I wondered whether I would come back to political threads in this forum ever...
--
Since it is good behaviour to start with your reaction on other peoples posts before starting your own:
The posts in this thread are - as always - of very different quality. I wished that personal attacks were not as present in them, and the same goes for the feeling in many people that they were personally attacked, even if they weren't. This would make everyone's life much easier.
shadow boxer's initial post has a lot of truths to it - whether you like it or not. I agree that his style is debatable (or not, as some of you think - and to the admins of this board: Please state explicitly what the precise reason is if you decide to ban someone - you should enforce rules, not punish someone).
Maybe it is easier for me to read his and other posts divided into content and emotional effect since English is not my first language and I am not hit as directly as most by this style.
However, try to think about what the underlying message of sb's post is, and he made it very clear in some passages.
--
So, the USA elected a new president. I don't want to write about my personal reaction because this would not help anyone. And I neither want nor will I personally attack anybody. If you feel attacked, please think about the reason before accusing me. And if your feeling hasn't vanished by then, please accept my apology, even if that means that I have to apologize for sth. I haven't done. I will do so, even in advance, just to make feel everyone better.
The political world of this time is one of decisions about international war, mainly (with special importance of the US war against Iraq). While there are other very important issues, both international and national, everyone notes the importance and seriousness of these warfare decisions. At the same time, we all know how influential the USA are in this respect, since they are even deciding such issues without the UN Security Council.
In this situation, about 40% of the potential voters did not vote at all. About 30% voted for the Republicans/Bush and another 30% for the Democrats/Kerry. Only minorities voted for so-called third parties.
The question is not whether someone likes the result or not, the main question is: What consequences will that decision have, and how will it be interpreted by people internationally?
I will give you one such interpretation:
[quote]
In this time of war, 60% of the US voters are for the war (since both Republican and Democratic Party voted for the war, and both presidency candidates reassured that they would continue the war). 40% of the citizens seem not to have enough motivation to have their say about war, in the US president election. Only a small minority votes against the war.
So, basically, nearly all US citizens are responsible for the tens of thousands who were murdered in the US wars, and for the destruction of culture, political culture, and millions of ill and disabled people caused by the war - and the US citizens should be hold to account for that.
[/quote]
This view on things might seem strange to some, but it is perfectly understandable. And while you, and most US Americans may not have intended this, other people(s) will make their decisions about how to recognize you based on this and other interpretations.
Unfortunately, some of these people will use that for finding allies for their own agendas and to spread fear and violence. Obviously, the main target will be the USA. We can all only hope (and I wish the US citizens as well as all other people of this world) that the casualties will be minor, but I wouldn't count on that.
It all comes down to this: You had the chance to get your will. Don't whine about the result. If you want to change things, then do so (I heard in this thread that waiting 4 years would also accomplish something... hm, when I see what was accomplished in the last 4 years, I can assure you that another 4 of such years won't make the situation better but much worse).
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Actually if you had a clue about the american revolution you would be startled to know that originaly most of the patriots were still loyal to the crown, it was the parliment they blamed for their woes, and that was the general trend till about 1778, yes even after the revolution many of the founders in their writing saved most of their venom for the english parliment.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Oh, I'm sorry. My lack of knowledge of sociopolitical history is showing again. Please, please correct my ignorance in such an insulting manner if I ever do it again. I beg forgiveness from Mister "My Party Runs the Country" for my pithy comment.
You know, this has to be the crabbiest crowd of winners I've yet seen. The supporters of the party that now runs the Congress, the Presidency, and soon, the Supreme Court seem awfully annoyed with having won.
Holy smoke, I loose access to the web for one day and it looks like all hell breaks loose...
Anyway, to try and bring things back to center, I am positive that in four years most of the dire predictions I’ve seen above will [b]NOT[/b] come true!
1) It’s not as if Bush was just elected as dictator for life of the US, in just 4 years, which I agree that in world politics, that can be a long time. In the grand scheme of things, it’s really not that long. At the end of those 4 years there are some excellent candidates waiting in the wings to run for president
2) As far policies heading further right during the second term, I think you will find Republican decisions will head back toward center. They won a significant election with both the House and Senate gaining seats, I’d be willing to bet, to continue their majorities, they will make attempts to pass policies that appeal to a broader base. Sure there will be fights and partisanship (this is politics after all), I believe they will decrease, not increase during Bush’s second term
3) There is an underlying friction between US and Europe that will continue to grow regardless whose president. At this point in time, the US and Europe are on very different paths socially and economically. First, the EU has given Europe a collective bargaining power on the world stage that it did not have previously. I think many of the conflicts that have arisen lately have as much to do with Europe flexing its new world power as it does with whoever is in the Oval Office. Second, Europe has some serious social and economic issues it has to overcome soon, especially in Western Europe. Population grow has slowed significantly, which creates real issues economically. Economies must have, in some way or another a growing base to continue to expand and create wealth. Europe’s social states are also contributing; the older populations have become accustom to governmental support, leading to a higher tax burden. This in turn stifles business growth, creating high unemployment that we see in areas of Western Europe. The younger generation, that should be supporting the older generation, does not have the ability to grow the economy as needed. In my mind, this is not an indictment of Europe itself, just my view of the current state of the continent and why its lead to frictions between the US and the EU. That said, I believe the US will be running into the exact same problems in another 25 to 50 years.
Sorry, I know we have a few republicans/conservatives whatever your calling yourselves these days, but I just cant comprehend how someone could actually vote for Bush.
I wont stand here and claim that all of Kerrys views were perfect and that would have solved all that is wrong with the world or even our own country. But Bush?
