2004 Election Rant

[dknv]

Ok, nobody else dared, so here I go.

It's almost over, YAY!!! Whoever gets elected - GET TO WORK!!!!!

I voted on an absentee ballot, so I did not have to worry about getting to my polling place early or after work today. I heard the wait at Galena was 3 hours! :shock: In this day & age, and where the major parties have 'lawyers waiting on-hand' to challenge issues with voting, it is absolutely ludicrous to have a breakdown of equipment slow down the process this much.

I am sick of political ads, on tv & in my mailbox. They better be done today. I should have marked every single mail item, 'Refused', and put it back in the mail system. But I didn't -- I was afraid I might be put on some 'subversives list'.

Ohio Ohio Ohio, give me a flippin break! What's their problem that they could not get their votes counted by the same time as their neighbors??? The only ones we should be waiting for at this point are Alaska & Hawaii. We can send a robot out to deep space, or the deep ocean, and we can transplant a brain - ok maybe not -- but we can't measure a simple yes/no question?!

And here's my final question on this: for those wrx/sti drivers who have Kerry/Edwards, or Bush/Cheney stickers on your bumper, you're not going to leave those on there after the election, right?!

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by dknv

And here's my final question on this: for those wrx/sti drivers who have Kerry/Edwards, or Bush/Cheney stickers on your bumper, you're not going to leave those on there after the election, right?!

My guess is the ones with the winning team on the bumper will.

[ScottyS]

Originally Posted by dknv

Ohio Ohio Ohio, give me a flippin break! What's their problem that they could not get their votes counted by the same time as their neighbors??? The only ones we should be waiting for at this point are Alaska & Hawaii. We can send a robot out to deep space, or the deep ocean, and we can transplant a brain - ok maybe not -- but we can't measure a simple yes/no question?!

Relax...it's fallen to the level of entertainment, which explains the marketing pressure and manipulation.

I've been getting 3-6 calls per day for half a week from Democrat answering machines "reminding me to vote", even though I'm registered NP. That alone will drive you crazy. Utter garbage.

[Nick Koan]

Great. Now it looks like it could drag out for 2 weeks or so again.

[MikeK]

According to NPR this morning, kerry conceded the election

[ArthurS]

Kerry conceded, Bush is re-elected.

[MikeSTI]

BUSH for teh WIN!!!!!

now get to work

on the Ohio thing I was thinking that with all the layers in place they could have finished with a hand count and not say we will start again tomarrow :?

I'm sure all the media people wanted an anwser last night and would have done anything to get the votes in!!! but we all waited

[sperry]

Originally Posted by ArthurS

Kerry conceded, Bush is re-elected.

repent?

This election clued me into somthing that I should have noticed last election. We are a country divided, and we're divided along some very old lines. If you look at the red v. blue map of the election, you can almost see the Mason Dixon line... yes, this country is *still* fighting the Civil War, 150 years later.

I guess it was something I've always known unconsciencly. Southerners still feel like "them city folk" look down on them and consider them second class citizens. And to be honest, I think most Northerners (and to a lesser extent West Coasters) do think of Middle America and the South to be inferior.

The problem this creates, is that the South ended up voting for Bush simply because Kerry is a Northerner. Nevermind both candidates went to the same Ivy League school, nevermind their qualifications and experience (or lack thereof)... Southerners feel like they identify with Bush's constant ridicule by the "big city" media, and vote for him because of it. Frankly, it's a rediculous reason to pick a President... it's like picking your doctor because you like his car. I've even heard people say they like Bush because he seems like "one of the guys you'd meet at the local bar and have a beer with". How quaint... however, I'm pretty sure I don't want any of the people I've met at a bar to be running the free world... I'd like someone a bit more qualified.

Many Bush supporters in the South cite "moral convictions" and "religious beliefs" as their reasons for picking Bush, but IMO anyone that uses those reasons is either fooling themselves or plain stupid. Bush has a record of being a drunk party animal... not exactly made of some ideal moral fiber. Plus I can only imagine the things he must have to tell his priest at confession every Sunday considering all the semi-truths we get out of the Whitehouse regarding Iraq and the war on terror. Most people that voted for Bush on moral and religious grounds are either following the directions of the fundamentalists/evangelicals to simply "vote Repulican" or are simply using morals and religion as an excuse to justify not voting for a Northerner.

