Kerry has conceded

[SlowPro48]

Jimbo-

Haha! We were posting at the same time. Switched bait too soon. Should have been more patient and maybe could have reeled BaMBam back in!

Yeah you're right this thread is disintegrating now. Oh well - like you say - it had a good run. I don't think we missed flogging a single topic!

[jimbo]

Welcome v-twin, maybe the thread isn't as dead as we thought slowpro.

V-twin, good thought, I think you bring up a great point. I hope you don't mind if I run with it.

We are stuck with Bush for four years. My wife (who always votes republican) and I were talking about this weekend while watching James Carvelle and his republican wife argue on a Sunday morning talk show. My wife said she would not have been that upset if Kerry had won. She didn't see the election as any big deal, just another Presidential election.

And that goes to the heart of why some folks that voted for Kerry are so angry. They might not even be able to articulate why ... but they can just feel that something important is going on here. There's something about this guy that makes them afraid ... afraid for the future of our great liberal individualistic country.

They sense something is wrong, and they feel that the last chance to reverse the trend just passed.

This is my point:

Some of us (who voted for Kerry) think this was not an ordinary election. This election was a one of a kind because it was about the neccesity of removing a very dangerous and unqualified man who had somehow gotten into power in the USA.

Obviously many folks (you and my wife included) did not feel that way. Most of the good folks who voted for Bush acted like it was just another political decision based on economics, the war on terror etc. and after the election think that it should get back to business as usual.

I don't think that's going to happen. Change is in the air and some of us see things (besides a perpetual war) coming that we never thought we would see again in America.

The past 60 years in my opinion has been a revolution of individual freedoms and rights unmatched in the history of the human race. This revolution was lead by the USA and we were only part-way done, but the brakes have been slammed on and now it seems we are doomed to go backwards.

Rights have already been restricted, and not just for terrorists ... for us all. If we start putting the individual freedoms we have garnered in the past decades up to a popular vote (for example if Roe vs Wade is overturned and abortion becomes a state legislature issue) then many states will vote away those rights.

Another example : Some states in the south might even today vote away civil rights for blacks and race equality if the federal government and courts let them do it.

Where will this "voting on values" trend stop?

A trend away from individual freedoms in favor of public "morality" can become especially aggresive when fear, religious ferver and flag-waving patriotism gets attached to an issue. This is how the Nazi's took charge in the 30s, only then it was a communist threat in germany that the people feared instead of Islamic terrorism. Nazism was seen as a patriotic movement by the German people. Under these fearful conditions people will often vote against things they find objectionable in other people's lives, impose their morals on other folks and limit freedom of personal choice. Without the protection of the federal government and the courts the country may regress.

Example of this backward trend : If I have a daughter, and she screws up and gets pregnant while a straight A student in college, will she have to drop out to have the baby, perhaps set herself back just enough so that she don't get that scholarship to grad school (that a male student gets because he does not have this same potential problem due to his superior "maleness")?

Can a woman truely be equal, in every way, if she can be forced by society and law to give birth to an unwanted child?

Would this situation be moving forwards or backwards? Do you really think there is no chance of this happening in the future, because of the politics of next four years?

I think Bush has no intention of upholding or perpetuating the all-important activist courts we have come to rely on in the past decades to protect the minority opinion from the majority rule, and (if his first term is any indication) he will use the power of the federal government to retrict personal freedom, not increase it as has been the trend over administrations before his.

Where will these restrictions stop? By the time enough folks agree it may have gone too far, will it be too late? Will the constitution be ammended to define marriage in narrow terms? Will many more conservative (or extreme right wing christian) judges be appointed, for life? Will laws be passed restricting free speech that some find offensive? Will the effects of the second term of the bush administration be felt for decades to come?

Four years from now will our country still be on the road upward, bravely leading the world towards more and more choice and personal freedom and bold scientific advancement in genetic engineering, rather than less? Will the USA still be the liberal, progressive leader of the world?

Don't forget the Muslims lead the world in science and thearts until 700 years ago they mistakenly turned away from the future and regressed away from individualism into fundalmentalist religion. They have never recovered as a society.

So anyway, this is why I think this election is different and many people are afraid and angry. I don't think there is going to be any 'business as usual" for the next four years. Some people see the danger that is starting here, a danger that reared its head in europe 70 years ago, and they going to fight it any way they can (even the stupid sticker you mentioned).

For the good of our country.

Hold on, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

[V-Twin hiCROSS]

Hey Jimbo, thanks for the reply. I love these discussions, it helps me to better understand my own reasoning and to make better imformed decisions. I am not sure why so many Americans are scared to discuss their beliefs. In my mind, I would have a hard time making a rational decision without knowing all of the facts.
I am not sure why so many Democrats are under the impression that we (folks who voted for Bush) want to overturn Roe vs. Wade??? I am very "in the middle", especially when talking about many of the social issues. I agree that a woman should have the right to choose.
However, here are the main reasons that I usually vote Republican for president:
1) I would like to limit the size of government. Traditionally, Republicans are for a more "Laissez Faire" society.
2) Economic momentum - Most of us in this country work for larger corporations. I need for my company to do well in order for my pocket-book to do well. Not to mention, I need for large public companies to do well in order for my 401-k and stocks to do well.
3) It burns my blood that I get up and go to work everyday, knowing that my tax dollars pay for some losers to sit at home and collect a free check form the government when they are perfectly able to work. I do not mind paying for what welfare programs were set up for, which is SHORT term assistance. Nor do I mind giving the helping hand to those individuals who need it.
4) I often feel that as of late, many laws/rulings have been in support of certain minorities, as opposed to the majority of the American public. For instance, the pledge of allegiance and the removal of the 10 commandments.
5) In this election, I support our troops and our Presidents decisions as far as the current war is concerned. Yes, there have been mistakes along the way. But, tell me a war/conflict where there were not mistakes. By definition, it is a time of much uncertainty. Further, the liberation of those two countries will have far reaching affects on that hemisphere that will hopefully impact my childrens future in a positive manner (meaning less dangerous).
6) I have no issue with gays/lesbians. As a matter of fact, some of our best friends are a lesbian couple. I also think that a gay couple should have similar rights to a married hetero couple. However, I do support the idea of distinguishing between a "marriage" between a man and woman, and a committed relationship between a couple of the same sex.