Lets face it, the economy blows. Unemployment is still high, and its about to go higher with the collapse of some of the airlines. For those of you that dont know, there are several smaller airlines about to go under, including the one my father still works at. Midwest Airlines (milwaukee based) by the end of next year will probably not exist. He has 16 years with that company and his 401k made up almost entirely of stock, will be worthless. Hes fucked to say the least.
Then there is the war. For those that dont know, I am a former US Marine Corporal. I enjoyed my time in the Marines. And let me state that when my President told me that Iraq had WMDs and that he could use them at any time, I stood behind my President. I was proud when congress gave him the authority to go in and tell him to relinquish control to UN inspectors now. I was concerned when he threw caution to the wind and took the US, our friends the Brits and the 4 countries in our alliance without an army into war with Iraq. But he is the President, he knows what he is doing right? Nope. The guy lied to us. Whats that? Clinton lied too? Ok, Clinton lied about sticking a cigar in a woman only slightly more attractive than his wife. All he hurt was a couple of womanizing republicans who have probably done the same thing in their own offices. Bush's lie has cost the country Billions of dollars and worse, our soldiers lives.
Was Sadam a bad guy? Yes. Did he need to be removed from power? Yes. Was this the way to do it? I think that can be answered by watching a little bbc news (note: I find the bbc to be much less eskewed in their reporting). Meaning, hell the fuck no. Ive lost friends and former co workers to this war, and for what? For oil. Thats right folks, we went in to Iraq and secured the shit out of his oil, but missed little things, like explosives. The same explosives that are now likely being used against our troops.
NPR seems to think that it was the christian conservatives that helped Bush win. They claimed it was a moral vote. Lets be realistic here, moral = sex. People voted for bush because they cant stand the thought of gay marriage, abortions and stem cell research. Thats what some 85% of those coming out of polls here in Tyler said.
Hmm, lets see. Gay Marriage. If I recall, this country was founded on the principles that we as a people are free to live our lives the way we want to live them. Free from opression by the government to make our own choices in our life. In fact, I recall taking an oath when I enlisted to protect and DEFEND the constitution of the United States. Yet we tell gay people, they dont have the right to get married and live their life the way they want to? wtf? How is it any different than telling ANY OTHER 2 PEOPLE they cant get married. in the early 20th century (1920's ish) it was illegal for black people to marry white people. It was illegal for blacks and women to vote. Why, because the ignorant people in charge at the time thought that the constitution did not apply to them. That has sense been proven wrong. We have discoverd that there is no difference in black people and white people, women and men. They are all human, and in the eyes of the constitution equal. Well, its the same here. I feel as though banning gay marriage goes against the constitution and all we stand for, and is no different that banning any other personal choice in the country.
Im not gay, Im married to an amazing woman who takes care of me and my children. I do however have a lesbian couple next door. I asked one of them how they felt about the subject, all she wants is the tax break (able to file jointly) and the right to put her partners daughters on her insurance. Whats so wrong with that? Why not just call it a civil union if you cant get people to look past the stigma of gay marriage?
Abortion. Hey, I know what the bible says, and if one more baptist calls my wife (a catholic) un-christian because the she is pro choice, Im gonna stuff their own fucking bible down their throat. You can believe in god and be pro choice. There are reasons to have an abortion. What about a rape victim. What about a young girl molested by family members who doesnt know for a while? Woman who may have severe medical problems from giving birth? Drug addicted babies? Babies with fetal alcohol syndrome? Am I suggesting that any baby that doesnt look perfect be aborted? No. In fact I am completely against the 3rd trimester or Partial birth abortions. Those are completely disgusting, and should be considered murder. But there are legitimate reasons for having an abortion.
The Lacy Peterson law goes along with this. In principle its a good idea, but I am against this law because it is just one political move away from charging a woman who gets any abortion with murder.
Stemm Cell research, I wont continue to bore the shit out of you all and just say, if stemm cell research was legal and going full force and given money and time. Superman might still be with us.
and now for something completely different, here is a robot with a penis :robot:
[quote]Stem Cell research, I wont continue to bore the shit out of you all and just say, if stemm cell research was legal and going full force and given money and time. Superman might still be with us.[/quote]
You mean embryonic stem cells? Not all the other ones we DO use?
the ones that "show promise" but nothing concrete to show they are any more useful then the ones from a umbilical coord, or from the spine?
well ok, if you WANT me to bore the shit out of you
No, I do mean embryonic stem cells. You see the difference between easily obtainable spinal or umbilical cord stem cells dont react the same as embryonic ones.
Embryonic stemm cells can form into any cell in the human body... However since Im not a scientist and I dont know a whole lot about the subject more than what Ive read, I will reference [URL=http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/facts.html#1]here[/URL] .
You know.. I'll be greatly disappointed if he doesnt end his second term by making it possible to have a third term, or by having a vision from god and declaring himself the emperor of the free world (and depending on the amount of psycho christians living in USA, become either a dictator with a screw loose or a nut with a screw loose living in a padded cell)
Well, since your not refering to the embryonic stem cells, I'm curious as to your responce to how Bush is the first president in history to ever fund stem cell research, and he keeps increasing the amound of federal money going to that research.
I AM talking about embryonic stem cells. but what I dont think you got was...
I was referring to what John Q. Baptist Public sees GWBush as against stem cells along with abortion and gay marriage. Thus rallying the crazy christian vote.
But you knew that, since we have established that the folks on firstones have a slightly higher IQ than the average american.
I'm less pissed about Bush being in office, more pissed about how in 30 states not only was gay marriage banned, Civil Unions were specifically dissallowed, as well as recognizing any aforementioned civil-union made in another state.