Now, I'm not saying that Kerry would have been able to fix all our problems, I just personally have no confidence in Bush's ability to run this country. The last four years have seen our country's economic and forign relation fronts collapse. We took a huge budget surplus and the unparralleled world unity that followed 9/11 and squandered it into the largest deficit on record, and probably the most hostile international environment ever.

Bush or Kerry aside, what *really* worries me is how split this country is. During the Civil War, President Lincoln recognized that a split Union would never amount to what a united Union could. It was the vast agricultural base that was the platform for which our industrial/technological grew on. Without unification, the US would have probably been something akin to England or France with regards to world power, while the Confederacy would have been something like Canada is to England. The greatness of the US, and our "Super Power" status would have never been realized. Without the North, the South would just be farms, and without the South the North would have just been a Trade state unable to be self-sufficient.

But the combination of our corruption-riddled two-party system and our divided population has resulted in garbage candidates and in-fighting. It honestly fear we're riding a knife edge right now. If the Republican majorities in the Whitehouse and Congress don't make great strides over the next 4 years... hell, over the next 4 months... we may slip down the slope towards another Civil War. We're as divided as we've ever been right now. George Bush ran in 2000 under the pretense of being a "great unifier"... it's been four years and nothing's been unified (just look at the 2000 red v. blue map next to this years), he needs to get to work on healing the division in our nation. The War on Terror, the War in Iraq, they're all just smokescreens... the real war is here at home.

And for the record, I'm not posting this to incite or continue the Bush v. Kerry debate. The election is over... true I'm a little bitter, but only because the election results tells a tale of our nation that's scary to listen to. The fact that people are willing to overlook the facts of the current administration and say "yes, let's do it for 4 more years" based on emotional reasons rather than rational ones speaks of a fundamental division in our nation.

</rant>

[dknv]

Interestingly, Kerry had that message to Bush on his consession phone call --

'Kerry told Bush the country was too divided, the source said, and Bush agreed. "We really have to do something about it," Kerry said, according to the official.'

Another thing that bothers me, is knowing that some of the people who haven't bothered to try to understand, or don't care, or it is simply above their ability to understand - and just voted the party line - used that same consciousness when voting on other issues like proposed changes to the law.

[MikeSTI]

Scott - you way off on your rant. Its not North vs. South, it comes down to morals. Kerry wants partial birth abortion. Kerry wants to tax small business to death. Kerry wants to cut defence. Kerry wants gay marriage. Kerry wants to remove God from this country. Kerry is the biggest pupet I have ever seen run for president with views that change for everything, but a party he will obey. I voted for a persident not a party.

Democrates are going to need to understand that the rest of the world already views us as a Chistian country and the more we fall from the Christian values the worse we look to the rest of the world.

http://www.themessengersofhope.com/m.../view?id=93492

http://www.themessengersofhope.com/m...93539&id=93539


I voted for Clinton in both elections and do not vote the party but the person. If you watch these clips and keep an open mind you might see why people voted the way they did. these things can not be coved up in small towns but in the big cities the media contols the weak minded.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

Scott - you way off on your rant. Its not North vs. South, it comes down to morals. Kerry wants partial birth abortion. Kerry wants to tax small business to death. Kerry wants to cut defence. Kerry wants gay marriage. Kerry wants to remove God from this country. Kerry is the biggest pupet I have ever seen run for president with views that change for everything, but a party he will obey. I voted for a persident not a party.

Democrates are going to need to understand that the rest of the world already views us as a Chistian country and the more we fall from the Christian values the worse we look to the rest of the world.

http://www.themessengersofhope.com/m.../view?id=93492

http://www.themessengersofhope.com/m...93539&id=93539


I voted for Clinton in both elections and do not vote the party but the person. If you watch these clips and keep an open mind you might see why people voted the way they did. these things can not be coved up in small towns but in the big cities the media contols the weak minded.

Ugh... this is exactly the argument I didn't want to get into. I certainly don't was to rehash the whole point by point Bush vs. Kerry crap, bottom line, they're both party driven idiots. My point was that there are two very different factions in the US, and that these factions can be geographically grouped along the same old North vs South lines from the Civil War.

