PeterDavid.net

As a Canadian, I can say that Mr. Sevush certainly isn't the only person to ponder that "wall" idea.

I also agree with not adding fuel to the political fire on this site for a while. Bush and Kerry agreed on one thing yesterday, and that was that your nation needs to heal. We can doubt the sincerity of either one of them all we like, but that doesn't make the initial sentiment any less correct.

I sincerely hope that all of our neighbours to the south can find at least some common ground, and that the "two Americas" can become one again.

That would make it easier to figure out who to carry on our Canadian love/hate relationship with.

The last thing that gave the vast majority of us common ground was September 11th. If that's the price, I'll stick with contention and devisiveness, thank you.

Heh.

The author wishes to move to canada in the name of tolerance, then refers to those who merely vote differently than he does as
"...the belligerent,
imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip
the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped
in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first
cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death."

And it's the red states they call ignorant, bigoted and intolerant. Go figure.

"The last thing that gave the vast majority of us common ground was September 11th. If that's the price, I'll stick with contention and devisiveness, thank you."

Agreed.

I am truly shocked by how much distain the Blue stater's have for the Reds. And how simplistic their arguments are. As someone who was enraged that I was expected to vote for one of these below-average politicians (talk about damning with a faint insult) I feel free to make this observation - Y'all, blues and reds alike, are intolerant and moralistic. Reasonable and intellgent people can have diametrically opposed views on Iraq, taxes, health care, abortion, supreme court justices, and so forth. If these issues were simple, we wouldn't be split 50/50 on them. And, although I usally lean left on those issues, in my experience the Reds are a hell of a lot more sympathetic to the Blue view, than vice versa. Red intolerance of gays certainly drove a lot of Red votes, but Blue intolerance of Reds drove a lot more.

BTW, to the 'succession' dream. Here's a nice map showing the Red/Purple/Blue continuum by county. The USA is a lot more complicated than the Blues like to admit.

Hmmm...the link didn't work.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/purple_america_2004.gif

Well, that's an amazingly ignorant little piece. Mr. David, I'm surprised that someone as intelligent as yourself finds this amusing. Definately the most ignorant thing I've read since the election. On par with the Mirror headline.
Keepers of tolerance. Feh.

People keep pointing to these exit polls about "values". Did it occur to anyone that these same exit polls also point to a double-digit Kerry win? There's a lot more going on here than gay-bashing. Most of the states Bush won didn't have a gay marriage item on the ballot. Bush increased his percentage of vote in virtually every state in the Union, not just the red states.

The Left is trying to paint the 51% of Bush voters as either rich or stupid and Bible-thumping. Guess what, there's others in that 51% who are middle-class who don't worry so much about the DMA, but much more about terrorism - and Bush appeared much more willing to face it head-on then Kerry. Maybe when the Left gets through their grief and rage they'll start to get it.

I'd say more than 51% of the Bush voters are either rich and/or stupid. Bible-thumping, I'm not so ure about...

My hope is that the Republicans get drunk on their own power, try to pass to much radical legislation to fast, and the party self destructs. Bush only won by 2% of the popular vote. If they truly think that they have a mandate then they will screw them selves over. The Republicans have become the party of big government and fiscal irresponsibility. That’s not conservative. With the failure of the Democrats and the Republicans new base being religious to the extreme, the stage is set for a new centrist third party that could take the presidency and a swing vote in congress.

Reasonable and intellgent people can have diametrically opposed views on Iraq, taxes, health care, abortion, supreme court justices, and so forth. If these issues were simple, we wouldn't be split 50/50 on them.

OK, the above was a quote, I'm not sure how to tag it since I can't get the preview button to work properly and I seldom post here.

SOME of those issues are complex like Iraq and the economy, etc. Everyone would be able to agree to a decent compromise if one were proposed. ONE side of the issue won the election, and therefore it feels no need to compromise with the losers. The same would've happened had the election gone the other way.

The only issues that most are completely unwilling to compromise on are their morals. Neither side is willing to give. These are not complex issues. One either believes one side or the other. The only real compromise would be tolerance of everyone, and that's not really a compromise since that's basically what the liberals want. No one wants/expects conservatives to suddenly say "you know what maybe being gay isn't a choice." They could say "Aw...do whatever you want, we don't care anymore." This would be amazing as most liberals would be more than happy with a live and let live type society. It's ok for you to disagree with me, but don't make laws restricting my rights. One side wants freedom and choice for all (even for the conservatives that they don't agree with). The other side wants to restrict those freedoms because they are completely sure that they are right, and no one should disagree with them. This line of thinking is much more dangerous because lots of people disagree with them.

I am truly shocked by how much distain the Blue stater's have for the Reds.

I prefer Green myself, but what the hell.

But hey, if you want Georgia, you can have it. Just be prepared to uproot Atlanta and move it somewhere else, cause based on the votes, that city doesn't want to be part of a Red state.

"I am truly shocked by how much distain the Blue stater's have for the Reds."

We learned it from watching you!!!
In the Clinton years that is. :)

There are just a lot of Jim's here i know, but i'm just adding to the bunch...

About gay marriage.

If we allow a very small minority, the gay community, to dictate how their deviant behavior is treated, whats to stop other groups from trying the same behavior?

Now i have nothing against gays, and really, nothing against civil unions, but gay relationships shouldn't be treated as equal to marriage if thats not what the majority wants. Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture, and right now, the majority of society says that gay marriage is not right, and shouldn't be. If gays can get gay marriage legitimized, what is to stop another fringe group, like NAMBLA or polygamists, from rising in popularity and influence and fighting for marriage rights?
Now right now, most of you are probably opposed to men sleeping with little boys, or marrying 10 women, our culture is against it. But with time, and continued moral decline, and the passage of things like gay marriage, eventually it'll be fine to sleep with little boys, animals, or marry as many as you want at once.
America, and other countries, legislate morality all the time, like the polygamy example and NAMBLA example, as well as drugs and alcohol, and mebbe you disagree with the government stepping in at all, then you are a liberatarian, and i doubt most of you here are. But if you believe that the government can restrict drug use, and stop sex with little children, and animals, and stop polygamy, then you should also accept that it is not innappropriate for the government to legislate against allowing gays to marry.

You may disagree, but currently, you seem to be in the minority, like polygamists were and drug users are, and the government, and the majority of the public and society can legislate against your position.

Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture,

oh, like how society dictated that slavery was okay, that women were second-class citizens with no rights, or that interracial marriage was a Very Bad Thing?

Kathy Maddux Pearlman wrote I'd say more than 51% of the Bush voters are either rich and/or stupid. Bible-thumping, I'm not so ure about...

Wait, I thought the Republicans are supposed to be the party of irrational intolerance and pathetic stereotypes? We need to work hard to catch up with her. On the bright side we have four years to refine our art.

But if you believe that the government can restrict drug use, and stop sex with little children, and animals, and stop polygamy, then you should also accept that it is not innappropriate for the government to legislate against allowing gays to marry.

Actually, I don't.

But go on ahead, trying to tell me how to think. That totalitarian impulse you and the rest of your cronies like Stalin and Mao is going to get you in trouble one of these days.

>

Here's a tip. When you call it "deviant behavior" a lot of us on the left tend to tune you out. I've yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn't basically come down to "My God says it's wrong!" (which is simplistic and inaccurate) or "It'll destroy the institution of marriage!) (which I also highly doubt). Nobody's been able to say "It's the right thing to do, because it doesn't discriminate against anyone" which is what those of us in the pro-gay marriage camp can say about our position.

Btw, I am dismayed to count myself as one of the left. Before this election, I considered myself a moderate. But it's been clearly shown by the votes this year that you're on one side or another of this little culture war, and I guess I'll pick the side that doesn't give to the rich with one hand, pick away at the division between church and state with the other (something that makes us atheists nervous, understand?) and in between, spends its time discriminating against people who just want to live their lives and love who they want.

But really, I'm just venting here. You guys on the right have won. You control every facet of the government, no checks, no balances. I'm not entirely sure why you're still arguing with the rest of us, when it's clear that our opinions don't count for squat.

"This would be amazing as most liberals would be more than happy with a live and let live type society."

Not all of the ones at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, judging from the number of cars with Bush/Cheney bumper stickers that got keyed. (But of course, both sides have crazies).

As I've said before, conservatives should be willing to cut Kerry supporters some slack, though I hope to God if the shoes had been on the other foot I would not have been as bitter as so many of the posters here have been (And given how low that bar has been set, it would not have been difficult). Moving to Canada? Splitting from the country? Grow up, folks. You will see many many elections in your lifetime. You'll win some, you'll lose some. Try to show some class and dignity in either circumstance.