[quote]
Lets face it, the economy blows. Unemployment is still high, and its about to go higher with the collapse of some of the airlines. For those of you that dont know, there are several smaller airlines about to go under, including the one my father still works at. Midwest Airlines (milwaukee based) by the end of next year will probably not exist. He has 16 years with that company and his 401k made up almost entirely of stock, will be worthless. Hes fucked to say the least. [/quote]
The economy does NOT blow, the current unemployment rate is 5.4%, economists tend to believe that 4.0-5.0% is the natural unemployment rate of a healthy economy. GDP growth is at at health rate of 3.7% annual growth. Interest is still low. The only real dark spot is that we are starting to see some inflationary pressures due to oil and steel prices (mostly due to China’s vast consumption)
While I feel for your father having had to face looming layoff before myself, the president has zero to do with the failure of airlines such as Delta, which is getting ready to file for chapter 11. The problem is that airlines are working under a ancient business model that harkens back to the days of regulation when customers paid a set amount per mile, not matter the line. Sure the price of oil (the only variable the president may have an effect on) has contributed to airlines woe’s, but its been more the straw that broke the camels back. The real problem in the airline industry comes from extremely high labor costs, older aircraft that are higher maintence and have poorer fuel economy and management teams that a unwilling to recognize the problems they facing. There are airlines that have it right, Southwest has yet to have a loosing quarter since 9/11 and JetBlue has been profitable even though their planes carry a lower passenger load than competitors.
Finally, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, THE PRESIDENT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH THE STATE OF OUR ECONOMY!!!
Jake
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Re: crap
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]and now for something completely different, here is a robot with a penis :robot: [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]
Finally, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, THE PRESIDENT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH THE STATE OF OUR ECONOMY!!!
Umm, just one little clarification of my earlier statement, when I said President, I mean the office, not the current officeholder and when I said state of the economy, I meant at any time, not just right now. ;)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]Oh, I'm sorry. My lack of knowledge of sociopolitical history is showing again. Please, please correct my ignorance in such an insulting manner if I ever do it again. I beg forgiveness from Mister "My Party Runs the Country" for my pithy comment.
You know, this has to be the crabbiest crowd of winners I've yet seen. The supporters of the party that now runs the Congress, the Presidency, and soon, the Supreme Court seem awfully annoyed with having won. [/B][/QUOTE]
Wow. Just.....wow.
What seems to be bothering people like Tyvar is the attitudes of the people who supported Kerry. Before the election, they thought they were right, Bush is a retard, he's going to screw over the country, a choice between Hitler and Bush would yield Hitler, and that [i]everyone in their right mind thought the same.[/i] But apparently 59.2 million people thought differently. In the face of this, the reaction isn't, "Well, we'll wait and see," or "Perhaps they had a good reason," the assumption is that all 59 million of them have some kind of mental illness! They must have made their decision based on erronious information, or maybe they were all just brought up by strict, closed-minded fundementalists, or they were ignorant, or they were all abused children, or they're in bed with big business, or something, [i]anything[/i] other than the mere suggestion that they might be making an informed or well-thought-out decision. Anyone who voted for Kerry thinks, has weighed the issues, and made the right decision after much conscientious soul-searching. Anybody that votes for Bush is just a bandwagoneer, ignorant, and is just about as original as your average cattle.
Nobody's asking for you to concede that your beliefs are incorrect. Just respect the fact that some people, apparently a majority, just may have beliefs that [i]have their own merits[/i].
Oh, and just a little bit of flame-bait. Just thought it would be nice because on this board you hear everything bad about Bush and everything endearing about Kerry:
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]By the way... If you want to see the results of a Democrat controlled state, you only have to look at California and how fucked up it is to see why I voted for Bush and other Republicans.
[/B][/QUOTE]
If you want to see the results of a Republican controlled state, you only have to look at Utah. You know, the most Republican state in the union. No, we don't have the same issues as you in California, but it shows that neither party has the whole answer. A balance between the two extremes is a better choice than a single party controlled state. That's why I don't consider myself for either party, I look at the candidate and their actions and ignore what party he/she is in. That's how I vote.
Look here for a view from JMS: [url]http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-17243[/url]
I have to say, JMS is a very good thinker. Did I want Bush to win: no. Did I want Kerry to win: no. I wasn't impressed with either one. Maybe I wasn't the only one who thought that and that's why the votes were so close.
If President Bush will do, as he said in his speech, work to mend the bitter divisiveness here at home, work with our allies, and stabilize Iraq, he will prove that he was indeed the better choice. I hope he'll follow though with that, I really do, but based on his first term and on this years negative campaign ads and speeches, I'm afraid he won't. I hope he proves me wrong.
And before I get into trouble, I realize he doesn't have a monopoly on negative campaign ads… I wish they'd put a moratorium for them.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]Hmm, lets see. Gay Marriage. If I recall, this country was founded on the principles that we as a people are free to live our lives the way we want to live them. Free from opression by the government to make our own choices in our life. In fact, I recall taking an oath when I enlisted to protect and DEFEND the constitution of the United States. Yet we tell gay people, they dont have the right to get married and live their life the way they want to? wtf? How is it any different than telling ANY OTHER 2 PEOPLE they cant get married. in the early 20th century (1920's ish) it was illegal for black people to marry white people. It was illegal for blacks and women to vote. Why, because the ignorant people in charge at the time thought that the constitution did not apply to them. That has sense been proven wrong. We have discoverd that there is no difference in black people and white people, women and men. They are all human, and in the eyes of the constitution equal. Well, its the same here. I feel as though banning gay marriage goes against the constitution and all we stand for, and is no different that banning any other personal choice in the country. [/B][/QUOTE]
I have to say I agree totally! Neither of the "gay marriage" laws in Massachusetts (Mass) or Vermont are going to hurt the "sanctity of marriage" Besides, I have yet to hear how gay unions would hurt the sanctity marriage without the protestor spitting religious venom. The laws in Mass and Vermont do not dictate, nor could they, that all religions in those states have to recognize gay unions - that is why there is the separation of church and state.