You're right about the Christian thing though. The world does view us as a Christian country. The problem is that we are not a Christian country. The US was *founded* on religious freedom... that means we each have the right to believe what we want to believe. We have the right (and responsibility) to make moral decisions for ourselves. If you turn moral and/or religious issues into law, you violate one of the fundamental principles our country was founded on.

Moral and religious convictions are fine and dandy... and if you subscribe to a particular set of moral and religious convictions, feel free to live your life by those convictions. But don't try to push them on others. As soon as you attempt to make your belief set law, you undo the very fabric of the US Constitution. When religion invades politics you end up with Fundamentalist governments... that's what the Taliban was for example. People need to be free to make their own moral decisions... the consequences of their choices are between them and their maker.

What scares me is that much of our nation believes that their religious beliefs superceed those of the rest of the nation. That's exactly the type of thinking that ends in revolution.

[sti deede]

<relaxing interuption>It's snowing. Yay! Take a breather and go outside to eat snowflakes. </relaxing interuption>

Then you can continue on your rant.

[MikeSTI]

Originally Posted by sperry

What scares me is that much of our nation believes that their religious beliefs superceed those of the rest of the nation. That's exactly the type of thinking that ends in revolution.

haha Dems cant finance a revolution without taxing the Reps you lose, not to mention 80% of this country would claim to be Christian :wink:

btw - all faith in this country no matter witch faith it is, is still in God or Jesus! Love all is our first commandment. Why wouldnt that be good for all to have? People without faith = reckless and they need our love that much more. If I can plant the seed God will water it! If I turn my head and ignore those people then I let God down and the devil in. Morals are what we should vote for or we will fall flat on our faces.

Why would you support gay marriage? to please 2% of the popullation? that is like spitting on all the good that marriage is in a Godly union, for Marriage is in the Bible as a man and a woman as one in God.

It seems most people on this forum are Dems and Indy's and I respect that. but one day you might realize you have to vote for yourself and not a party, unless your part of a union or a state worker then you have to vote for the Dems

I know I'm keeping this responce short and probly not helping anyone with my words but it is real hard for me to say this in an open forum because I'm not the best at putting my words down in print but am better at talking on the issues.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

haha Dems cant finance a revolution without taxing the Reps you lose, not to mention 80% of this country would claim to be Christian :wink:

btw - all faith in this country no matter witch faith it is, is still in God or Jesus! Love all is our first commandment. Why wouldnt that be good for all to have? People without faith = reckless and they need our love that much more. If I can plant the seed God will water it! If I turn my head and ignore those people then I let God down and the devil in. Morals are what we should vote for or we will fall flat on our faces.

Why would you support gay marriage? to please 2% of the popullation? that is like spitting on all the good that marriage is in a Godly union, for Marriage is in the Bible as a man and a woman as one in God.

It seems most people on this forum are Dems and Indy's and I respect that. but one day you might realize you have to vote for yourself and not a party, unless your part of a union or a state worker then you have to vote for the Dems

I know I'm keeping this responce short and probly not helping anyone with my words but it is real hard for me to say this in an open forum because I'm not the best at putting my words down in print but am better at talking on the issues.

Actually, I'm a Republican and a Catholic. Does that mean I believe in the Republican line, or everything in the Bible? Obviously not. when it comes to politics and religion, I think everyone should make up their own minds. It's very irritating to me to be told what to believe.

I support Gay marriage for one simple reason, I don't consider myself high enough to decide how other people should live their lives. Are you? What gives you the right to decide another person's happiness? If God truely hates they Gays, isn't that between them and God? What right do you or I have to step inbetween? (BTW: 10% of the US population is gay, and possibly far more would come out if religion didn't persecute them so much. In fact, statistically speaking there's probably at least 1 person in SECCS that's gay.)

I agree with you that if people in general were closer to faith, or morally strict we'd live in a better country with fewer problems. The problem is that there is no one faith that fits all people. You say everyone in America believes in God and/or Jesus. That's far from the truth. There are *many* other religions, are they all wrong? There are many people that believe in reason and science over faith (not to say they can't co-exist), do these people's beliefs have no weight because they don't match yours? Should these other perspectives be outlawed?