As a counterpoint to all around good guy Ralph, heres an interesting take: http://backseatphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/11/to-my-fellow-democrats.html

excerpt:

Many Democrats think that our patience and understanding are our weakness. "We don't know how to fight like the Republicans," we all told ourselves after Florida 2000. "We have to be more like them: tougher, meaner." "We have to energize our base more."

Actually, no. Our error is that we Democrats actually are far less understanding than we think we are. Our version of understanding the other side is to look at them from a psychological point of view while being completely unwilling to take their arguments seriously. "Well, he can't help himself, he's a right-wing religious zealot, so of course he's going to think like that." "Republicans who never served in war are hypocrites to send young men to die. " "Republicans are homophobes, probably because they can't deal with their secret desires." Anything but actually listening and responding to the arguments being made.

And when I say 'responding,' I don't just mean 'coming up with the best counterargument and pushing it.' Sometimes responding to an argument means finding the merit in it and possibly changing one's position. That is part of growth, right?

The Boston Globe today printed up an electoral map based on how the different counties in the country voted. It basically showed the division actually isn't really between red states and blue states, but between urban and rural. This morning I was watching C-Span in a lead-up to the President's press conference and I heard disdain on both sides. I don't think either side can really claim a moral high ground there. I'm guilty of it myself - I don't UNDERSTAND how these culturual issues could be a factor in this election. And apparently, from watching C-Span, those folks don't understand how I can't feel that gay people getting married has ZERO affect on the "sanctity" of my marriage. I've been told I should be more tolerance of all this, um, intolerance but that's hard to wrap my head around, too.
If America becomes a giant version of that town from "Footloose" as a result of all of this I will be genuinely distraught. Kevin Bacon did not give up when the Reverend John Lithgows of the world told him he COULD NOT DANCE and neither will we!!! We'll take to the streets in our skinny ties and we'll blast our Quiet Riot tapes and if John Lithgow tries to stop us we'll do an angry gymnastic dance in an abandoned warehouse and then we'll START ALL OVER AGAIN. My fellow Americans, let's hear it for the boy.

Peter,

I find it odd that you would like a piece that basically condescendingly and simplisitically steroetypes huge numbers of people. But let's have fun with it!

I grew up in Illinois. That is a blue state. I must be enlightened. Lucky me.

And then I went to school in Indiana. Oh no. a red state! Now I am a buffoonish hick.

But I got a Ph.D. in English, moved to New York and taught at an Ivy League university. Oooh. An Ivy League faculty member in a blue state. Definitely enlightened.

But now I'm back in Indiana. So, I've become a Bush-loving, bible-thumping hick again.

And I'm an adult who reads comic books, and I'm sure there is a steroetype there, too, and not a nice one. (I'm probably in danger of having my Ph.D. revoked).

What will be interesting is seeing which party is smart enough to figure out the way to ensure victory--don't run a red or a blue candidate...run a purple. John McCain or Rudy Guliani would have beaten Kerry in a landslide. The Democrats have fewer "purples" to work with, though Obama has terrific potential (I hope they don't make the mistake they did with Edwards and push him too soon--2 terms as Senator and the guy is gold.)

If the democrats think that Kerry just wasn't liberal or mean or tough enough, they will lose by a bigger margin next time. If the republicans take this election as an invitation to go ever further to the right they will risk losing it all (after 8 years of Bush it would be a mistake to just offer more of the same--voter fatigue sets in). 2008 will be the first opportunity for a whole new set of faces.

... that we could learn a lesson from Israel and build a massive wall along our southern border that would separate us from the belligerent, imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death;

I am constantly amazed by the Jefferson Davis clones who want to whine, stamp their little feet, and take their marbles and go home just because they lost an election. I always assumed it was hyperbole, that "I'm going to leave the country if X wins" was the functional equivalent of "If you eat the pumpkin pie before the rest of the family gets here for dinner, you're dead, young man," but I've seen it enough in the last few days I'm starting to wonder. It is appalling to think that so many people find that the Republic is far less important than disassociating themselves from those nasty Republicans.

To all of you who feel that way: You're cowards. As John Edwards put it yesterday, "You can be disappointed but you cannot walk away." If you don't feel strongly enough about this country to stand and fight, if you don't care enough to suffer through the bad times that you expect (and that I don't), then you deserve to lose elections. This nation deserves leaders who are committed to its survival and prosperity, leaders who recognize how unique and amazing it is, and most importantly, leaders who won't cut and run the instant they find themselves standing out in the cold. So go start your FONAS. I reluctantly have to remind you, however, that the territory of the United States extends from Maine to Florida, over to California, north to Washington, and back east to Maine again, in addition to Alaska and Hawaii. We didn't let the slave owners and the feudalists wander off with our territory, and we won't let you do it either. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Bill:

>As I've said before, conservatives should be willing to cut Kerry supporters some slack, though I hope to God if the shoes had been on the other foot I would not have been as bitter as so many of the posters here have been (And given how low that bar has been set, it would not have been difficult). Moving to Canada? Splitting from the country? Grow up, folks. You will see many many elections in your lifetime. You'll win some, you'll lose some. Try to show some class and dignity in either circumstance.

As bitter as "So many"? Weren't there only one or two posts about splitting or moving?

Fred

I've always been a Democrat and just this past election I have noticed how far to the left they have gone. Democrats had certain Liberal views and principles , but now they are the same exact thing and I think that is what's hurting us. Me, personally, I am pro stem cell research, pro choice , and pro civil union but against gay marriage. Mainly because seeing how agressive the activists at parades have been. I have heard numerous interviews with various people who are angered when parents make their kids leave the parade because they didn't want to see people with each others hands down their pants..regardless of which sex it is no parents want their children exposed to something so graphic at a young age. It just feels wrong to me to influence children...to possibly make them become somebody they might not have become otherwise. That's just me..

PAD,

Aside from the extreme liberal slant of the comment, I don't know anyone who would want Canada's socialized medicine. My friends from Canada, some of whom live here now, all prefer American health care for the much better quality and for the availability without having to wait months and months for routine procedures.

Dennis

Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture,

"oh, like how society dictated that slavery was okay, that women were second-class citizens with no rights, or that interracial marriage was a Very Bad Thing?"

(i don't know how to quote here, sorry)

Yes, at the time, that was acceptable at the time, and it was "right" according to those people. But as time went by, the ideas changed, and eventually, a large enough group decided that slavery was wrong and it was abolished. When a large enough group decides that gay marriage is correct and fine, it'll happen. Now by your understanding, and my understanding, and almost all now today believe that slavery is wrong, but AT THE TIME it was judged fine by A MAJORITY of society.

In other societies, cannibalism was practiced, and fine, and also eating the hearts of your enemy and other stuff we find atrocious. But in the CONTEXT OF THE TIME AND THE SOCIETY it was fine and good.

Now, since those darker ages, we have progressed, and we have gotten rid of terrible things and injustices, as we've evolved to see them as such. But putting slavery and gay marriage next to each other is wrong. Slaves were oppressed and beaten and treated terribly. Not granting gays marriage isn't oppressing them, its just not treating the word and institution of marriage as joke. I agree that gays can love each other as much as men and women do, and i'm fine with civil unions, no one should be separated from their loved one in a hospital as they die. But it is not marriage, marriage is between a man and a woman. And the tax breaks given to married couples are largely because of the fact that married couples make better parents and can bring up children better, according to conventional wisdom, and some psychologists. And mebbe you disagree with this, but the fact remains that nature, or God if thats your thing, made men and women procreate together, and that is what should be taught to children, not that every and any lifechoice can be the right one. There is evidence that children of gays are more likely to turn out gay themselves, or to experiment more, and if that doesn't demonstrate that upbringing has some effect over sexual orientation, i don't know what would.

Sorry i rambled some, and i'm sorry if i offend, but you have to think outside the box a bit. We, as a society, define and redefine evil, and wrong, and right, all the time. If the majority tries to put this in writing, thats not much more of a step, and its not one that hasn't been done before.

And again, every one who is for gay marriage, why not drop all statuatory rape laws, and allow marriage at 12 or 10 or 5, for those NAMBLA members out there. Its really not much different, you just gotta think about it, and i know most don't want to.

***"I am truly shocked by how much distain the Blue stater's have for the Reds."

We learned it from watching you!!!
In the Clinton years that is. :)****

Nail on the head. The righties spent the Clinton years listening to Flush Limbaugh demonize liberals, and now they wonder why the other side does the same to them.

***Actually, no. Our error is that we Democrats actually are far less understanding than we think we are***

I guess the catch-22 of being a liberal is being intolarant of the intolerant.