The Republicans just used this issue as a political wedge in this years election. I believe they know it's not the earth shattering 800 pound gorilla that they made it out to be in the campaign ads. It was an easy target to stir up the votes.
For that reason it may fall under the radar again for awhile. In two years, we'll have the mid-term elections, I'm willing to bet we'll see this issue come up then. But by then there will be about 2 years of data in Vermont and Mass that will show that the world didn't explode, straight people can still get married, have kids, grow old together, and even get divorced, just like before. Maybe that'll take a little wind out of the issue.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]Anyone have room for me to move out of Texas?
*Snip*[/B][/QUOTE]
You, good sir, rock. We could use more people like you. About four million more, in fact, but that's neither here nor there.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo_1 [/i]
[B]What seems to be bothering people like Tyvar is the attitudes of the people who supported Kerry. Before the election, they thought they were right, Bush is a retard, he's going to screw over the country, a choice between Hitler and Bush would yield Hitler, and that [i]everyone in their right mind thought the same.[/i] But apparently 59.2 million people thought differently. In the face of this, the reaction isn't, "Well, we'll wait and see," or "Perhaps they had a good reason," the assumption is that all 59 million of them have some kind of mental illness! They must have made their decision based on erronious information, or maybe they were all just brought up by strict, closed-minded fundementalists, or they were ignorant, or they were all abused children, or they're in bed with big business, or something, [i]anything[/i] other than the mere suggestion that they might be making an informed or well-thought-out decision. Anyone who voted for Kerry thinks, has weighed the issues, and made the right decision after much conscientious soul-searching. Anybody that votes for Bush is just a bandwagoneer, ignorant, and is just about as original as your average cattle. [/quote][/b]
Well, why don't you give some of those well-thought-out reasons. Just a short list, maybe a dozen items, on why John Smith, from Anytown, USA should've voted for George W. Bush.
And, hey, [i]I'm[/i] not the one who threatened to kill people, simply because they have a different opinion, no matter how inflammatorily it was presented. If you know that you made a well-thought-out decision, don't go into a murderous rage when someone calls you a moron. Attempt to educate and enlighten them. Sure, it won't work, but it'll prove you aren't just some beer-guzzling redneck who didn't want to vote for a rich pretty-boy who the bald scary man on the Tee-Vee said was a flipper-flop.
You're kidding. You have the time to write a two-hundred word screed on why you feel insulted by the vocal minority, but you can't spend a similar amount of time and effort to prove said minority wrong.
Tell me it's not my business. Tell me its personal. Tell me to put my money where my mouth is, and show you why I have my opinions. In short, tell me anything but this boo-hoo, holier than thou claptrap about not having to justify yourself to something as low and contemptible as myself. Because if it were true, you would not care what I had to say enough to bring it up in the first place.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac[/i]
[B]You're kidding. You have the time to write a two-hundred word screed on why you feel insulted by the vocal minority, but you can't spend a similar amount of time and effort to prove said minority wrong.[/b][/quote]
Sounds about right.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WHY [/i]
[B]I'm less pissed about Bush being in office, more pissed about how in 30 states not only was gay marriage banned, Civil Unions were specifically dissallowed, as well as recognizing any aforementioned civil-union made in another state. [/B][/QUOTE]
If you don't care about the words and thoughts of others then you dont belong here. A mesage board isn't the place to enjoy the sound of your own voice.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
[B]If you don't care about the words and thoughts of others then you dont belong here. A mesage board isn't the place to enjoy the sound of your own voice.
This is a place for synergy. [/B][/QUOTE]
Did I say that? I merely resent having to wait on a verdict from him to know whether or not I'm ignorant or not, and whether or not I'm a good person or not. What right does he have to decide that? He's begging me to argue with him! Who likes the sound of their own voice?
What right did you have to decide that I was simply writing you off a sub-mornic party-ticket stamper?
And, I believe he was talking to me. I realize I've taken the position of being the dick of the topic. It comes with the fact that I've been going over the result for a day and a half now nonstop, and I'm likely going to get an aneurysm if don't figure out some justifiable reason that President Bush is getting four more years to do his thing.
Which is why I'm begging for you to argue with me. In fact, I had fully intended to request some reason Bush should be in office before I ever read that specific post. All I had been reading here was the same maddeningly nonspecific Republican line;
(the following is best read in the stereotypical voice of an 18th century aristocrat. A particularly foppish one, at that. Just want to make sure it's read with the exact right type of sarcasm.)
"Oh, how [i]dare[/i] you all assume that everyone who voted for Bush is a moron. I'll have you know that [i]I[/i] voted for Bush, as did several people I know, and we all had [i]very[/i] good reasons to do so. I'm not going to mention any of them off the top of my head, but rest assured, they were [i]very[/i] good ones."
Gee, thanks. I'm feeling pressure at the top of my head. That's just stress, right? Its not the blood vessel about to burst? Because I really want to finish this post off.
Since I live in a heavily democratic area, I had difficulty getting opinions from flesh-and-blood, face to face republicans, either. The tally is two relatives who didn't like Bush from day one, though I'm not sure how they voted. One respected community member, whose reasons were a), no attacks on american soil since September 11 and b) Bush's tax cut gave him a bigger raise than his employer (which made me wonder, not for the first time, exactly [i]why[/i] I respected him. I still do, in fact, so I can only conclude he had the [i]je ne sais quoi[/i]). Finally, I have someone who believes that war in Iraq was merely the first step in a campaign of containment of radical Islamic terrorism, similar to what Vietnam and a couple of South American countries were for communism. We move in, remove their corrupt dictators, instal a democratic government, and hope they like it and keep it. But if they prefer their feudal dictators, that's okay, too. He's hoping Syria is next on the list. Both of the above also want to shitcan social services, incidentally. I've actually required (but not recieved) the help of others in the past, though, so I disagree.