The fundamental building block of our nation is that no one group of people gets to decide for another. We all have a voice. I'm just concerned that the majority of our country has decided that they're morally superior because they're in the majority. That's very dangerous territory.

[MikeSTI]

here we go again. Scott with his famous last word to make someone feel like an ass by adding question and making me defend myself

Originally Posted by sperry

I support Gay marriage for one simple reason, I don't consider myself high enough to decide how other people should live their lives. Are you? What gives you the right to decide another person's happiness? If God truely hates they Gays, isn't that between them and God? What right do you or I have to step inbetween?

I'm not high enough to decide how others sould live their life, however I would like to protect the way of life we live and the way we repreasent America. Yor right it is between gay's and God, but does that mean we should make it marriage by term a holy blessing legal? Its still "America in God we Trust".

Scott your an ass if you support gay marriage in the American Constatution and I'm sorry if that afends people. Now gay unions that get the beifits of there respective party that doenst get a Merriage blessing such as state marriage; ok.

Now think about this if its ok for gays to marry legally what would be next? Maybe Utah would say it ok to marry mutible spouse's? I don't think you understand the hole moral story that lays with what the issue is? you think it ok to be gay fine so do I, but how its done will make things easier for others to then have mutible spouses? is that what you want for America?

Originally Posted by sperry

You say everyone in America believes in God and/or Jesus. That's far from the truth. There are *many* other religions, are they all wrong? There are many people that believe in reason and science over faith (not to say they can't co-exist), do these people's beliefs have no weight because they don't match yours? Should these other perspectives be outlawed?

lol *many* but lets not count cults I dont know what *many* religons you have in mind but ok, the main religions in this country all read from the bible and we will continue to pray for the *many* others

I'm not trying to say we need to outlaw others beliefs but as America we need to protect "In God we Trust" or it we be "In Hell well Burn". Don't you agree? Have you really read the bible for yourself or did you just attend the Catholic mass? How do you really think God feels about the direction of America's people with the moral bible issues? think our loving father will punish us if we stray to far?

Originally Posted by sperry

The fundamental building block of our nation is that no one group of people gets to decide for another. We all have a voice. I'm just concerned that the majority of our country has decided that they're morally superior because they're in the majority. That's very dangerous territory.

The fundamental building block of our nation has been getting eaten away at even sence it was writen and every time we change the Constitution youve eaten more too what end? Do you realy think your making a better America by note respecting "In God we Trust". We all have a voice and its scary that someone like you and your voice would incite a stament like this "I'm just concerned that the majority of our country has decided that they're morally superior because they're in the majority. That's very dangerous territory", what a great out look you have to incite hestriara, have some faith

man I hate typing this much

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

the rest of the world already views us as a Chistian country

Very true

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

and the more we fall from the Christian values the worse we look to the rest of the world.

Very false.

The rest of the world thinks that the right wing religious factions of this county have far too much influence over the government. The popular view of america lists religious freedom as one of the main selling points, but the dominance of christianity, and the inability to separate state and religion in american politics say the exact opposite.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

btw - all faith in this country no matter witch faith it is, is still in God or Jesus!

At the risk of starting a flame war, this statement is just plain wrong. Hinduism, buddhism, animism, paganism, whatever native americans believe ... etc etc, none of these religions believe in jesus or the christian god.

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

People without faith = reckless

Do you consider me reckless?

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

If I can plant the seed God will water it! If I turn my head and ignore those people then I let God down and the devil in.

Funny, I thought freedom of religion meant each person is free to choose their own religion.

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

Morals are what we should vote for or we will fall flat on our faces.

Each religion has a set of morals, but that doesn't make morals a religous concept.

We don't need religion, we have Darwin

[ScottyS]

I'm not gonna start an arguement, or a Master's thesis, just throw out something to consider:


In spite of what today's educators would claim, this country was set up based on principles derived from Christianity. Viewpoints espoused by the founding fathers outlined that the inherent error in humanity is not to be trusted (thus, a republic was formed, not a democracy). The encouragement of relativism or moral anarchy could be considered a dangerous strategic error if nothing else. This country did not come to be great by such vehicles, and the effects of this kind of thinking are very visible now. No, the population doesn't know best.


