US Elections Let's talk about the election results

[Fantt]

Yeah - there's a big drive here at work. I think he'll be ok. And I know conservatives aren't evil - well the good ones aren't anyways.

 

[mad pierrot]

And now for a less serious post!

 

[kirei_na_me]

And now for a less serious post!

As always, thanks for the comic relief, mad p...

 

[Duo]

kirei, your sig is hilarous

If i have 2 choose, I'll stik with the real deal instead of alien demons with tentancles pleasing 8 women at the same time :souka:

What's your pick between the 2 ?


great post mad p

 

[King of Tokyo]

And now for a less serious post!

Ahh.. I just posted a topic like that.. Didn't even see you post that.. Heh.

 

[kirei_na_me]

kirei, your sig is hilarous

Thanks.

If i have 2 choose, I'll stik with the real deal instead of alien demons with tentancles pleasing 8 women at the same time :souka:

We're on the same wavelength...

Now...back to our regularly scheduled program...

 

[BamaFan2989]

No you can't because I am not gay, don't have any gay friends, don't care about somebody's right to marry and think little of abortion, but I am ready to support the freedom of these people just for the sake of freedom of choice. That is the opposite of being selfish, and I am certainly not a hypocrite since I say so frankly and openly.



That is where anti-abortionist are wrong. Abortion laws in any developed country set a limit in the foetus development (about 8 to 12 weeks). Until that time, the brain has not yet developed, and we cannot therefore consider the foetus as a human yet. A 2 month foetus is not even the size of a mouse, and without functional brain. If you are against abortion, you must be a Jainist who believes that any animal is sacred, or the tiniest insect, and that it is a sin to kill any of them. If that is your belief, then I will have much more respect for you and accept that people would want to ban abortion. If that is because you think that it equals to murdering a human being, then I must object.

Think about this too : "Is a woman who miscarries accused of manslaughter for doing so ?"



This idea that religion naturally plays a role in politics is unique to American people, among developed countries.Actually, even the US Constitution (1st Article) says that state (=politics) and religion should be separated. Most American think and act (when they vote) in a way that blatantly soils the spirit of the Founding Fathers of the USA. If you love the America of freedom of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson (who incidentally was not Christian) and John Adams, then you must not mix religion and politics. Any American that proudly celebrate July 4th and voted for Bush or any politcian because of religious issue is a hypocrite (or complete ignorant that should stay at home rather than vote).

Dude, have you ever seen the movie Listen To Me? It has a lot with abortion in it. No matter how short or long, life is precious. Some abortions even occur later than the stated time (this is also in the movie, that we discussed in class). I don't care if you are in the mother for a week, outside for a day, or outside forever. Life is precious, and if you don't believe that, you must be like some cannibal or something that lives on some island, where you happen to get internet... Also, manslaugther because of a miscarriage. Well lets also think about the thing you strongly support "CHOICE!" Of course it wouldn't be like manslaughter. If you have a choice you are killing the life, a miscarriage in an accident, like a car wreck. That seperates choice and accident. One big thing is the electoral college sucks, and bad... It shouldn't count that way. It shouldn't be on popular vote either, that would take too long.

Yes, I could say you are a hypocrite for that. You tell me I am because I care about gays/lesbians and I want to try to make it as hard as possible for them to get married, because I want them to hear the Gospel of Christ. If you don't believe, that is your problem. But like Charles Spurgeon said "If sinners be dammed, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one GO there UNWARNED and UNPRAYED for." Hell is a reality. You though wouldn't know about that right?

Abortion no abortion, gay marriage no gay marriage, you heard Bush and Kerry (omg please don't say the lesser of the two evils, that just shows how stupid someone is, because we are not unified!) we need to be unified! I don't care if they both sucked, or didn't at all, but we have to compromise.

 

[Maciamo]

The US Constitution does not say that politics and religion should be separated. This is a common misconception. As an Atheist myself, it wouldn't bother me if the Constitution did say that....but it doesn't."

Alright, my mistake. I confused it with the words of Thomas Jefferson :

The "Wall of Separation" concept:
Shortly after Thomas Jefferson was elected president, some Baptists from Connecticut asked that he declare a national day of fasting in order to help the country recover from a bitterly fought presidential campaign. He disagreed, feeling that the Federal government should not recognize a day set aside for religious reasons. In his reply of 1802-JAN-1, he stated:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Source : religioustolerance.org

That makes it worse than I thought. So there is a real difference even on paper between the US and countries like France or Japan. Isn't it ironic that a devout Christian like General McArthur imposed a strict separation of state and religion in Japan, when it doesn't even exist in the US ?

No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the state or exercise any political authority. No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious acts. The state and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity.