So, I've got one "Looking out for #1" and one "The United States should be the Johnny Appleseed of world democracy". Neither of those is enough for me.
So yeah, honestly, tell me why I should trust that the American people picked the right person. Because nothing I've seen thus far has given me one iota of hope.
You want to stop the whining? Here's how. I'm listening.
Comments
I wondered whether I would come back to political threads in this forum ever...
--
Since it is good behaviour to start with your reaction on other peoples posts before starting your own:
The posts in this thread are - as always - of very different quality. I wished that personal attacks were not as present in them, and the same goes for the feeling in many people that they were personally attacked, even if they weren't. This would make everyone's life much easier.
shadow boxer's initial post has a lot of truths to it - whether you like it or not. I agree that his style is debatable (or not, as some of you think - and to the admins of this board: Please state explicitly what the precise reason is if you decide to ban someone - you should enforce rules, not punish someone).
Maybe it is easier for me to read his and other posts divided into content and emotional effect since English is not my first language and I am not hit as directly as most by this style.
However, try to think about what the underlying message of sb's post is, and he made it very clear in some passages.
--
So, the USA elected a new president. I don't want to write about my personal reaction because this would not help anyone. And I neither want nor will I personally attack anybody. If you feel attacked, please think about the reason before accusing me. And if your feeling hasn't vanished by then, please accept my apology, even if that means that I have to apologize for sth. I haven't done. I will do so, even in advance, just to make feel everyone better.
The political world of this time is one of decisions about international war, mainly (with special importance of the US war against Iraq). While there are other very important issues, both international and national, everyone notes the importance and seriousness of these warfare decisions. At the same time, we all know how influential the USA are in this respect, since they are even deciding such issues without the UN Security Council.
In this situation, about 40% of the potential voters did not vote at all. About 30% voted for the Republicans/Bush and another 30% for the Democrats/Kerry. Only minorities voted for so-called third parties.
The question is not whether someone likes the result or not, the main question is: What consequences will that decision have, and how will it be interpreted by people internationally?
I will give you one such interpretation:
[quote]
In this time of war, 60% of the US voters are for the war (since both Republican and Democratic Party voted for the war, and both presidency candidates reassured that they would continue the war). 40% of the citizens seem not to have enough motivation to have their say about war, in the US president election. Only a small minority votes against the war.
So, basically, nearly all US citizens are responsible for the tens of thousands who were murdered in the US wars, and for the destruction of culture, political culture, and millions of ill and disabled people caused by the war - and the US citizens should be hold to account for that.
[/quote]
This view on things might seem strange to some, but it is perfectly understandable. And while you, and most US Americans may not have intended this, other people(s) will make their decisions about how to recognize you based on this and other interpretations.
Unfortunately, some of these people will use that for finding allies for their own agendas and to spread fear and violence. Obviously, the main target will be the USA. We can all only hope (and I wish the US citizens as well as all other people of this world) that the casualties will be minor, but I wouldn't count on that.
It all comes down to this: You had the chance to get your will. Don't whine about the result. If you want to change things, then do so (I heard in this thread that waiting 4 years would also accomplish something... hm, when I see what was accomplished in the last 4 years, I can assure you that another 4 of such years won't make the situation better but much worse).
[edit: spelling mistake]
[B]Actually if you had a clue about the american revolution you would be startled to know that originaly most of the patriots were still loyal to the crown, it was the parliment they blamed for their woes, and that was the general trend till about 1778, yes even after the revolution many of the founders in their writing saved most of their venom for the english parliment.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Oh, I'm sorry. My lack of knowledge of sociopolitical history is showing again. Please, please correct my ignorance in such an insulting manner if I ever do it again. I beg forgiveness from Mister "My Party Runs the Country" for my pithy comment.
You know, this has to be the crabbiest crowd of winners I've yet seen. The supporters of the party that now runs the Congress, the Presidency, and soon, the Supreme Court seem awfully annoyed with having won.
Anyway, to try and bring things back to center, I am positive that in four years most of the dire predictions I’ve seen above will [b]NOT[/b] come true!
1) It’s not as if Bush was just elected as dictator for life of the US, in just 4 years, which I agree that in world politics, that can be a long time. In the grand scheme of things, it’s really not that long. At the end of those 4 years there are some excellent candidates waiting in the wings to run for president
2) As far policies heading further right during the second term, I think you will find Republican decisions will head back toward center. They won a significant election with both the House and Senate gaining seats, I’d be willing to bet, to continue their majorities, they will make attempts to pass policies that appeal to a broader base. Sure there will be fights and partisanship (this is politics after all), I believe they will decrease, not increase during Bush’s second term
3) There is an underlying friction between US and Europe that will continue to grow regardless whose president. At this point in time, the US and Europe are on very different paths socially and economically. First, the EU has given Europe a collective bargaining power on the world stage that it did not have previously. I think many of the conflicts that have arisen lately have as much to do with Europe flexing its new world power as it does with whoever is in the Oval Office. Second, Europe has some serious social and economic issues it has to overcome soon, especially in Western Europe. Population grow has slowed significantly, which creates real issues economically. Economies must have, in some way or another a growing base to continue to expand and create wealth. Europe’s social states are also contributing; the older populations have become accustom to governmental support, leading to a higher tax burden. This in turn stifles business growth, creating high unemployment that we see in areas of Western Europe. The younger generation, that should be supporting the older generation, does not have the ability to grow the economy as needed. In my mind, this is not an indictment of Europe itself, just my view of the current state of the continent and why its lead to frictions between the US and the EU. That said, I believe the US will be running into the exact same problems in another 25 to 50 years.
