic theocracy.
Daniel Harper
> In article <pan.2004.11.04....@terralink.net>, Daniel Harper
> <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>That's exactly right, and precisely why I'm so glum over this. Four more
>>years of damage is very bad, but it's something that can be dealt with --
>>if nothing else, there are moderating influences in Congress to handle
>>that mess. But Supreme Court nominations? Bush will almost certainly get
>>two or three, and I guarantee that they'll all be right-wing nutjobs.
>
> He only needs 1, replacing Rehnquist, to finish off habeus corpus.
> Rehnquist wrote the 5-4 majority opinion that very marginally decided that
> holding people without charge, counsel, etc., indefinitely was not really
> quite entirely in keeping with the constitution.
>
> I read the opinion. It was screaming that Rehnquist really, really
> _wanted_ to let the president do what he was, but that Bush had so
> blatantly been thumbing his nose at even the concept of the existence of
> due process Rehnquist had to rule against the administration. Next guy
> will have no such compunction, I wager, being either a yes man to Scalia
> (another Thomas), or another Scalia.
>
I just posted this URL in another message, but you may find it
interesting. (Well, if by "interesting" you mean "shit your pants
terrifying".)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31117-2004Oct13.html?nav=rss_opinion/opeds
(Mind the wrap.)
>
> Speaking of civil liberties and other quaint* concepts, US folks
> who haven't done so already should consider http://www.aclu.org/
>
> *quaint: A lawyer friend was reading some of the documents that were the
> legal pretext^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hjustification for ignoring the Geneva
> Conventions. One part of it, which had my friend practically sputtering,
> was a passage which said that the Geneva Conventions had been 'rendered
> quaint'. The sputtering was not because of disagreement about the Geneva
> Conventions _per se_, but because there is absolutely no such legal
> principle as 'rendered quaint'. From the reaction, I gather it is
> equivalent to a geometer constructing a proof which relied on the eyeball
> postulate. (some friends in high school liked that one -- proof that a
> line is a perpendicular bisector of another "It looks like it is").
But you see, since 9/11 we don't need those pesky laws holding us back....
Daniel Harper
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:30:58 +0000 (UTC), "Daniel Harper"
> <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:04:58 +0000, Stefan Kruithof wrote:
>>
>>> I am disgusted that so many Americans can be so sick to vote for Bush.
>>>
>>> The entire world had hope, now it's horrible.
>>>
>>> Hillary Clinton 2008!
>>
>>Hillary Clinton will never, ever be elected president. She is simply too
>>polarizing a figure. Hillary barely got enough votes to be elected
>>Senator, in New York, against a very weak challenger.
>
> 55% to 43% is not exactly barely enough.
>
Granted. That's still in _New York_ -- if she can only get a twelve-point
lead there, how's she going to do in Ohio?
(Of course, I also acknowledge that any Democrat with the nomination will
get the majority of the party's voters, no matter what, but the issue is
whether or not Republicans and independents will be inclined to vote for
the Democratic candidate or not. Karl Rove would love to go against
Hillary -- she'd be so easy to smear that he would probably sleep through
the whole election.)
>>You want to hand the election over to right-wing nutjobs again in four
>>more years, run Hillary.
>>
>>(I also think that she's by no means the best candidate, but that's
>>another issue.)
>
> It depends on what "best candidate" means. She and I don't agree on lots
> of issues, but she would have the best (as in most effective in getting
> people elected) staff, the most money, and the ability to continue to
> raise more money.
You may be right. I'm willing to give her a shot; if she can do well in
Congress for the rest of her term, and give Bush the hell he deserves
(which she quite frankly hasn't been doing too much of as far as I can
see), then I'll be all for her.
dkomo
I was referring to the name calling and condescension seen in many
posts here toward the people who voted for Bush, not to anything you wrote.
> The election is part of a
> much larger historical process than this election or this party or this
> administration, and it is the fact that calling someone an atheist is an
> insult rather than a simple description that I was responding to. I have
> friends who are Hindus - is it an insult to call them polytheists? And
> this is not restricted to the US; it is a general thing that will come,
> I think, to be known as the Age of Unreason, and historians will mark
> its commencement at around 1950 in the western world.
I don't think so. We see separate movements like Muslim fundamentalism
and a conservative political trend in the U.S., but I doubt these are
part of some Historical Process that is sweeping the world toward
Unreason. Rather, these are just part of the normal and continuous to
and fro change that has always been part of history.
In fact, I could argue that if there is a trend, it's toward Reason. In
the past few decades we've seen the demise of Communism and an explosive
growth in the number of democracies around the world. Plus there's a
global movement toward free enterprise and free trade. Doesn't sound
like the Age of Unreason to me.
The Age of Reason
> never really took in the Muslim world and it is... odd... in Asia
> (particularly in Korea, China and Japan). I am impressed that Indonesia,
> Malaysia, Singapore and the SE Asian countries got as far to a secular
> society as they did before the tide turned. Indonesia may yet manage it,
> and it is the largest Muslim country of all.