The way Article 20 of the Japanese constitution grants freedom of religion also prohibit politicians to proselytize (=religious education) and even to pray or hold religious ceremony (=other religious activity). So under such a constitution, Bush couldn't hold his morning prayer sessions, and US schools could not have religion classes or force student to pray or read the bible.

The same is true in the EU, where Mr Buttiglione, who was to become the EU Commissioners for Italy (similar position to Secretary of state in the US), was forced by the EU Parliament not to be replaced by somebody else because he was too openly Catholic and held too religiously biased views (the same as the Vatican) about women and gay rights. That was last week, and the EU Parliament represents the people from the EU's 25 countries (and nobody complained about their decision, just to show you how different the whole of Europe is from the US in matters of separation of state and religion).

In France, politicians of public officials must not only refrain from holding religious views while working, but cannot even display signs or religious affiliations, such as a crucifix. That led to the controversy that pupils attending the few public schools in France (as most are state-financed private schools) must also abide to this rule, and the Muslim community made a lot of fuss about it (strange as anybody else didn't, even fundamentalist Christians).

 

[Antifederalist]

A gov that forces values on ppl is close to being a tyrant. Imagine if the talbe was turned and ppl were wanting to get rid of religion because they beleive in teh value of secularlism.

So if the government forces gay marriage on the people, that is not considered forcing values on the populace? As was the case in Massachusetts when their State Supreme Court Legislated from the bench and told the state legislature (the reps of the people) what they should put into law regarding gay marriage.

As for a gov't forcing secularism, sounds like communism in all of its forms.

Right now you accuse Bush of being the bad guy trying to ban gay-marriages, but the States have to approve the Amendment as well as get through the national legislature. So if gay Marriage is banned in America, it is not because of George Bush, it is because a majority of us will have ratified the measure.

 

[Duo]

So if the government forces gay marriage on the people, that is not considered forcing values on the populace? As was the case in Massachusetts when their State Supreme Court Legislated from the bench and told the state legislature (the reps of the people) what they should put into law regarding gay marriage.

As for a gov't forcing secularism, sounds like communism in all of its forms.

Right now you accuse Bush of being the bad guy trying to ban gay-marriages, but the States have to approve the Amendment as well as get through the national legislature. So if gay Marriage is banned in America, it is not because of George Bush, it is because a majority of us will have ratified the measure.

States are supposed to legislate marriage in the US. The Federal Gov has no business butting in. If the state supreme court interprets the law as such, what's your problem ? Bush wants to influence the right of states to regulate marriage by using the Fed gov. Do you kknow that most states eventually end up accepting amendmetns to the constitution, because if they refute, the Fed gov. can put economic pressure on them until they give in. Know what I mean ? No one is forcing gay marriage on you. If the law gives the ppl this right, is not up 2 you to deny it to them.

 

[Maciamo]

I believe Fantt was referring to the usual indicators of economic well-being, such as annual growth rate (around 2% for Europe ?, 3-4% for the US) and unemployment (something like 8% in the EU ?, 5.5 in the US) even under the current regressive policies and just as America is beginning to emerge from a three year recession.

These indicators are not very reliable. GDP growth means nothing if the country's currency is depreciated. What's the point of having a GDP going up 4% at the domestic level if it goes down 60% compared to other countries because the dollar is worth less ? As for unemployment, the way of calculating it varies a lot from country to country (read this thread) and can easily be manipulated by the authorities just to look good. Anyhow, it is socially more liveable to have a slightly higher unemployment with good unemployment benefits, than a lower one with no support at all for those 5% who do not have a job.

Unemployment may be high (8 to 10%) in Germany, France, Spain and Italy, but anywhere else (UK, Scandinavia, Benelux, Austria...) it is 2 to 5%.

 

[Antifederalist]

States are supposed to legislate marriage in the US. The Federal Gov has no business butting in. If the state supreme court interprets the law as such, what's your problem ? Bush wants to influence the right of states to regulate marriage by using the Fed gov. Do you kknow that most states eventually end up accepting amendmetns to the constitution, because if they refute, the Fed gov. can put economic pressure on them until they give in. Know what I mean ? No one is forcing gay marriage on you. If the law gives the ppl this right, is not up 2 you to deny it to them.

Yes but the amendment isn't to ban gay marriage but to define it as between a man and woman--this does not ban civil unions, etc. (and while gay marriage is not supported in NJ we have civil unions--which, this may shock some of you, i have no problem with).

As for it being a state's decision, 11 just made the choice. And the amendment process allows for a state to decide on it:

Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The president plays no role in the amendment process.

The judiciary is not allocated the authority to make law. If the supreme court (state or federal) thinks it should be legal-whoopty fricken do, they don't make the law or tell us which ones we should make.