Jake
Anyone have room for me to move out of Texas?
Sorry, I know we have a few republicans/conservatives whatever your calling yourselves these days, but I just cant comprehend how someone could actually vote for Bush.
I wont stand here and claim that all of Kerrys views were perfect and that would have solved all that is wrong with the world or even our own country. But Bush?
Lets face it, the economy blows. Unemployment is still high, and its about to go higher with the collapse of some of the airlines. For those of you that dont know, there are several smaller airlines about to go under, including the one my father still works at. Midwest Airlines (milwaukee based) by the end of next year will probably not exist. He has 16 years with that company and his 401k made up almost entirely of stock, will be worthless. Hes fucked to say the least.
Then there is the war. For those that dont know, I am a former US Marine Corporal. I enjoyed my time in the Marines. And let me state that when my President told me that Iraq had WMDs and that he could use them at any time, I stood behind my President. I was proud when congress gave him the authority to go in and tell him to relinquish control to UN inspectors now. I was concerned when he threw caution to the wind and took the US, our friends the Brits and the 4 countries in our alliance without an army into war with Iraq. But he is the President, he knows what he is doing right? Nope. The guy lied to us. Whats that? Clinton lied too? Ok, Clinton lied about sticking a cigar in a woman only slightly more attractive than his wife. All he hurt was a couple of womanizing republicans who have probably done the same thing in their own offices. Bush's lie has cost the country Billions of dollars and worse, our soldiers lives.
Was Sadam a bad guy? Yes. Did he need to be removed from power? Yes. Was this the way to do it? I think that can be answered by watching a little bbc news (note: I find the bbc to be much less eskewed in their reporting). Meaning, hell the fuck no. Ive lost friends and former co workers to this war, and for what? For oil. Thats right folks, we went in to Iraq and secured the shit out of his oil, but missed little things, like explosives. The same explosives that are now likely being used against our troops.
NPR seems to think that it was the christian conservatives that helped Bush win. They claimed it was a moral vote. Lets be realistic here, moral = sex. People voted for bush because they cant stand the thought of gay marriage, abortions and stem cell research. Thats what some 85% of those coming out of polls here in Tyler said.
Hmm, lets see. Gay Marriage. If I recall, this country was founded on the principles that we as a people are free to live our lives the way we want to live them. Free from opression by the government to make our own choices in our life. In fact, I recall taking an oath when I enlisted to protect and DEFEND the constitution of the United States. Yet we tell gay people, they dont have the right to get married and live their life the way they want to? wtf? How is it any different than telling ANY OTHER 2 PEOPLE they cant get married. in the early 20th century (1920's ish) it was illegal for black people to marry white people. It was illegal for blacks and women to vote. Why, because the ignorant people in charge at the time thought that the constitution did not apply to them. That has sense been proven wrong. We have discoverd that there is no difference in black people and white people, women and men. They are all human, and in the eyes of the constitution equal. Well, its the same here. I feel as though banning gay marriage goes against the constitution and all we stand for, and is no different that banning any other personal choice in the country.
Im not gay, Im married to an amazing woman who takes care of me and my children. I do however have a lesbian couple next door. I asked one of them how they felt about the subject, all she wants is the tax break (able to file jointly) and the right to put her partners daughters on her insurance. Whats so wrong with that? Why not just call it a civil union if you cant get people to look past the stigma of gay marriage?
Abortion. Hey, I know what the bible says, and if one more baptist calls my wife (a catholic) un-christian because the she is pro choice, Im gonna stuff their own fucking bible down their throat. You can believe in god and be pro choice. There are reasons to have an abortion. What about a rape victim. What about a young girl molested by family members who doesnt know for a while? Woman who may have severe medical problems from giving birth? Drug addicted babies? Babies with fetal alcohol syndrome? Am I suggesting that any baby that doesnt look perfect be aborted? No. In fact I am completely against the 3rd trimester or Partial birth abortions. Those are completely disgusting, and should be considered murder. But there are legitimate reasons for having an abortion.
The Lacy Peterson law goes along with this. In principle its a good idea, but I am against this law because it is just one political move away from charging a woman who gets any abortion with murder.
Stemm Cell research, I wont continue to bore the shit out of you all and just say, if stemm cell research was legal and going full force and given money and time. Superman might still be with us.
and now for something completely different, here is a robot with a penis :robot:
You mean embryonic stem cells? Not all the other ones we DO use?
the ones that "show promise" but nothing concrete to show they are any more useful then the ones from a umbilical coord, or from the spine?
Theres a difference between hype and fact.
No, I do mean embryonic stem cells. You see the difference between easily obtainable spinal or umbilical cord stem cells dont react the same as embryonic ones.
Embryonic stemm cells can form into any cell in the human body... However since Im not a scientist and I dont know a whole lot about the subject more than what Ive read, I will reference [URL=http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/facts.html#1]here[/URL] .
Not hype, just actual information.
I was referring to what John Q. Baptist Public sees GWBush as against stem cells along with abortion and gay marriage. Thus rallying the crazy christian vote.
But you knew that, since we have established that the folks on firstones have a slightly higher IQ than the average american.