>
> If you think I am trying to demonise the US, that *is* ironic.
>
Daniel Harper
Ha ha, so you all'll get your turn at this, someday...
Oh, wait. What the hell am I saying?
> People who are not religious, who don't conform to the majority view,
> whose political opinions rely on tolerance and freedom - they are in
> trouble in the coming decades. We mustn't make the mistake of thinking
> that what for a brief period of liberty was the ideal after the second
> world war is somehow the historical norm. Human nature is relatively
> constrained, and we are constrained to behave in bigoted ways, overall.
A pessimistic (and yet I feel realistic) view of the future. I'd like to
think that the future of the world could be a bright one, with greater
access to technology by all the peoples of the world, with democratic
reforms taking hold in areas that lack them today, et cetera, but I fear
that none of that will happen anytime soon.
What frightens me most of all is the looming energy crisis. We only have
so many more years before it's a pretty-much literal lights-out on current
energy supplies -- will the New Dark Ages really last for the entire
future history of the species?
I fear that the re-election of Bush is truly the Beginning of the End of
the World. Drink up.
John Wilkins
> john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote...
I do have a cheery outlook on life. Humans are often surprisingly
friendly, decent individuals who will once in a while take the shirt off
their backs to clothe you if you are naked. But they are a particular
kind of pack animal too, and reciprocal altruism instincts can be easily
overcome by pack dominance hierarchies... it helps to know the nature of
the beast.
Daniel Harper
> "Daniel Harper" <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote in
> news:pan.2004.11.03....@terralink.net:
>
>> I apologize for this, but I don't have a lot of moral support in my
>> area, and I think I can keep this at least marginally on-topic, so
>> please hold the anti-election flames.
>>
>> Right now it's right at nine o'clock Central Time, and the final vote
>> tallies haven't been done up yet. CNN has projected 254 electoral votes
>> for Bush, 252 for Kerry, with Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio being still
>> outstanding. Iowa and New Mexico could go either way as far as the
>> electoral college is concerned -- the big winner will be whoever gets
>> Ohio's 20 electoral votes. The Kerry camp is talking about waiting for
>> provisional ballots and overseas ballots, and that may very well be a
>> significant factor here.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the margin looks to be too large -- Bush is a little over
>> a hundred thousand votes ahead in Ohio, and the provisionals would have
>> to be overwhelmingly in support of Kerry in order for it to swing the
>> election. As depressing as it is, absent evidence of major voter fraud
>> as happened in Florida in 2000, or some numerical miracle in Ohio,
>> George W. Bush will continue to be the President of the United States.
>>
>> God help us all.
>>
>> There are a lot of things that contributed to this event, not the least
>> of which is that the electoral map shifted even more in Bush's favor,
>> allowing for Kerry to actually pick up a state that Gore won in 2000
>> (New Hampshire), while losing the electoral college. At least Bush
>> actually won the popular vote this time -- again, absent major vote
>> fraud, it looks like Bush won the popular vote by something like three
>> and half million votes.
>>
>> Three and a half fucking million votes.
>>
>> CNN pundits have been talking about the turnout issue (this is the
>> highest turnout we've ever had), and while high turnouts tend to favor
>> Democrats, in this case the majority of new voters look to be
>> Republicans. It appears that Karl Rove organized major
>> "get-out-the-vote" campaigns through evangelical churches, based
>> primarily on ballot initiatives on social issues like abortion and, most
>> especially, gay marriage.
>>
>> In other words, Bush and Rove used the evangelical community's dislike
>> of homosexuality to get out the vote and put themselves over the top.
>> (Estimates are that somewhere around four million evangelicals didn't
>> vote in 2000 -- add four million to Bush's 2000 vote difference with
>> Gore and you get approximately Bush's lead over Kerry.) I have no
>> particular beef with those like Klaus Hellnick and Fred Stone who
>> sincerely believe that Bush is the better man to run the country
>> (although I wholeheartedly disagree), but at least a point of view like
>> theirs is honest and reasoned. Bush and Rove didn't rely on people like
>> Klaus and Fred to win this election -- they traded on bigotry and fear.
>> On hatred just as nasty and virulent as the hatred that led Southerners
>> to vote Dixiecrat sixty or seventy years ago, just with a different
>> target.
>>
>> It quite honestly disgusts me to the pit of my soul, and I am ashamed of
>> my country that it has stooped to this level. May the rest of the world,
>> and history, please forgive us.
>>
>> One final note, and then I'll shut up. That douchebag Robert Novak was
>> talking last night about how the Democratic party needed to reconsider
>> the candidates they put out, the platform they embraced, that the
>> country is more and more conservative, and that flaming liberals like
>> John Kerry <snort> wouldn't be able to win the support of rural voters.
>> That's a load of bull -- Barack Obama (the huge success story of the
>> 2004 election, the new Senator from Illinois) was voted in on huge
>> margins, with good numbers from even the most rural areas of his state.