 

[Duo]

It's funny, Bush has created un-necessary domestic issue so that the ppl get their mind off the war. Seems to be working. The judiciary is in charge of inteprreting the law, Bush doesn't even want to allow this, he wants to go straigh ahead and cut this right out from the constitution, a dcument that was written by great men, and now mite be the victim of some weird new conservative values from a small elite whose hypocracy is off the chart by claiming to have any morality. Too sad

 

[Maciamo]

I think it is safe to say that women do not miscarry by choice. Manslaughter requires that a person's action lead to someone's death without the intent (a depraved indifference). Unless a woman is repeatedly throwing herself down the stairs or having someone punching her in the gut to cause the miscarraige (who knows, maybe 0.01% of women do this), then I don't see living as a depraved act to cause the fetus' death.

A miscarriage is always due to something. It could be high stress, poor diet, tobacco, drugs, or even too much sports (in late pregnancy). My opinion is that in most cases (except diseases, genetical anomaliy, etc.) a mother who miscarries has not been responsible enough toward her offspring or has not been able to create the right conditions before and during pregnancy. This made be due to a lack of education or concern, but the fault is as important as manslaughter to me. Many people do not realise that pregnancy is an extremely important and delicate period that will influence the whole life after birth of the person being conceived, and that it therefore requires a lot of preparation. Preparation is not only necessary for pregnancy itself but for the raising and education of the child, and this counts as much for the father as the mother. Any parent who neglect their children's pregnancy, (moral, intellectual and social) education or do not have the financial means necessary to sustain their offspring should not have children. If I were a politician, I would make sure this is taken good care of, as children born and raised in a bad environment have a high chance to become delinquents, criminals or to vote for Bush (just kidding on this last one ).

Could you also clarify: A two month old fetus develops into a full grown fetus and then it journeys out into the world and becomes a human. So how is the fetus only a tumor at one point and a human inside another human at another point in time?

Even a baby at birth is not equal to a child or even less an adult, because they are not able to survive by themselves. What is more, a new born baby's brain is not yet operational. Some neurons have not yet been formed and the different sections of the brain have not yet aquired their specific functions (language, imagination, calculation, etc.). So it is like having a new computer with no programs installed on it. It has potential and plenty of space available, but it is not emotionally as precious as a computer full of important data. Of course this has to be relativised as the value of a computer never equals that of a human life, but I think the analogy is easy to understand.

So when talking about a 2-month foetus, it is like having the motherboard and box of a PC but no CPU and hard-disk on it. Actually even a mouse's life is worth more than a 2 month-old human foetus, because the mouse can "think" (very simply, but still) and feel and survive by itself, but a foetus without brain can't do any of these. The mouse's analogy with the computer would be having a very old PC but that works, which is better than a new motherboard alone.

Also, manslaugther because of a miscarriage. Well lets also think about the thing you strongly support "CHOICE!" Of course it wouldn't be like manslaughter. If you have a choice you are killing the life, a miscarriage in an accident, like a car wreck. That seperates choice and accident.

See my post above. Miscarriage is as much manslaughter because it usually happens due to negligence, or the choice to have a baby when one's health, lifestyle or other conditions don't allow for it.

So if the government forces gay marriage on the people, that is not considered forcing values on the populace?

No, it isn't because people are given the choice. People are not forced to become gay to get married. Sometimes I wonder if all that Bush-supporting folk really understand that.

As for a gov't forcing secularism, sounds like communism in all of its forms.

That is the only good point of communism, IMHO. :sorry: Well, no. Let's be realistic, there should be freedom of religion in private life. But certainly not in public life (i.e. at the government, lawmakers, judges) because that would limit the freedom of people who think differently or have other values.

So if gay Marriage is banned in America, it is not because of George Bush, it is because a majority of us will have ratified the measure.

Isn't it the issue since the beginning of the thread ? It's not just about liking Bush as an individual with his weaknesses, but his administration and all his suppoters (those who elected him and those who didn't vote but think likewise). Everytime somebody says "I hate Bush", they are really saying "I hate those who have voted for Bush & co.". Otherwise, there would be no point discussing the values of the American people, and no point talking about Kerry's states joining Canada, and so on. It's a divide in fundamental values, but not just between Bush and Kerry as individuals.

OMGOSH I VOTED FOR BUSH, BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LIKE GAY MARRIAGE. Oh my gosh, brb, the FBI just busted through my windows cause they saw me typing this. Why don't people leave the US if they don't like it?

If they did, they would withdraw 65% of the country's GDP. :sorry:
But it would definitely be interseting to see the United States of Canada vs Jesusland, as Mad Pierrot's map showed. That would bring greater balance in the world by dividing a too strong and too morally divided country. But that could also lead to another Civil War, the only war America has ever lost. :relief:

 

[Antifederalist]

Then I thank you all for your hatred. God Bless you all.

 

[BamaFan2989]

LOL, is everyone against you?

 

[Maciamo]

LOL, is everyone against you?