Jim wrote:

"Definately the most ignorant thing I've read since the election. On par with the Mirror headline."

The Daily Mirror in Merry Olde England. Ah, yes, I remember it well. Now THERE is a bastion of journalistic integrity if I ever saw one. You're sure to get all the facts in that rag -- not! The only things it's known for besides its screaming headlines is its famous "Page 3 Girl" pin-up photos.

Fred,

Sorry, my post wasn't at all clear--the part about splitting from the country and all was referring to the Ralph Sevush column.

And anyway, the more I think about it, I can respect those who would actually be willing to go through the incredible trouble of emigrating--it's not just talking the talk, it's walking the walk. It think it is unnecessary and a mistake, but I can respect it. I hope that anyone seriously contemplating it will reconsider.

The ones who just want to moan about how everyone who disagrees with them is just too stupid to see the truth that they, the enlightened ones, offer...well, "grow up" still stands.

Actually, if we are going to have any secession, Hawaii should go first, as there is already a significant secessionist sentiment there, as I understand it, among the natives. If you ever want a story of underhanded, deceptive, scandalous political manipulations, read the story of Hawaii's annexation into the United States. If we left the Union, I expect Hawaii would go its own way, and rightfully so.

Of course, this is completely an Otherworlds story we're making up, so it really makes no difference.

This nation deserves leaders who are committed to its survival and prosperity, leaders who recognize how unique and amazing it is, and most importantly, leaders who won't cut and run the instant they find themselves standing out in the cold.

Well, maybe the Republicans need to own up to the fact that they offered up as crappy a leader as the Democrats have.

And that's part of the issue: many people voted against Bush knowing that Kerry was crappy, but Bush was wearing a toilet seat on his face, waiting for you to sit down.

Going back to the urban vs rual thing. On another forum, somebody posted comparison maps of the counties across the US for 2000 and 2004 (those counted so far).
And the results are amazingly similar - we're talking probably better than 80% of the counties in the country went to the same party as in 2000.
But those counties for the Dems - alot of it is the urban areas. The opposite for Bush.

Either way, I think religion still has alot to do with it.

OK--I didn't really want to argue specific topics or anything. I just wanted to state my opinion and try to gain some sense of closure after the election so that y'know "the healing process can begin." But, several posters in this thread have mentioned that they are against gay marriage. Why? What possible threat is this to you? That is the fundamental difference. If a libereal is opposed to homosexuality, he doesn't marry a man. If a conservative disapproves, he changes the constitution. In Ohio, (say what you may, but at least we made it interesting) we passed by an overwhelming majority an amendment to our constitution prohibiting gay marriage. Just a few months ago in March, we passed a law against gay marriage. Isn't this a little bit much considering it was never legal in the first place? This was only an issue because the president could rally up a few extra votes from those Americans that are scared of change. Hopefully, one issue voters are few and far between, but I can't really fault a person for voting the way that their church tells them to. If I were religious and didn't follow politics, I would be willing to blindly follow my religion to either side. That's what religion is all about, right? Having faith reguardless of the facts or in spite of them? So my question for everyone opposed to gay marriage is simply why? Explain to me the threat this holds for the country without using religion as a justification for anything. Remember this isn't a theocracy (although if we let the American people vote on it, it probably would be.)

Dennis Donohoe wrote...
I don't know anyone who would want Canada's socialized medicine. My friends from Canada, some of whom live here now, all prefer American health care for the much better quality and for the availability without having to wait months and months for routine procedures.

Your friends are in the minority. Our health care system is one of the nation's most cherished institutions. Granted it's far from perfect, but in our own national election earlier this year the mere suggestion that one of the parties might work towards privatizing health care contributed a lot to that party underperforming significantly in the election.

I just thought I'd toss this out for people to answer as they see fit.

Do you think that issues such as the ones you're currently facing in America could be avoided by the implementation of a true multi-party system?

It seems to me that there is a great split in your country, and it's mostly between the far-right and far-left. What are the people in the middle to do?

To Jim Farrand:

Gay marriage is not the same thing as sex with a minor. One involves consent, the other doesn't. And before you make the argument that adjusting the definition of marriage and adjusting the age of consent are similar notions, please keep in mind: everybody eventually turns 18, but gay people do not eventually turn straight.

Jeff Lawson posted:
"Your friends are in the minority. Our health care system is one of the nation's most cherished institutions. Granted it's far from perfect, but in our own national election earlier this year the mere suggestion that one of the parties might work towards privatizing health care contributed a lot to that party underperforming significantly in the election."

My comment: I certainly can understand people balking at having to pay for something (privatizing) that was once free. I'd have the same reaction. However, that doesn't really address my comment that US (non-socialized) health care, despite its cost, is much better. But I have no firsthand experience, since I'm not Canadian, so I'll defer on this.

Dennis

"Reverend John Lithgows of the world told him he COULD NOT DANCE and neither will we!!!"

It's been a while since I've seen that movie, but didn't Kevin Bacon's character solve the problem by holding a dance beyond the town's borders?

So basically the muttonheads in the town said, "No dancing in the town!" and, at the end of the film, bsaically, they got their way. Ignorance prevailed, and the young dancing guys had to go elsewhere.

PAD

Dennis Donohoe said...
However, that doesn't really address my comment that US (non-socialized) health care, despite its cost, is much better. But I have no firsthand experience, since I'm not Canadian, so I'll defer on this.

And I'm not American, and have never had to use your health-care system, so I suppose that makes us even =)

It all comes down to opinion, I suppose. In my opinion, and that of (I believe) the vast majority of Canadians, it is better to have a universal system where people have equal access to health care no matter their age, race, or social class, than to have a system where the highest-quality treatment is reserved for the wealthy.

Now, health care is always one of the top Canadian concerns, and there is no shortage of problems with our current systems. Waiting lists can sometimes be massive, and there tend to be shortages of doctors, due in no small part to the fact that they can be making far more money in America. Canada is still trying to get a handle on these problems, and I'm sure they'll be big issues here for years to come.

But the bottom line is, most Canadians would rather struggle with these problems than with the problems presented by American-style health care.

Dennis,

I'm a Canadian currently living in the States and I have experienced no increase in the quality of health care down here. The waits are just as long in emergency rooms. The difference is down here you pay an arm and a leg for it. The doctors aren't particularly better trained. If I'm going to be made to wait anyway... I'd prefer it was free.

I really miss feeling a little under the weather and stopping in to a clinic for a check-up just to find out whats going on.

Someone said "America doesn't have healthcare. We have sick-care" and I think that's a fairly accurate depiction.

So count this as one Canadian who has sampled both and misses socialized medicine.

Mike.

Jeff said:
"It all comes down to opinion, I suppose. In my opinion, and that of (I believe) the vast majority of Canadians, it is better to have a universal system where people have equal access to health care no matter their age, race, or social class, than to have a system where the highest-quality treatment is reserved for the wealthy"

I have no argument with Jeff or with the subsequent posting by Mike, except that I am nowhere near wealthy and I have received high quality health care for some serious problems. But hey, this posting was supposed to be about politics, and frankly I am no expert on health care outside of my own situation.

Regards,

Dennis

Dennis Donohoe wrote...

I have no argument with Jeff or with the subsequent posting by Mike

Me neither, just presenting the other side of the coin. Isn't civilized discussion fun? =D

Re: Canadian healthcare "waiting months for routine procedures"...just try getiing any medical procedure done, of any kind, even just a check-up if you don't have health insurance. If you're lucky and can find a clinic somewhere to treat you, you'll be seeing Frank Burns from M*A*S*H and Dr Nick Riviera from The Simpsons- "Hi Everybody"

I have no problem with colored people. I don't care what they do in their own place, as long as they leave me and my friends alone and understand that they had better stay away from me and mine.

Oh.

Wait.

You were talking about *Gay* people.

Okay. Just change the word 'colored' to 'gay'. Same argument, just a different word.

So many people in this country try to use words to cover up the fact that they are bigots.

Jim, the fact that you compare Homosexuality to Nambla is a situation I find disturbing, because you seem to link homesexuality with pedophilia. Which is an unfair view. Are there those in the homosexual community who have a prediliction for young partners? sure. But I doubt it it disproportionate to the heterosexual world. The prevalence of magazines like barely legal. The imagery of early Britney Spears. The whole count down to the Olsen twins 18th birthday. You think if the legal age was 16 instead of 18 the magazines and such wouldn't be photographing as many girls as close to their 16th birthday as they can as opposed 18 or when they might be fully developed? Of course not. So does that mean any guy who buys one of these magazines wants to have sex with a 6 year old? No of course not. The links you imply suggest that gay men see no difference between a 25 year old adult, and a 13 year old boy. Which is ignorant. Please tell me how there is no real difference between Gay marriage and dropping statuory rape laws.