I know, I know, don't speak about POLITICS, RELIGION, or HER. That's why I'm not going any further. :wink:

[MikeSTI]

Originally Posted by MikeK

The rest of the world thinks that the right wing religious factions of this county have far too much influence over the government. The popular view of america lists religious freedom as one of the main selling points, but the dominance of christianity, and the inability to separate state and religion in american politics say the exact opposite.

separation to the degree of imorallity? I dont think a country that is founded on christian values should have to sway away from those values to appeal to others.

Even to think that most non-believers still ask for forgiveness before they die.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

here we go again. Scott with his famous last word to make someone feel like an ass by adding question and making me defend myself

It's not my intention to make you or anyone else feel like an ass. I'm stating my opinion, and attempting to respect yours even if I disagree. Nowhere have I personally attacked you, and if I disagree with your beliefs, I attempt to explain why I disagree, while understanding there's a very good posibility that we may never agree. In either way, I'm not judging you based on this stuff... I consider you a friend, and respect you regardless of our political and religious differences. I don't really think that I'll change your mind, but I do think that dialog about these kinds of differences can be beneficial to both parties, as long as there is mutual respect.

I'm not high enough to decide how others sould live their life, however I would like to protect the way of life we live and the way we repreasent America. Yor right it is between gay's and God, but does that mean we should make it marriage by term a holy blessing legal? Its still "America in God we Trust".

Scott your an ass if you support gay marriage in the American Constatution and I'm sorry if that afends people. Now gay unions that get the beifits of there respective party that doenst get a Merriage blessing such as state marriage; ok.

Now think about this if its ok for gays to marry legally what would be next? Maybe Utah would say it ok to marry mutible spouse's? I don't think you understand the hole moral story that lays with what the issue is? you think it ok to be gay fine so do I, but how its done will make things easier for others to then have mutible spouses? is that what you want for America?

I understand the wish to protect what is important to you. However, I can't think of one single tangible consequence to gay marriage. First, the only thing I'm talking about is the recognition of marriage by the state, and only the state. Laws should have nothing to do with religion. The Church can go ahead and say marriage can only be between a man and a woman. But in the eyes of the state, it's plain old discrimination to say only men and women can wed. You might as well say "marriage can only be between white people", it's the same thing. And as far as the Constitution is concerned, gay marriage is already legal, since there's nothing about it in the Constitution, and that's how I think it should remain. Years from now when we as a nation (hopefully) stop looking down on gay people, all these anti-gay marriage laws are going to be a dark smear on many state constitutions.

lol *many* but lets not count cults I dont know what *many* religons you have in mind but ok, the main religions in this country all read from the bible and we will continue to pray for the *many* others

I'm not trying to say we need to outlaw others beliefs but as America we need to protect "In God we Trust" or it we be "In Hell well Burn". Don't you agree? Have you really read the bible for yourself or did you just attend the Catholic mass? How do you really think God feels about the direction of America's people with the moral bible issues? think our loving father will punish us if we stray to far?

Why shouldn't we count cults? As far as the state's concerned all religions are allowed. Besides, it was about 2000 years ago that this weird branch of Judaism with 13 members started... look what it's become today. Not to mention the thousands of Christian sects in this country that are just as "cultish" as the "real" cults. Once again, it's not my place, or the government's place to make decisions about what's religiously acceptable, so we have to allow all religions, no matter how cult-like they are.

The fundamental building block of our nation has been getting eaten away at even sence it was writen and every time we change the Constitution youve eaten more too what end? Do you realy think your making a better America by note respecting "In God we Trust". We all have a voice and its scary that someone like you and your voice would incite a stament like this "I'm just concerned that the majority of our country has decided that they're morally superior because they're in the majority. That's very dangerous territory", what a great out look you have to incite hestriara, have some faith

No where in the Constitution or the Ammendments does "In God we Trust" apear. Check for yourself:


http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

"In God We Trust" is on our money, but that's only been there since the mid 1800's... it's certainly *not* one of the founding priciples of America. http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-...we-trust.shtml

(Edit: Also, regarding the Pledge of Allegiance... the "Under God" portion wasn't added until 1954... http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm, yet another example of church and state losing its seperatism over the years. It seems that it's not the loss of religious beliefs that are erroding the fundamentals of our government, it's the inclusion of religious beliefs that are erroding the fundamentals of our government.)