I think that AntiFederalist was referring to what I say

Everytime somebody says "I hate Bush", they are really saying "I hate those who have voted for Bush & co."

However, I do like your post AntiFederalist and even gave your reputation points for one.

 

[No-name]

Yes, I could say you are a hypocrite for that. You tell me I am because I care about gays/lesbians and I want to try to make it as hard as possible for them to get married, because I want them to hear the Gospel of Christ. If you don't believe, that is your problem. But like Charles Spurgeon said "If sinners be dammed, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one GO there UNWARNED and UNPRAYED for." Hell is a reality. You though wouldn't know about that right?

You care, so you want to make it hard...because you want them to hear the gospel...because Charles Spurgeon...because hell...I though wouldn't know about that right?

What? Could you you rephrase this into something that makes a little sense?

Maybe I am missing something. Can anyone figure out what this means?

 

[No-name]

Sorry that last post belongs in the OFFTOPIC bamafan thread.

In defense of my Bush voting countrymen: This election had the highest turnout in 40 years. Millions of new voters were registered and voted. People watched the debates and followed the issues, and rather than vote party lines or pocketbooks they seemed to have voted conscientiously. They didn't seem swayed by the negative campaigning, the mud and slander, or by Willie Horton.

 

[Mike Cash]

So if the government forces gay marriage on the people, that is not considered forcing values on the populace? As was the case in Massachusetts when their State Supreme Court Legislated from the bench and told the state legislature (the reps of the people) what they should put into law regarding gay marriage.

As for a gov't forcing secularism, sounds like communism in all of its forms.

Right now you accuse Bush of being the bad guy trying to ban gay-marriages, but the States have to approve the Amendment as well as get through the national legislature. So if gay Marriage is banned in America, it is not because of George Bush, it is because a majority of us will have ratified the measure.

And not by a mere 51% either, let's be sure to emphasize.

It takes two thirds of the states, or a two thirds vote in both House and Senate to even get to the first step. And then three fourths of the states have to ratify it.

Amending the Constitution is done neither easily nor lightly.

It is funny that mikecash stands as pretty much the only Bush supporter in this thread. And yet *gasp* What is this? He doesn't even live in The United States.

You're absolutely right. How dare I have an opinion on which candidate I feel best for America. After all, I am only an American citizen of legal voting age. Next election I'll let an underage Canadian punch my ballot for me.

We already know from popular consensus in this forum that the opinions of everybody but American citizens should have had an outcome on this election. It was very impertinent of me to exercise my constitutional rights. Can you ever forgive me?

You won't have to pay for Bush's mistakes, so it is easy for you to support Bush.

Nor will you ever have to suffer from President Kerry's. You can thank me later.

You are there in Japan as a man who won't have to deal with it if Bush pisses off the wrong people and they decided to pay America back,

You are there in Canada as a youth who has been saved from having to deal with it when Kerry's weak-kneed waffling sends the wrong signal to the wrong people and encourages them on to ever more dastardly deeds. You can thank me later.

and you, who won't have the chance of your son being drafted to an unjustified war,

My son is an American citizen and subject to American laws, regardless of his country of residence. In the future you may do me the kindness of refraining from dragging into discussions my family members. They don't participate in these forums. And I'll thank you for that right now.

so it is all good for you, meanwhile Americans have to deal with it.

Yes. Isn't it wonderful? I helped save them from the spectre of a Kerry Administration. You can thank me later.

I am too close to America to be happy with Bush for another four years.

You'll get by somehow. Buck up, lad. Lie still, close your eyes, and think of England.

He is going to run America into the ground.

That is a matter of opinion (which is what makes horse races, by the way). Unfortunately, US voting laws failed to make provisions for taking into consideration the opinions of Canadian youth. When I am declared dictator, I will have this rectified for you. Just because we're buddies, me and you.

If you desire leadership such as Bush's why don't you return to America?

This is at odds with the general worldwide consensus that his election affects everybody in the world, isn't it? Under the exact same principle that non-Americans the world over justify expressing an opinion on the matter, I too am entitled, regardless of where I am on the globe.

The big difference, of course, is that I actually get to vote on it. In the real election, that is, not in some meaningless internet poll.

(That aside I totally respect and like mikecash.. He's a smart guy.. Just don't agree on this particular view)

I love you too, and I'll be glad when the losers finally get off their crying jag and we can go back to other things.

Oh and for the record, Bush won because he captured all the hick states like Nebraska, Alabama etc.. I mean honestly, who cares about NEBRASKA or ALABAMA? Other than the people who live there. (Just kidding, but really, Nebraska is lame). Kerry won all the civilized and educated states like New York, California, Massachussets, Illinois. Bush got lucky this time.. And now we're going to pay for it.

If you don't mind sharing the information, what province or territory do you live in?