Is Gay marriage the Marijuana of 'deviant sexual behaviour'? A gateway perversion?

Anything governing sexual morality is fairly simple. Does any party in the act have the choice, ability and opportunity to refuse? If they do refuse is that choice respected? Does one party hold a position of power that would signifgantly affect the ability to say no?

Do all paries have the intellectual and emotional maturity to understand the situation? This is a tough one. There are those at 16 who can handle adult relationships there are those at 25 who can't. It's like driving a car. not all 16 year olds are ready to drive, but you can't do it case by case.

Pick an age where you hope mental maturity matches phsyical.

I'm digressing

but the fact remains that nature, or God if thats your thing, made men and women procreate together,. That is a fact yes. and that is what should be taught to children, as part of basic biology sure. not that every and any lifechoice can be the right one Now you lost me. I do think there are some "lifechoices" such as say mass muderer or serial rapist that are in no way shape or form valid. But to say that ony one is? You're not really saying not every and any can the right one you're saying there is one right choice, and all others are wrong. I freely admit I do not understand where you are coming from. If the queer eye guys aren't having sex with you, does it really matter if they have sex with each other?

you say nature or God made it so men and women procreate, well judging by most statements Nature or God mad a certain amout of the population gay. Or as I believe god or nature made everyone bisexual to some degree. (Zero is a degree) As per your evidence that children in a house with to gay parents are more likely to be gay..(even if i were to buy that which i don't) That can probably be attributed to the fact thy are more open to possibiliies of any inherant bisexuality.

But putting slavery and gay marriage next to each other is wrong. Slaves were oppressed and beaten and treated terribly. Slaves were oppressed and beaten and treated terribly. Matthew sheppard.

In other societies, cannibalism was practiced, and fine, and also eating the hearts of your enemy and other stuff we find atrocious. But in the CONTEXT OF THE TIME AND THE SOCIETY it was fine and good.

That still doesn't make it right. You can look at where they're coming from, the reasons for why they believe what they believe, and accept for them it makes perfect sense. It doesn't mean they were right, or they should have believed. It was wrong for people to believe it was okay to enslave blacks. It was wrong for men to treat women like they were second class citizens. It is wrong to believe that the differences between someone else and you makes them less of a human being than you. it is wrong to believe that the love between two men or two women is less than the love between a man and a woman..

Sorry Pad I think I'm getting carried away, so I'll sttop here/

I meant to hit preview insted of post. I do apologise for all the grammatical and spelling errors.

Secession is impossible because, aside from 2 or 3 states near Maine, most states are "red".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

USA Today yesterday or the day before yesterday (hmm, possible movie title there) broke down the votes to a county by county election map and it's surprising and illuminating. When you break down the votes by county instead of state, you see the overwhelming majority of counties voted for Bush--even in "blue" states.

Put another way, many of the "blues" were asking on September 12, 2001:

WHY DO THEY HATE US?

About terrorists or people from other countries yet refuse to seek similar understanding about people from the same country, the "reds".

-- Ken from Chicago

> The Daily Mirror in Merry Olde England. Ah, yes, I remember it well. Now THERE is a bastion of journalistic integrity if I ever saw one. You're sure to get all the facts in that rag -- not! The only things it's known for besides its screaming headlines is its famous "Page 3 Girl" pin-up photos.

"Page 3"'s from Rupert Murdoch's The Sun, actually.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5055695-111675,00.html

Onward Christian soldiers

The hopefuls in the Democrat camp really believed victory in the US election was within their grasp. How did they get it so wrong? They failed to appreciate, says Simon Schama, that their country is now in fact two nations that loathe and fear each other - Godly and Worldly America
Simon Schama
Friday November 5, 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

" 51% who are middle-class who don't worry so much about the DMA, but much more about terrorism"

If they do, why did they vote for the man who dangerously upped the ante by invading a country which didn't have much to do with the problem (as opposed to Bush's friends the Saudis) and managed to piss off many of the U.S.' now former allies, thus making it a hell of a lot more difficult to get help when the time comes. And, make no mistake, the U.S. is NOT all-powerful and it WILL need help in the long run, be it from the foreign intelligence community, or in support of its overstretched military. But Bush's ill-advised actions have pretty much put paid to that on a lot of fronts.
"Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture, and right now, the majority of society says that gay marriage is not right, and shouldn't be."

And society used to say blacks were subhumans who didn't merit any of the rights and priviledges of the rest of us. Does it make it right? News flash: there are an awful lot of ill-informed, or just flat-out ignorant or stupid people out there. Just because Democracy has us putting equivalent weight on their vote as on everyone else's doesn't mean they're going to make the correct choice.
"My friends from Canada, some of whom live here now, all prefer American health care ..."

That's because you only know people who can afford the steep rates in the U.S.. You forget, the U.S. spends MORE per capita than Canada on health care, but still has millions who are not covered. What's wrong with this picture?

"There is evidence that children of gays are more likely to turn out gay themselves, or to experiment more, and if that doesn't demonstrate that upbringing has some effect over sexual orientation, i don't know what would."

Does the word "genetics" exist in your dictionary? If it did, the fact that they are "children of gays" just might be a hint as to how wrong you are as to 'cause-and-effect'.

Mark L posted up there a ways that Bush was the guy who looked more willing to take terrorism "head on."

And darn it, the Starwolf beat me to a response...

But, yeah, if Bush is so willing and able to take terrorism (and I'm guessing that means terrorists, as well) then why did he get our military bogged down in an occupation/rebuilding of a state that, hey, it turns out really DIDN'T have any proven connection to those terrorists we WERE chasing over in Afghanistan. And while Hussein sure was a terror to people in his own country, I don't think he really fit the classic picture of a terrorist.

So, while Bush continues to allow a good portion of our military to be bogged down in Iraq because he won't take the time to re-forge good relations with those allies who could help us, and by the way continue to place our trained, experienced military in harm's way as militant Iraqis continue to resist our efforts to help them help themselves, actual terrorists are more free than ever, because the US war machine that would normally be hunting them down is stuck in Iraq.

So, sure, I can see how voting for Bush on the idea that he's going to make us safer from terrorism makes perfect sense.

Oh, wait, no, actually, I don't.

But I sure do see a GOP, for all their safety and "no terror" stance, legislating morality. Not everyone who aligns with the GOP fits that bill, of course, just as not everyone who voted for Kerry believes in the unfettered right to an abortion. But don't deceive yourself into thinking that supporting the GOP is anything other than supporting a religiously and culturally intolerant group of bigots.

If gay marraige bans become the norm, it's only a matter of time before public hand-holding becomes taboo, and then outlaw. And heavan (literally) help you if you actually KISS in public....

**I've always been a Democrat and just this past election I have noticed how far to the left they have gone. Democrats had certain Liberal views and principles , but now they are the same exact thing and I think that is what's hurting us. **

The Democrats? Liberal?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA..
Oh, wait.
You were serious.

When they turn liberal, let me know.

Travis (who is registered Democrat, but secretly a liberal)

A while back, I attended a meeting of the League of Pissed-Off voters.Being a severely annoyed voter, I was wondering if this was a group for me.

I answered that with a question. "We're talking about how to deal with idiot conservatives. Has anyone thought about how to deal with conservatives who aren't idiots?"

The response I got was that "idiot conservative" was a redundancy.

Pfui on that sort of thinking. I run left of center, but McCain was the only guy I liked heading to 2000. I feel more secure with an intelligent leader I disagree with than with someone who runs based on pleasing the larger crowd.

From The Guardian:
"Faith-driven politics may even have had a hand in delivering Florida to Bush by a surprising margin, since it seems possible that Jewish voters there who voted for "my son the vice-president" Joe Lieberman (not to mention Hadassah, oy what nachas) in 2000, actually switched sides as a result of the president's support for Ariel Sharon."

Wow, thinly veiled anti-semitism from Europe. Knock me over with a feather.

The fact that Jewish support of Bush only went up by 5% or so (depending, of course, on whether or not you can trust ANYTHING the exit polls say) is ignored. Why waste time with facts if it means you can't get in another gratuitous slap at them Jewfolks?

Not everyone who aligns with the GOP fits that bill, of course, just as not everyone who voted for Kerry believes in the unfettered right to an abortion. But don't deceive yourself into thinking that supporting the GOP is anything other than supporting a religiously and culturally intolerant group of bigots.

Not all Democrats are arrogant elitists who want to force political correctness down everyone's throat, nor are they all supportive of abortion-on-demand. However, that's what the national party supports. Almost no one gets a political party that has 100% of their personal views. You pick what's more important and hold your nose at the rest.