Lets face it, the economy blows. Unemployment is still high, and its about to go higher with the collapse of some of the airlines. For those of you that dont know, there are several smaller airlines about to go under, including the one my father still works at. Midwest Airlines (milwaukee based) by the end of next year will probably not exist. He has 16 years with that company and his 401k made up almost entirely of stock, will be worthless. Hes fucked to say the least. [/quote]
The economy does NOT blow, the current unemployment rate is 5.4%, economists tend to believe that 4.0-5.0% is the natural unemployment rate of a healthy economy. GDP growth is at at health rate of 3.7% annual growth. Interest is still low. The only real dark spot is that we are starting to see some inflationary pressures due to oil and steel prices (mostly due to China’s vast consumption)
While I feel for your father having had to face looming layoff before myself, the president has zero to do with the failure of airlines such as Delta, which is getting ready to file for chapter 11. The problem is that airlines are working under a ancient business model that harkens back to the days of regulation when customers paid a set amount per mile, not matter the line. Sure the price of oil (the only variable the president may have an effect on) has contributed to airlines woe’s, but its been more the straw that broke the camels back. The real problem in the airline industry comes from extremely high labor costs, older aircraft that are higher maintence and have poorer fuel economy and management teams that a unwilling to recognize the problems they facing. There are airlines that have it right, Southwest has yet to have a loosing quarter since 9/11 and JetBlue has been profitable even though their planes carry a lower passenger load than competitors.
Finally, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, THE PRESIDENT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH THE STATE OF OUR ECONOMY!!!
Jake
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]and now for something completely different, here is a robot with a penis :robot: [/B][/QUOTE]
You know, I never looked at it that way before.
[B]
Finally, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, THE PRESIDENT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH THE STATE OF OUR ECONOMY!!!
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
(It's all Clinton's Fault):D
Jake
[B]Oh, I'm sorry. My lack of knowledge of sociopolitical history is showing again. Please, please correct my ignorance in such an insulting manner if I ever do it again. I beg forgiveness from Mister "My Party Runs the Country" for my pithy comment.
You know, this has to be the crabbiest crowd of winners I've yet seen. The supporters of the party that now runs the Congress, the Presidency, and soon, the Supreme Court seem awfully annoyed with having won. [/B][/QUOTE]
Wow. Just.....wow.
What seems to be bothering people like Tyvar is the attitudes of the people who supported Kerry. Before the election, they thought they were right, Bush is a retard, he's going to screw over the country, a choice between Hitler and Bush would yield Hitler, and that [i]everyone in their right mind thought the same.[/i] But apparently 59.2 million people thought differently. In the face of this, the reaction isn't, "Well, we'll wait and see," or "Perhaps they had a good reason," the assumption is that all 59 million of them have some kind of mental illness! They must have made their decision based on erronious information, or maybe they were all just brought up by strict, closed-minded fundementalists, or they were ignorant, or they were all abused children, or they're in bed with big business, or something, [i]anything[/i] other than the mere suggestion that they might be making an informed or well-thought-out decision. Anyone who voted for Kerry thinks, has weighed the issues, and made the right decision after much conscientious soul-searching. Anybody that votes for Bush is just a bandwagoneer, ignorant, and is just about as original as your average cattle.
Nobody's asking for you to concede that your beliefs are incorrect. Just respect the fact that some people, apparently a majority, just may have beliefs that [i]have their own merits[/i].
Oh, and just a little bit of flame-bait. Just thought it would be nice because on this board you hear everything bad about Bush and everything endearing about Kerry:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html?oref=login[/url]
I will concede, no matter how smart the man is, he's very good at making public speaking blunders.
[B]By the way... If you want to see the results of a Democrat controlled state, you only have to look at California and how fucked up it is to see why I voted for Bush and other Republicans.
[/B][/QUOTE]
If you want to see the results of a Republican controlled state, you only have to look at Utah. You know, the most Republican state in the union. No, we don't have the same issues as you in California, but it shows that neither party has the whole answer. A balance between the two extremes is a better choice than a single party controlled state. That's why I don't consider myself for either party, I look at the candidate and their actions and ignore what party he/she is in. That's how I vote.
Look here for a view from JMS: [url]http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-17243[/url]
I have to say, JMS is a very good thinker. Did I want Bush to win: no. Did I want Kerry to win: no. I wasn't impressed with either one. Maybe I wasn't the only one who thought that and that's why the votes were so close.
If President Bush will do, as he said in his speech, work to mend the bitter divisiveness here at home, work with our allies, and stabilize Iraq, he will prove that he was indeed the better choice. I hope he'll follow though with that, I really do, but based on his first term and on this years negative campaign ads and speeches, I'm afraid he won't. I hope he proves me wrong.
And before I get into trouble, I realize he doesn't have a monopoly on negative campaign ads… I wish they'd put a moratorium for them.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]Hmm, lets see. Gay Marriage. If I recall, this country was founded on the principles that we as a people are free to live our lives the way we want to live them. Free from opression by the government to make our own choices in our life. In fact, I recall taking an oath when I enlisted to protect and DEFEND the constitution of the United States. Yet we tell gay people, they dont have the right to get married and live their life the way they want to? wtf? How is it any different than telling ANY OTHER 2 PEOPLE they cant get married. in the early 20th century (1920's ish) it was illegal for black people to marry white people. It was illegal for blacks and women to vote. Why, because the ignorant people in charge at the time thought that the constitution did not apply to them. That has sense been proven wrong. We have discoverd that there is no difference in black people and white people, women and men. They are all human, and in the eyes of the constitution equal. Well, its the same here. I feel as though banning gay marriage goes against the constitution and all we stand for, and is no different that banning any other personal choice in the country. [/B][/QUOTE]
I have to say I agree totally! Neither of the "gay marriage" laws in Massachusetts (Mass) or Vermont are going to hurt the "sanctity of marriage" Besides, I have yet to hear how gay unions would hurt the sanctity marriage without the protestor spitting religious venom. The laws in Mass and Vermont do not dictate, nor could they, that all religions in those states have to recognize gay unions - that is why there is the separation of church and state.
The Republicans just used this issue as a political wedge in this years election. I believe they know it's not the earth shattering 800 pound gorilla that they made it out to be in the campaign ads. It was an easy target to stir up the votes.