>> The problem is not the candidates, but they way they're packaged and the
>> way campaigns are run -- Bush and Rove simply ran a killer campaign,
>> with all the negative ads, all the mudslinging, and all the
>> fearmongering that was needed to stay in office.
>>
>> A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How
>> much longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our
>> electoral process?
>>
>> I'm done. Hate mail to the listed addy -- unmung it if you want to be
>> supportive. :->
>>
>>
> Kerry has just conceded.
>
My fiancee called me from work as soon as she found out. I was getting
ready to go in -- we commisserated together for a few moments about how
shocked and depressed we were.
Did you see the photo up on the CNN webpage right after the concession?
Bush sitting in his easy chair at the campaign headquarters, looking like
he was cackling in delight. <sigh>
> I fear the future more now than I ever have in my life. I foresee an
> endless (four years will seem endless) nightmare of terror and
> counter-terror, rampant and irreversible environmental degradation, and a
> Sisyphian debt on my daughter's back incurred to fund tax relief for
> multimillionaires.
>
> I am also incredibly bitter about this election. I guess I am not as
> detached as you, Daniel, but I do hold a grudge against almost all people
> who voted for Bush this time around. Last time he was an unknown. This
> time, it was obvious how bad he was, and people clung to their hates and
> denials and faith-based wishes- people who should have known better. I
> know people who could recite a list of disasters Bush has perpetrated- the
> debt, the environment, Iraq- yet they still voted Republican. Why? When I
> asked them, they recited the litany of lies used to smear Kerry. This,
> when the truth of the matter was available to anyone who could read- no,
> who *would* read.
Indeed. I invested a lot of hope and optimism in this election, that the
American people would see through this facade that Bush put forward and
toss him out on his ass. But the truth is that we here, we Americans,
really are like this -- we are just as bigoted and reactionary as the rest
of the world thinks we are.
My emotional devastation at this election was not caused, I think, by "my
guy losing" (good candidates are beaten by bad ones all the time), but by
my vision of what America was being destroyed by the enormous lead held by
Bush in this election. The American people have twice now been given a
choice between an intelligent man with years of governmental experience
who went to war and behaved nobly, versus an ignorant boob. Last time, I
consoled myself with the thought that Bush stole the election by
disenfranchising voters and such -- that we didn't _really_ vote this guy
in.
Now we have. And you're right -- the electorate is clearly to blame. I
hope they all get what they wanted; I fear that they will instead get what
they deserve. And unfortunately I'm right here in the middle of it.
Daniel Harper
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:52:00 +0000 (UTC), David <da...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Harper wrote:
>><snip heart felt rant>
>
>>> A girl that I work with yesterday said that Kerry was an atheist. How
>>> much longer are we going to let ignorance and propaganda run our
>>> electoral process?
>>
>> Below is a snippet from a previous post. Your above point is really the
>> root of the problem. Many voters have no clue about the candidates
>> other than the information they read on the biased leaflets and hear on
>> the propaganda infomercials.
>
> There are actually two roots of the problem. The first is the one you
> identify - false information and propaganda.
>
> The second is more serious as far as I am concerned. It's about what
> people do with that false information. In most modern countries it would
> make no difference that Kerry was falsely accused of being an atheist. The
> fact that it makes a difference to Daniel's friend is what really, really,
> scares me.
>
> It's possible to fix the problem of false information and lies but I'm not
> sure it's possible to fix the problem of ignorance and religious bigotry.
>
>
It's a bit like during the 2000 Republican primaries, when there was a
whispering campaign against John McCain that he had <gasp> an adopted
Oriental child.
I haven't had the chance to speak to my co-worker and ask her where she
got her mistaken ideas, but I'm guessing that it was more by implication
than by outright propaganda by the Bushies. When Bush postures himself as
the "God candidate" (even though he doesn't go to church) and talks about
moral hot-button issues like abortion and gay marriage, it's easy to make
the implication that his opponent is an atheist.
Also keep in mind that to many people in my area, "atheist" means, "not a
member of my Church". By that standard, the Catholic Kerry is indeed an
atheist.
>
> Larry Moran
Chris Thompson
news:glennsheldon-g1Aid.19$R53....@news.uswest.net:
Post the evidence that Al Qaeda and Saddam had no connection?
You're clever as a stump.
Chris
--
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
Chris Thompson
news:dc4a405f.04110...@posting.google.com:
> Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
> news:<ertio0hi1fbahu0c3...@4ax.com>...
>
> [snip]
>
>> Hey, who is George _really_ going to hurt? Just terrorists and women
>> who want abortions, and they have it coming.
>
> 1-
> If he manages to limit abortion, then the only poeple that are going
> to have abortions are the daughters of the rich and the powerful, and
> their mistresses.
I'm really confused. Why should the mistresses of the daughters of the
rich and powerful need abortions?
>
> 2-
> Bin Laden is quite happy now. Terrorists love the Bush
> administration. Bush creates more terrorists faster than we can kill
> them. Not to mention validating their propaganda.