The Democrats should adopt the Republican Policies and force their beliefs on others rather than just wishing everyone could live in peace as they wish.

1. Propose a "Sanctity of Marriage" amendment to the constitution. Making Marriage illegal. If you want to marry your first girlfriend at 18 and have 9 kids, good luck with that. You're never getting divorced.

2. "An end to subsidies." End Welfare and Farm Subsidies. The Republicans believe in the "Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality lets hold them too it. No more welfare for the Midwest or south, no more corporate welfare, no more farm subsidies.

3. "Creationism in School." This is a great idea. Teach Evolution, Creationism, Teach from Ymir's flesh, Odin and his brothers made the earth, and from his shattered bones and teeth, they made the rocks and stones. From Ymir's blood, they made the rivers and lakes, and they circled the earth with an ocean of blood. Teach that the Earth consists of flat disc (complete with edge-of-the-world drop-off and consequent waterfall) resting on the backs of four huge elephants (Great T'phon, Tubul, Berilia, and Jerakeen) which are in turn standing on the back of an enormous turtle (Great A'Tuin) as it slowly swims through space.

Teach it all. Because really, how can one be more valid than the other?

4) "Prayer in School" Lets make this issue our own. Every day from 10-10:30 every school has forced prayer. Pray to God, Face east and pray to wards the Mecca. Pray to Odin. Pray to Satan if you wish, just make sure to PRAY PRAY PRAY! Hallelujah!

5. "Make War Not Love!" Support your president and back him on every war. Hell, push him to invade more countries. With no divorce and no welfare the red states kids won't have anywhere to go but to the Middle East. Send your young to die for an unjust war and still vote for the President. Hallelujah!

Democrats need to start finding some Terrorist Ties in Iran. We MUST win the war on Terror by attacking other countries.

"And it's the red states they call ignorant, bigoted and intolerant. Go figure."

You might want to add "Unable to appreciate irony" to the list.

PAD

Somebody wrote:

""Page 3"'s from Rupert Murdoch's The Sun, actually."

The Mirror had Page 3 pin-up girls as well, at least they did in the early 1980s.

From Andrew Sullivan:
Say this about Clinton: he always understood how to triangulate. The president who doubled the number of gay discharges form the military, signed the ban on HIV-positive immigrants, and jumped energetically on the Defense of Marriage Act, told Kerry to back marriage and civil union bans for gays in the campaign. Kerry, to his enormous credit, didn't go there. But then Kerry never presided over the execution of a retarded man for his own political purposes either.

Since most people believe that Kerry, in his heart, is FOR gay marriage, he should have come out and said so. Would have gotten credit for having some guts. (Although once he was on record as being opposed it was too late--he would have looked like a flip-flopper. That reputation was a masterstroke of the Bush campaign, effectively hamstringing him from allowing the polls to drive his convictions, as I suspect is his preference).

PAD,

Re: Unable to appriciate irony

I live in Mass, I'm, as stated before, a supporter of neither party, and yet I've heard at least a dozen people over the last few days make comments on some variation of the succession piece. It is a very popular meme, and it is both intolerant and ignorant.

One stat just to illustrate how stupid the simplistic red/blue state view is.

Kerry voters in ME, VT, NH, MA = 2.56 Million

Kerry voters in TX = 2.82 Million

"I have no problem with colored people. I don't care what they do in their own place, as long as they leave me and my friends alone and understand that they had better stay away from me and mine.

Oh.

Wait.

You were talking about *Gay* people.

Okay. Just change the word 'colored' to 'gay'. Same argument, just a different word.

So many people in this country try to use words to cover up the fact that they are bigots."

Many say the same thing with changing the word 'colored' to 'Christian' or 'religious'.

"Same argument, just a different word."

Sometimes I think people staunchly Dem were listening too long to the people who were demonizing the right in order to get the vote.

There are too many 'conservatives' who will not allow Bush to establish a “Church State” or a “Theocracy”.

Believe it or not Many "Christians" are pacifists and don't believe in war. ( I know of at least 3 significant ( or influencing ) voices on the "religious right" who said to invade Iraq was not the right thing to do.)

Many Christian's believe you should "Hurt not the earth" instead of raping it.

Many DO NOT want our beliefs thrust upon you.

Yes they may let you know why they feel or believe the way they do, but they won't burn at the stake you if you do not.

Thay are not gonna want you arrested for or for not wearing a veil or some other article of clothing.

Get it? They are not like the 'Islamic extremist'. And many are getting tired of being to made feel like they are. (Demonizing again!)

Obviously the Democratic Party is out of touch with some ( if not most ) of the US. Too many of them are in their own little bubble not realizing there are alot of people out there who don't feel the same way the they do, at least on the platforms the Democratic Party is now running on.

"Too many Democrats are not fighting for the seperation of church and State, they are fighting for the seperation of church and society" ~ (quote by someone on CSPAN whose name alludes me)

This 'divide' showing up at the elctions was not the Christians vs. 'the Godless', it was more about character and leadership.

THAT's why many on "the right" went to the polls.

> From The Guardian:
"Faith-driven politics may even have had a hand in delivering Florida to Bush by a surprising margin, since it seems possible that Jewish voters there who voted for "my son the vice-president" Joe Lieberman (not to mention Hadassah, oy what nachas) in 2000, actually switched sides as a result of the president's support for Ariel Sharon."

Bill Mulligan: Wow, thinly veiled anti-semitism from Europe. Knock me over with a feather.

Ummm... you realise that the guy who wrote that piece IS JEWISH don't you?!

>"And it's the red states they call ignorant, bigoted and intolerant. Go figure."

>You might want to add "Unable to appreciate irony" to the list.
>PAD

Thanks, Peter.

You'd think a collection of comicbook fans would recognize satire and irony. But i guess, as Steve Martin observed in ROXANNE about his small town, "Irony? Oh, we don't get that here."

To the uncomprehending amongst you, i was NOT actually calling for secession. i was NOT saying everybody in a "blue state" felt this way, and everybody in a "red state" felt that way.

I was NOT suggesting national health care was good or bad, or that tolerance is the private preserve of liberals (the intolerance suggested by the whole piece should have tipped somebody off).

I'm not even suggesting that religion in the public sphere is necessarily bad per se, as Americans of faith have a long history of fighting FOR civil rights and social justice (not merely opposing them), and AGAINST wars (not merely supporting them).

What i DID do was send out a private e-mail to a few friends about my post-election blues (and then mistakenly allow PAD to post here). I was simply reacting to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Bush supporters said "moral values" was the biggest factor in their vote... as if Kerry is somehow deficient in moral values. But, of course, they weren't really talking about "moral values". They were talking about THEIR values.

What my essay reflects is my own personal sense of alienation from my own country... that I'm apparently a barely tolerated visitor here, despite the accident of my birth in NYC. And that my brand of secular humanism and libertarianism is wholly unwelcome by a vast majority of this nation, despite the fact that those values are the bedrock of our republic as articulated in its founding documents.

In 2000, i could blame the election process. But this time? I can only see it as a fundamental shift in nature of the electorate.

With Bush having to bear the burdens of an unpopular war into which we were led by lies and which is managed with incompetence, with a record loss of jobs, a sluggish economy, dreadful relationships with the rest of the world, out-of-control oil prices, with low "job approval" and "right track/wrong track" polling numbers, with having had the worst attack on American soil in history occur on his watch, and having done everything possible since then to increase terrorist recruitment... well, in any rational world, the incumbent would've been washed out of office in a tidal wave, regardless of the mediocrity of his opponent.

But when people show up at the polls, in light of all of these circumstances, and start talking about "moral values" as the issue of greatest importance... we are no longer dealing with a rational world.

And that makes me afraid.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Believe it or not Many "Christians" are pacifists and don't believe in war.

Yet, how is it that then that this campaign was won by "moral values", up to an including approval of the war in Iraq?

You talk about demonizing, yet all the Bush campaign did was demonize everybody else.

Deh. I'm tired.

I'm heading over to Amazon to pre-order "NF:After the Fall".

Take care All.

If we allow a very small minority, the gay community, to dictate how their deviant behavior is treated, whats to stop other groups from trying the same behavior?

This amounts to a nicer version of "so how long till someone wants to marry their dog?" and the answer is, as always, not till it comes out that somewhere between 1 and 7% of people have been in loving, peaceful, romantic relationships with their dogs since the beginning of time.

Not, mind you, that anyone has explained to me exactly what the harm would be to me if my neighbor started telling people he'd married his dog. If you don't want a dog marraige, don't have one.

Uh, I got the irony. I doubt anyone thought you actually were serious.