I'm not trying to incite anything. My point is that there are a lot of people that want to remove the seperation of church and state. If that occurs, and one person loses their freedom, then we lose our freedom. Once someone is required to believe and act in a way that they didn't choose, we're no longer a free country. Things like religious fundamentalism, the Patriot Act, laws to uphold moral beliefs... they all lead down the road to revolution. Those were the *exact* things our Consitution was created to protect us against, since those are the *exact* reasons the forefathers came to America.

[khail19]

Originally Posted by sperry

In fact, statistically speaking there's probably at least 1 person in SECCS that's gay.

Gay or ghey? Cause JC is GHEY!!!!

[MikeSTI]

ok Im done

[khail19]

Originally Posted by sperry

It seems that it's not the loss of religious beliefs that are erroding the fundamentals of our government, it's the inclusion of religious beliefs that are erroding the fundamentals of our government.

This is exactly the problem nowadays with the American government. Religion has become too much a part of the decision making process, and because the majority religion is Christianity, that's what all the laws are becoming based upon. This is exactly what the founders of our nation were trying to avoid, and why the Constitution is very general in nature, so that people can decide for themselves.

Remember, there is no god, we are all on our own. The only faith is faith in yourself.

[dknv]

i.e. 'laws to uphold moral beliefs' - or, 'Once someone is required to believe and act in a way that they didn't choose, we're no longer a free country.':

Purely & simply, we're already NOT a free country if this is the definition of free. There are some good reasons why certain laws need to govern the morals of our society, even if those laws intrude on some of the population's freedom to choose. For example, you cannot be legally married if you are under the age of majority (in most cases). In some other countries this is the accepted norm. in this case, a 'moral majority' has decided what is best for the benefit of the many.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by dknv

i.e. 'laws to uphold moral beliefs' - or, 'Once someone is required to believe and act in a way that they didn't choose, we're no longer a free country.':

Purely & simply, we're already NOT a free country if this is the definition of free. There are some good reasons why certain laws need to govern the morals of our society, even if those laws intrude on some of the population's freedom to choose. For example, you cannot be legally married if you are under the age of majority (in most cases). In some other countries this is the accepted norm. in this case, a 'moral majority' has decided what is best for the benefit of the many.

You are correct... a "totally free" society would have no laws and would simply be anarchy. Now if people could control themselves 100% of the time, then this would be fine. But that's not reality.

To me the difference between what should be limited by law and what should be self-limited by morals is how an act effects others. I should legally be allowed to smoke, drink, cuss, act like an ass, worship the devil, eat raw sticks of butter, cheat on my girlfriend, paint my house orange, and wear black socks with shorts. All those things only effect me (except perhaps in extreme circumstances) so I should be allowed to choose for myself how to live. I don't do those things because I've decided that's not how I want to live my life... making those decisions are morals.

Let's apply this to the gay marriage issue:

If I believe that gay marriage is wrong or right, that's my own moral decision, and I can choose to either participate or not in a gay marriage. However, to make it a law one way or the other is wrong, because it tells people how to live their lives when the alternative effects only those involved.

My rights end where yours begin, so to speak. Since marriage is between me and whoever I marry, why should the government have any say in who I marry. Now if I want my marriage to be recognized by my church, that's a different story, I will have to abide by the churches rules, but that's certainly *not* a legal issue for the government.

Back to your example of underage marriage... you make a good point that "the majority" does decide things along moral lines. You could certainly make a valid argument that because of the fact that people under 18 have hobbled rights, we are erroding the freedom of everyone. And I would agree with that argument fundamentaly. But also, as you mentioned, our society is not so idealistic as to endanger our children by letting them run loose w/o legal control of a parent, or by letting them hitch up with some pedifile because he's talked them into marriage. It's certainly a compromise, but because this compromise, and many others I'm sure, have been made does not mean we should stop being vigilant in attempting to prevent the cooersion of the Constitution.