For that reason it may fall under the radar again for awhile. In two years, we'll have the mid-term elections, I'm willing to bet we'll see this issue come up then. But by then there will be about 2 years of data in Vermont and Mass that will show that the world didn't explode, straight people can still get married, have kids, grow old together, and even get divorced, just like before. Maybe that'll take a little wind out of the issue.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]Anyone have room for me to move out of Texas?
*Snip*[/B][/QUOTE]
You, good sir, rock. We could use more people like you. About four million more, in fact, but that's neither here nor there.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo_1 [/i]
[B]What seems to be bothering people like Tyvar is the attitudes of the people who supported Kerry. Before the election, they thought they were right, Bush is a retard, he's going to screw over the country, a choice between Hitler and Bush would yield Hitler, and that [i]everyone in their right mind thought the same.[/i] But apparently 59.2 million people thought differently. In the face of this, the reaction isn't, "Well, we'll wait and see," or "Perhaps they had a good reason," the assumption is that all 59 million of them have some kind of mental illness! They must have made their decision based on erronious information, or maybe they were all just brought up by strict, closed-minded fundementalists, or they were ignorant, or they were all abused children, or they're in bed with big business, or something, [i]anything[/i] other than the mere suggestion that they might be making an informed or well-thought-out decision. Anyone who voted for Kerry thinks, has weighed the issues, and made the right decision after much conscientious soul-searching. Anybody that votes for Bush is just a bandwagoneer, ignorant, and is just about as original as your average cattle. [/quote][/b]
Well, why don't you give some of those well-thought-out reasons. Just a short list, maybe a dozen items, on why John Smith, from Anytown, USA should've voted for George W. Bush.
And, hey, [i]I'm[/i] not the one who threatened to kill people, simply because they have a different opinion, no matter how inflammatorily it was presented. If you know that you made a well-thought-out decision, don't go into a murderous rage when someone calls you a moron. Attempt to educate and enlighten them. Sure, it won't work, but it'll prove you aren't just some beer-guzzling redneck who didn't want to vote for a rich pretty-boy who the bald scary man on the Tee-Vee said was a flipper-flop.
[IMG]http://forums.firstones.com/images/sendpm.gif[/IMG]
otherwise let the grownups talk.
Please. I have better things to do with my time.
Tell me it's not my business. Tell me its personal. Tell me to put my money where my mouth is, and show you why I have my opinions. In short, tell me anything but this boo-hoo, holier than thou claptrap about not having to justify yourself to something as low and contemptible as myself. Because if it were true, you would not care what I had to say enough to bring it up in the first place.
[B]You're kidding. You have the time to write a two-hundred word screed on why you feel insulted by the vocal minority, but you can't spend a similar amount of time and effort to prove said minority wrong.[/b][/quote]
Sounds about right.
[B]I'm less pissed about Bush being in office, more pissed about how in 30 states not only was gay marriage banned, Civil Unions were specifically dissallowed, as well as recognizing any aforementioned civil-union made in another state. [/B][/QUOTE]
My friend was saying something about that today.
This is a place for synergy.
[B]If you don't care about the words and thoughts of others then you dont belong here. A mesage board isn't the place to enjoy the sound of your own voice.
This is a place for synergy. [/B][/QUOTE]
Did I say that? I merely resent having to wait on a verdict from him to know whether or not I'm ignorant or not, and whether or not I'm a good person or not. What right does he have to decide that? He's begging me to argue with him! Who likes the sound of their own voice?
By the way, what happened to Faylorn?
And, I believe he was talking to me. I realize I've taken the position of being the dick of the topic. It comes with the fact that I've been going over the result for a day and a half now nonstop, and I'm likely going to get an aneurysm if don't figure out some justifiable reason that President Bush is getting four more years to do his thing.
Which is why I'm begging for you to argue with me. In fact, I had fully intended to request some reason Bush should be in office before I ever read that specific post. All I had been reading here was the same maddeningly nonspecific Republican line;
(the following is best read in the stereotypical voice of an 18th century aristocrat. A particularly foppish one, at that. Just want to make sure it's read with the exact right type of sarcasm.)
"Oh, how [i]dare[/i] you all assume that everyone who voted for Bush is a moron. I'll have you know that [i]I[/i] voted for Bush, as did several people I know, and we all had [i]very[/i] good reasons to do so. I'm not going to mention any of them off the top of my head, but rest assured, they were [i]very[/i] good ones."
Gee, thanks. I'm feeling pressure at the top of my head. That's just stress, right? Its not the blood vessel about to burst? Because I really want to finish this post off.
Since I live in a heavily democratic area, I had difficulty getting opinions from flesh-and-blood, face to face republicans, either. The tally is two relatives who didn't like Bush from day one, though I'm not sure how they voted. One respected community member, whose reasons were a), no attacks on american soil since September 11 and b) Bush's tax cut gave him a bigger raise than his employer (which made me wonder, not for the first time, exactly [i]why[/i] I respected him. I still do, in fact, so I can only conclude he had the [i]je ne sais quoi[/i]). Finally, I have someone who believes that war in Iraq was merely the first step in a campaign of containment of radical Islamic terrorism, similar to what Vietnam and a couple of South American countries were for communism. We move in, remove their corrupt dictators, instal a democratic government, and hope they like it and keep it. But if they prefer their feudal dictators, that's okay, too. He's hoping Syria is next on the list. Both of the above also want to shitcan social services, incidentally. I've actually required (but not recieved) the help of others in the past, though, so I disagree.
So, I've got one "Looking out for #1" and one "The United States should be the Johnny Appleseed of world democracy". Neither of those is enough for me.
So yeah, honestly, tell me why I should trust that the American people picked the right person. Because nothing I've seen thus far has given me one iota of hope.
You want to stop the whining? Here's how. I'm listening.