When I was teaching at a university in 1992, and Clinton won, I remmeber my students all walking around like they had been shot. They commented that the world was going to end. The country collapse. Many said they would move to Canada (I was never sure why, if they found Clinton too liberal, they thought Canada would be an improvement).

I knew they were simply expressing their alienation and commiserating. But after a bit it got tiresome and seemed silly and overdone.

I remembered all that as I read your message.

I'm sorry you are so down and all, but it got grating.

Here is the situation as I see it.

Bush is not a good president. Bush is not a popular president. Bush is not a smart president.

And the Democratic party, full of bright, morally superior people, pretty much can't figure out how to beat a stupid, unpopular, ineffective president. (Note, there is some real life irony).

Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn't sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn't happen again? I wanted Bush out of office, and I watched Kerry's campaign with great frustration.

The response I got was that "idiot conservative" was a redundancy. Pfui on that sort of thinking. I run left of center, but McCain was the only guy I liked heading to 2000

Amen, Mitch. I registered as an independent in 88 despite my parents' observation that I'd never get to vote in a primary and I haven't regretted it once. I've screamed at both parties on the television but fall on average left of center only because I decided I'd rather pay my government toll financially to be left alone personally rather than the other way around.

I think there's a market for a party for a lot of us who feel like we'd like to keep government out of our affairs (as many pubs claim they want to do right before they squabble over gender preference rights) and make social decisions based on economic utility (like offering civil unions rather than get in protracted legal fights over hospital visitation rights, locking people up forever rather than spending 3x as much to execute them, etc).

And the Democratic party, full of bright, morally superior people, pretty much can't figure out how to beat a stupid, unpopular, ineffective president. (Note, there is some real life irony).

Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn't sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn't happen again? I wanted Bush out of office, and I watched Kerry's campaign with great frustration.

I never figured out why they didn't make competency a more core issue. Would have made a great place to come back from when the "Kerry had the same intelligence about Iraq" statement was going around: the intelligence agencies answer to the President and brief him a lot more often than they do Congress.

In the business world the question to a CEO would be "why are your direct reports not doing the job right?" When Bush said "my generals told me they had enough people" where was the follow-up "then why are people who lack competency working for you at that level?"

Ok, I'll come right out and say it, " I'm old enough to vote and I didn't." And I hang my head in shame. Really. *sigh*

You see, I would have had to renew all my forms of I.D. Nothing is current (I'm not a driver, so don't worry). So basically, I didn't vote cause I was lazy. lol.

And I'll also say that I'm one of the people who wanted Bush to lose.

Yes, I wanted to vote. I was thinking of voting for KERRY. Not because I like him alot, but because he wasn't Bush. I could have vote for an independent, but let's be honest: the only guys that had a chance of winning were Bush and Kerry. And really, I guess Kerry didn't have much of a chance...(and I also should say that I was pretty disappointed in how Kerry gave up so easy. A day after the electon and he gives up. Guess he wouldn't have been that good a President..)

I knew though, like PAD knew, that Bush was going to win. Hoping against Hope I was. I knew Bush was going to win...but...I just hoped...and wished..that I'd be suprised. That people would realize what was going on and vote for the other guy. Even if the other guy wasn't great, at least it would be a change from Bush. Maybe Kerry could have done something..maybe not. Giving Bush four more years, though, is like saying to Bush, " Hey! Your doing great man! Keep doing what your doing! " *sigh*

Anyway, I'm stupid. I should have got out there and voted. Mark my words, I'm going to vote next time (gotta get all those I.Ds up to date!) !!! Four more years of Bush though..*sigh*

You know, imo, what America really needs is a President who is not in a party, who is not a conservative or a liberal. We need a guy who thinks about the people of America first (poor, rich, middle class. everyone considered). And a guy who would focus on getting America's problems fixed first, before we run off to play police men of the world....

Ya..I know. That person doesn't exist.

And if he did, its doubtful anybody would vote for him...

DF2506
*hangs head in shame and walks away*

> SCOTT J: "Uh, I got the irony. I doubt anyone thought you actually were serious."

If you got the irony, then i wasn't talking about you. but you might want to re-read some of the other responses to my note posted above, wherein the political and logistical difficulties of secession were discussed, where running away was deemed cowardly, and my lack of tolerance was discussed seriously.

> SCOTT J: "I knew they were simply expressing their alienation and commiserating. But after a bit it got tiresome and seemed silly and overdone. I remembered all that as I read your message. I'm sorry you are so down and all, but it got grating."

sorry you found it tiresome and grating. I was trying to be funny, to avoid that problem. but i guess i failed, in your estimation.

>SCOTT J: ..."And the Democratic party, full of bright, morally superior people, pretty much can't figure out how to beat a stupid, unpopular, ineffective president. (Note, there is some real life irony). Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn't sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn't happen again? I wanted Bush out of office, and I watched Kerry's campaign with great frustration."

Except for your satirical(?) reference to the Dems as being "morally superior", i couldn't agree more.

> From The Guardian:
"Faith-driven politics may even have had a hand in delivering Florida to Bush by a surprising margin, since it seems possible that Jewish voters there who voted for "my son the vice-president" Joe Lieberman (not to mention Hadassah, oy what nachas) in 2000, actually switched sides as a result of the president's support for Ariel Sharon."
Bill Mulligan: Wow, thinly veiled anti-semitism from Europe. Knock me over with a feather.

Ummm... you realise that the guy who wrote that piece IS JEWISH don't you?!

No but that doesn't surprise me overly much. I'm sure that anti-Israeli Jews are much loved in Europe. At any rate, playing to the tendency among Europeans to believe that some Jewish Cabal pulls the strings of American politicians, getting them to do only what Israel wants simply feeds the hate. I'm sure it helps him keep his job though.

"out-of-control oil prices"

Really? I've read that, adjusted for inflation, oil is still cheap. Which is surprising considering that we are dealing with a finite, limited resource. Sure, I'd love to have 75 cent a gallon gas again, along with 10 cent comics and being able to get change for a dollar after buying a Happy Meal. Then again, back in those days my salary would have been a good deal less as well.

And what, pray tell, is the solution to high oil prices? Drilling in Alaska? Invading Iran? Bombing Israel in return for a guarantee of $20 a barrel for the next 50 years? We could all switch to hybrid cars and keep our thermostat at temperatures that will freeze babies in their cribs but it won't matter--China is becoming industrialized. Millions now riding bikes will soon be driving cars, sucking down oil like nothing we've seen.

$2 for gas? Enjoy it. Savor it. Clone FDR and re-elect him. It won't matter.

Scott J. wrote...
Once the Democratic party period of mourning is over, could the party please figure out why they couldn't sell their message to the majority of voters so something like this doesn't happen again?

That's the key, isn't it? It's going to be difficult for a while after the pain everyone went through with this election, but both sides are going to have to do some soul-searching and reaching out now.

Democrats: Why weren't you able to make your voices clear? How is it that you weren't able to win this election, despite the coveted voter turnout that was supposed to clinch it for you? What can be done in the future to appeal to a wider voter base?

Republicans: Yes, I know, you won this one and can pretty much have your way with the country for the next four years. But isn't it worthwhile to examine just what it is about the administration's policies that make some people so angry? Shouldn't you be looking to extend an olive branch to those you've alienated, just as they should be doing the same to you? After a campaign in which foreign policy played such a pivotal role, is it not worth asking why the majority of foreign countries think that America is headed in the wrong direction?

The effect of the past four years has been to polarize your country to an extreme degree. The two parties have found themselves taking extreme opposite positions, and neither is willing to budge. And even though you never hear about them, I have to believe that the majority of your population is caught in the middle, not wishing to play too close to either extreme.

Things aren't going to improve down there until each side is willing to understand the other.

I've gotta say that I'm fairly conservative, not rich, attend church regularly and still try to be open minded enough to look at an issue from all sides (hard to do that, but I try). I voted for Bush, because he and the Republican party represented more of what I believe than what the Dems were showing. And no, I voted a mixed ticket, not straight, sense the local and state level candidates don't follow some of the hogwash that is on a national level.

The main problem I saw with Kerry, other than my disagreeing with most of his apparent stances on issues (apparent because we all know that the political machine makes some things look different than they are in privacy), was the fact that he never gave air to his "plans."

We heard "I have a plan..." in all of his stump speeches, from Iraq to welfare to space to the budget, but never got any specifics. If he had given some specifics, or at least a plausable outline, it may have done some good. His "plans" were the same as the Repubs turning off Bob Dole's humor for his campain, the lack of them didn't make sense why they weren't there.

Anyway, just remember that you do live in a country that allows forums like this, that allows differing views to be aired and discussed in public. Keep that in mind.

jeff

Considering that we were speaking of Nazi Germany on another thread, I thought you folks might be interested in the words of Herman Goring at the Nuremberg Trials:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a facist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. The is easy. All you havea to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Always remember, kids--there's no present and no future. Just a past being endlessly repeated.

Hmmmmm, all I know, everything that's been said, to even consider wanting to stop being a proud American enjoying our country's unique freedoms 'cause an election didn't go "the right way".......... welp, that means you didn't see yourself as a proud American living in freedoms our ancestors shed rivers of blood for and the country would be better off without you. Funny thing though, I loved seeing a report saying that countries were not going to just take Americans carte blanche, they had to have a *reason* for immigration. Too damned funny. If my side could suffer 8 humilating years with that assclown Clinton and the Chinese Ho Algore, then you can stand 4 more of GWB, suck it up you whiney li'l bitches. Apologies for the language but man, I would been pissed if Kerry had won but I sure wouldn't be running away like a toddler with a full Pamper, I would be starting the champaign for 2008 and sure as hell not fielding one of the most loathed women in America as the "great white hope". Welp, guess that's enough for now, now, can we get back to comics? Oh yeah, I bought more Excaliber books and Madrox #2 last week, haven't read them yet. Cuss me, curse me, call me a basteche, but I will never give up PAD's works. Thank you and be well...

If my side could suffer 8 humilating years with that assclown Clinton and the Chinese Ho Algore, then you can stand 4 more of GWB,

You know, that latter comment was pretty damn insulting. Can you guess why?

Talk about humiliating....

Democrats: Why weren't you able to make your voices clear?

Maybe the problem is that they were clear, but that we live in a moderate-to-conservative nation that didn't like what it heard?

I don't think Carl really gets it. People are talking about leaving the country because of people like him. The dreaded feeling of these potential expatriates is that all of the Bush voters are like Carl and if that is so, then this country is not worth fighting for any longer.

David Bjorlin wrote...
Maybe the problem is that they were clear, but that we live in a moderate-to-conservative nation that didn't like what it heard?

Of course that's a possibility. But I'm thinking about basic factual errors, such as the polls showing upwards of 70% of Americans believing that Iraq was involved in Sept. 11. And if the majority of the population really didn't like what it heard, then the Democrats need to figure out what needs to be done to re-brand themselves without betraying what they stand for. I fine line for any group to walk, but it has to be done.

> > > Bill Mulligan: Wow, thinly veiled anti-semitism from Europe. Knock me over with a feather.

> > Ummm... you realise that the guy who wrote that piece IS JEWISH don't you?!

> No but that doesn't surprise me overly much. I'm sure that anti-Israeli Jews are much loved in Europe.

So basically, the whole of Europe is anti-semitic, and all jews have to play along. Okay...

> At any rate, playing to the tendency among Europeans to believe that some Jewish Cabal pulls the strings of American politicians, getting them to do only what Israel wants simply feeds the hate. I'm sure it helps him keep his job though.

It's an op/ed piece. His "day job" is a historian, and he does regular series for the BBC in that role.

" If my side could suffer 8 humilating years with that assclown Clinton and the Chinese Ho Algore, then you can stand 4 more of GWB,"

Over three thousand people didn't make it through the first year of GWB...a year in which he ignored warnings about bin Laden and refused to start up a Department of Homeland Security simply because it was put forward by reps of "that assclown Clinton. Of course, once it was too late and over three thousand people died, then he flip flopped, embraced the idea, and took credit for it.

Over eleven hundred people didn't make it through the last two years of Bush, and there will be more deaths and more deaths, including a massacre coming up in Fallujah.

Plus there will likely be another major terrorist attack in the U.S. And why not? Iraq, after all, has served as a virtual recruiting drive for terrorists.

"Stand four more years?" I'm not entirely sure we'll even survive it.

PAD

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked

I guess I just imagined the Cole attack, embassy bombings and the Twin Towers falling.

Peter David wrote...
Iraq, after all, has served as a virtual recruiting drive for terrorists.

The administration does deserve credit for its wildy successful terrorist creation program. The sheer number of countries that have turned against you guys over the last few years boggles the mind.

Mark L wrote...
I guess I just imagined the Cole attack, embassy bombings and the Twin Towers falling.

It can't be denied that the U.S. has been attacked. It's probably true, though, that the actions taken by the Bush government have been gross overreactions to those attacks, paving the way for blatant disregard for that "freedom" Americans seem to value so highly, and probably making your country a more dangerous place to live, rather than safer.

If you got the irony, then i wasn't talking about you. but you might want to re-read some of the other responses to my note posted above, wherein the political and logistical difficulties of secession were discussed, where running away was deemed cowardly, and my lack of tolerance was discussed seriously.

The irony is noted, but I stand by my accusation. We don't know you, so we had no way to guage your use of hyperbole. As Lou posted earlier, in the last few days I've heard several people talk about leaving the country, and they were only half kidding. If you were more than half kidding, then perhaps you weren't the best one for me to vent about, but it does sound as though you were engaging in quite similar daydreams; I say this because you end your essay, "But when I wake up, I'll still be here. Shit."

And yes, I do perceive that entire line of thought, whether jest, daydream, or serious travel plans, as chickenshit. You lost an election. So damned what? You ran an experienced Senator, a war hero no less, who was intelligent and articulate about a heartfelt ideology, and he lost to a populist demogogue's reelection bid in a campaign where your Senator could only complain "Where's the outrage?" Welcome to my world, circa 1996. Get over it. I did. Don't just take my word for it, take Molly Ivins's: "So, fellow progressives, stop thinking about suicide or moving abroad. Want to feel better? Eat a sour grape, then figure out what you can do to help rescue the country - join something, send a little money to some group, call somewhere and offer to volunteer, find a politician you like at the local level and start helping him or her to move up. Don't mourn, organize."

I have now quoted Molly Ivins and John Edwards in the same thread. If TWL is still reading this blog he will plotz.

And with regard to a perceived lack of tolerance, anyone who wrote the following screed SHOULD be called on it. (Although I don't think anyone really believed you really think this is a nation of incestuous bestialists.)

belligerent, imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip
the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first
cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death;

And what the hell is a crypto-Fascist anyway? A fascist who likes to communicate through codes? (I know, the crypto- prefix should mean "covert" or "secret" but I don't think anyone could accuse the Republican party of keeping its agenda hidden.)

"So basically, the whole of Europe is anti-semitic, and all jews have to play along. Okay..."

Starw man argument, as I said no such thing.

It's hard to deny, however, that blatant anti-semites are tolerated in Europe to a degree unimaginable here. In the USA it is not considered a viable political position (except among a small number of inner city race baiters). Europe has political parties that actually get people elected on the agenda.

A condemnation of Europeans as a whole? No, but I'd rather be a Jew here than there.

"Society dictates what is right and wrong in our culture"

Nope, that's why we have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. We elect leaders who lead through wisdom. We choose the wisest and they make moral decisions, at least that's the way its supposed to work.

It doesn't matter whether the majority wants slavery or Jim Crow. They're wrong whether 99% of the population or 50% of the population wants it.

"eventually it'll be fine to sleep with little boys, animals"

You don't understand the simplest, and most intrinsic value in american culture.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."

All men, all human beings. We are constituted such that we have rights, by the nature of our being. Animals have no rights, none at all. Animals can never get married, can never vote, and can never exercise any rights afforded to humans, period.

So animals can never marry, nor can humans marry animals. You only have the right to such things insofar as it applies to other creatures with the same rights. Period.

As far as children go, again, you don't understand a single thing about the culture you live in. We have, already built into our intellectual framework, the notion of age of reason/age of consent. All of us have the right to vote, but not until we come into the age of reason. All of us have the right to marry, but not until we come to the age of consent. Its simple a part of our conceptual framework. Children cannot marry because they have not yet reached the age of consent. Period.

So these arguments are just so much reactionary hysteria, which have nothing at all to do with the actual philosophical underpinnings of our society.

Period.

Peter said "Over three thousand people didn't make it through the first year of GWB...a year in which he ignored warnings about bin Laden and refused to start up a Department of Homeland Security simply because it was put forward by reps of "that assclown Clinton. Of course, once it was too late and over three thousand people died, then he flip flopped, embraced the idea, and took credit for it."

So now you blame Bush for the attack on 9/11. Give me a freaking break. It wasn't his fault we were attacked then.

Start singing a new tune why don't ya? Btw, I seriously doubt this will be your last politcal blog entry in a while. You can't help but attack George any chance you get.

Good grief.

PAD,

Blaming Bush for 9/11 as you did with your comment about 3,000 dead is unfathomable to me. Are you not aware that Sandy Berger four times vetoed proposals to go after Bin Laden? Read the 9/11 report. One has to be extremely partisan to think that Bush is to blame for not achieving in 8 months what Clinton blew off (no pun intended, but apropos nonetheless) for 8 years. Come on. There are a lot of things that Bush has messed up and can be deservedly blamed for, but 9/11 is Clinton's stigma.

Dennis

but 9/11 is Clinton's stigma.

I'm not a Clinton fan, but let's hold OBL accountable for 9/11. We spent many, many years ignoring the build-up of Islamic extremism. If we want to lay blame on politicians, then let's look at the many generations of politicians too afraid to rock the boat.

What's good (and potentially bad) about Bush is that he's not willing to accept the status quo anymore.

However, OBL is who needs to be taken to task, not Clinton.

Regarding Mark's comment about holding OBL responsible, yes he is quite correct. I overreacted to PAD putting 3,000 deaths as Bush's responsibility. That is nonsense. No American president is responsible for this atrocity - despite the blame being laid on Bush. You can't blame the victim, namely our country. However, if there is blame for not being prepared - that is at the feet of Clinton rather than Bush.

How did we get into this discussion anyway?

Regards,

Dennis

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this so far--hard to keep up with the multiple threads going on here--but Elizabeth Edwards was just diagnosed with breast cancer. To have this on top of the natural depression that comes with a failed campaign seems just too cruel. I would hope that everyone, regardless of political affiliation, would wish her a speedy recovery.

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked"

"I guess I just imagined the Cole attack, embassy bombings and the Twin Towers falling."

Is it my imagination, or is the quality of conservative responses here just spiralling into the toilet?

The Goring quote is relevant to Iraq. Bush and Company mentioned Saddam, threats, and 9/11 so often and so frequently together that they managed to falsely convince 71% of Americans that Saddam was behind, or connected to, 9/11. He wasn't. Doesn't matter. Americans became convinced that America was attacked by Saddam, and thus gave him his war. When historians look for examples of "the Big Lie," they will have Bush's picture right up there with other spewers of big lies.

PAD

"There are a lot of things that Bush has messed up and can be deservedly blamed for, but 9/11 is Clinton's stigma."

Now that you and Novafan are busy attacking what I didn't say, howzabout you take a whack at what I did say.

I didn't say 9/11 is Bush's fault. It's the fault of bin Laden (you know, the guy Bush said he would catch dead or alive except now he doesn't think about him all that much.) But everything I said was true. Three thousand people did die in the first nine months of Bush's watch. He did ignore calls for a Department of Homeland Security. And he did ignore voiced concerns about bin Laden. Do I know he could have stopped it? No. But three thousand people died and Bush didn't do shit TO stop it. Now you can mischaracterize it all you want, but it's all true.

And while we're at it, when speaking of songs getting tired: I absolutely cannot wait to see how Conservatives are going to spin the upcoming horror show on Clinton. GOP Congress, Senate, President, Supreme Court vacancies to be filled by GOP...and yet, somehow, everything that's going to go wrong will mysteriously be Clinton's fault. Just watch.

PAD

Peter said "The Goring quote is relevant to Iraq. Bush and Company mentioned Saddam, threats, and 9/11 so often and so frequently together that they managed to falsely convince 71% of Americans that Saddam was behind, or connected to, 9/11. He wasn't. Doesn't matter. Americans became convinced that America was attacked by Saddam, and thus gave him his war. When historians look for examples of "the Big Lie," they will have Bush's picture right up there with other spewers of big lies."

Yes, us stupid, ignorant Right wing Conservative nuts are convinced that Saddam and 9/11 are connected. You sure got the nail on the head that time Peter. You better be careful about saying who people will remember as spewing lies. Your comment there is a lie since you have no way of proving it. Back your statement up with facts. You can't do it can you? I didn't think so.

"With Bush having to bear the burdens of an unpopular war into which we were led by lies and which is managed with incompetence, with a record loss of jobs, a sluggish economy, dreadful relationships with the rest of the world, out-of-control oil prices, with low "job approval" and "right track/wrong track" polling numbers, with having had the worst attack on American soil in history occur on his watch, and having done everything possible since then to increase terrorist recruitment... well, in any rational world, the incumbent would've been washed out of office in a tidal wave, regardless of the mediocrity of his opponent."

The REAL irony I suspect is that, should things pan out as many here expect, the voters who supported the President in the "red states" will suddenly become a very rare commodity indeed. You might have a hard time finding one. It's like here in Manitoba this year we re-elected the New Democrats, a socialist party. No one likes their high-tax, high-spend and don't worry about paying for it today philosophy, but you go find ONE person who will admit they voted for the NDP. But somehow the NDP won.

More fun to come.....

Peter,you've said everything is Bush's fault. I bet if it rained tomorrow to ruin your picnic, you'd blame Bush for not having the Weather channel predictions be more accurate. This is an overgeneralization, but it rings true doesn't it?

Why don't you stop trying to find faults with people, especially our Commander in Chief, and start being more optimistic. My guess on your response to this, "I don't have to find faults with Bush, he does that all on his own". Good grief.

"start singing a new tune why don't ya? Btw, I seriously doubt this will be your last politcal blog entry in a while. You can't help but attack George any chance you get."

Well, first of all, thanks for calling me a liar, to which I can only reply, Go to hell.

Second, "any chance" I get? This is my blog, I talk about what I'm thinking about, and the chances I have to attack Bush are when I'm sitting at a keyboard. That I write about politics such a staggeringly small percentage of the time underscores the falsity of your snot-faced response. Furthermore, no one is forcing you to read it, no one is forcing you to post, and nothing save your own intolerant need to get in my face about it prompts you to post.

Third...go see first.

PAD

Peter, you can call our Commander in Chief a liar, but I point out what you said is lieing, and then you tell me to go to hell. What a hypocrit. What part of your post I pointed out was factual? Prove it to me.

"Yes, us stupid, ignorant Right wing Conservative nuts are convinced that Saddam and 9/11 are connected. You sure got the nail on the head that time Peter. You better be careful about saying who people will remember as spewing lies. Your comment there is a lie since you have no way of proving it. Back your statement up with facts. You can't do it can you? I didn't think so."

This is the second time you've called me a liar. Read the following and write an apology for both insults, with your real name attached, if you're man enough to. Otherwise you're shrouded. I will ignore all further posts from you, and will suggest that others do likewise.

"Polls Find Americans Believe Hussein Linked to 9/11, Support War in Iraq
By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
September 8, 2003

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Most Americans believe Saddam Hussein, the ousted president of Iraq, was connected to the attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, according to a new poll released on Saturday.

The Washington Post found that 69 percent of all Americans believe that Hussein worked with al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden to carry out terrorist plans nearly two years ago. In fact, the poll found that even a majority Democrats and independents believe Hussein was a key player.

Poll analysts conclude that this belief by a large majority of Americans is why the Bush administration has been able to withstand criticism coming from the Democrats regarding the progress in the rebuilding efforts in Iraq."

And again, from USA today:

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country.

The president frequently has called the Iraq war an important centerpiece in the United States' war on terror. But some members of the administration have said recently they don't believe there is a direct link.

The Post poll of 1,003 adults was taken Aug. 7-11 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Or...hey! How about this, of more recent vintage:

IPA POLL: Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Lies
by Paul Rosenberg

It's not just Bush who's living in a bubble, according to a report released Thursday. A majority of those who support him are fundamentally misinformed about key justifications for going to war against Iraq, and other important factors in his foreign policy. A new report from PIPA (the Project on Policy Alternatives) titled, Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program,Supported al Qaeda, has the following lead findings:

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

The report is based on polls conducted in September and October.

PAD,

I think this thread is getting heated but you said:
"No. But three thousand people died and Bush didn't do shit TO stop it. Now you can mischaracterize it all you want, but it's all true."

My point, which I thought was awfully clear, was that Clinton had 8 years to do something - and had repeated terrorist attacks to prod him - and he didn't do anything. Bush had 8 months. Your heated rejoinders completely ignored what I said. Hey, Bush is a dud, but let's accurately remember history. To use your phraseology, Clinton didn't do SHIT over 8 years. Simple fact.

Sheesh

Dennis

Posted by: Novafan at November 5, 2004 09:20 PM

'Peter said "Over three thousand people didn't make it through the first year of GWB...a year in which he ignored warnings about bin Laden and refused to start up a Department of Homeland Security simply because it was put forward by reps of "that assclown Clinton. Of course, once it was too late and over three thousand people died, then he flip flopped, embraced the idea, and took credit for it."

"So now you blame Bush for the attack on 9/11. Give me a frea