[Capri]

I voted for Bush back in 2000, and I voted for Kerry this year. Fortunately I'm not a die-hard Republican or Democrat, those as this thread has repeatedly said, are just labels.

I don't like a leader who's not willing to admit their mistakes. Clinton after months and years of "wasteful" investigation on his affiar, did fed up his relationship. Bush on the other hand, repeatly said in 2002 that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, upped their chemical weapons facilities, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons. But the investigation so far?

- Bush responded that the dictator had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, it's just a matter of time before he developes them.
-"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq..."
-Colin Powell admitted for the President that we were wrong about biological weapons (oct 1st, 2004)

Mistakes DO happen in every war, but good leaders admit and fix their mistakes, not to pretend it wasn't a mistake and try to persuade the rest of the public that Iraq somehow has more weapons than North Korea or other countries that have credible evidence of weapons.

Other issues I didn't like include the Patriot act, which everyone loved and rejoiced about after 9/11 happend. The amount of lawsuits challenging it must not have gotten to Bush's table, what's the point of violating our own rights and say to the world "how good we have it"

What I love about the US is how we try to include diversity and allow equal rights to minority groups. If 70% of the nation is Christian, we don't necessary have to declare it's a Christian nation. If 10 commandments are allowed to be shown in government properties and public schools, then all other religious and non-religious slogans should be used. This goes the same for pledge of allegiance.

If I was a teacher at a public school, and decided to put a plaque that says "Top 10 mistakes about the Bible", I'm sure parents will complain. Displaying one's faith by wearing a cross or dressing a certain way is fine, but promoting it is a different story. 10 commandments and pledge of allegiance do just that.

This nation is not ready to allow gays and lesbians to get married, but civil unions should be allowed. What I disliked about the Bush administration is to include both marriage and civil union in the same language on the proposal, so it's a lose-all situation, especially in a religious country such as the US.

[biju]

http://www.sorryeverybody.com

-biju.

[jimbo]

I love that site and posted a link to it a few days back on here.

My wife thinks I'm a baby for feeling this way. I really am sorry to the world that Bush won.

My wife says this sentiment makes people like her who voted for bush feel that we are looking down on them, like they missed the point and screwed up the country by voting for Bush.

I feel bad about this perception as well so I try not to talk about it, no sense hurting people's feelings, and I admit afterall that I may be totally wrong about Bush.

Man, I hope I am.

P.S.- Good response V-twin, I agree with MOST, especially the economic ones, but think there really is not quite so much difference anymore between the dems and reps regarding most of the economic issues you mentioned.

I think these issues would have been fine for both of us under Kerry as well. After all (and I'm no big Clinton fan) but the economy and stock market were great under the Clinton administration and he passed the most sweeping welfare reform in history.

[jimbo]

Capri - It is funny how Clinton was illegally pursued by a Republican witch-hunt his entire presidency, but Bush and his father seem immune from investigation on far more serious matters. (Iran contra - "I was out of the loop" Iraq WMD -"It was the CIA's fault")

I know better than to post contraversial quotes here (hi slowpro) so I will have to let all those interested in the following do their own research. But I believe (just my opinion Slowpro) that the following alleged activity happened, and am curious as to whether the bush administration will ever be investigated and held responsible for triggering the chain of event s that led to it.

The story goes, based on a documentary made in great britain, that during the routing of the taliban from afganistan 4000 common taliban soldiers were shipped by our allies (the northern alliance) hundreds of miles in closed container cars. Some suffocated, some bled to death when bullet holes shot in the sides, and the remainder had to resort to sucking the blood of their dead comrades to stay alive.

Upon arriving at the prison where American Special forces were waiting to try to separate out any al queda from the masses, the trucks were open revealing the carnage and death. A decision was taken to drive the trucks out into the desert, dig a big trench, shoot any survivors and bury the whole mess.

A war crime ... if it really happened.

The story goes that American Special forces were present in the desert and watched (helped?) as this was done. The northern alliance took video of this atrocity, apparently to protect themselves from future war crime trials.

Will we ever hear more about this? Who knows. Apparently all the drivers who drove the trucks, and afterwords cooperated with the documentary, are dead or missing now.

Everyone else is being hush-hush.

Who knows if it is true. Worth checking into though.

I just mention it because I believe the Bush administration has set up an atrocity generating situation (similar to vietnam - young american men with almost unlimited destructive power at their fingertips - unwelcomed, frustrated, afraid and surrounded by a ruthless civilian enemy who are picking off their friends) in Iraq now and eventually we may here more horror stories come out of there.

Black and white / good and evil thinking is dangerous in modern warfare. What would have happened if George had been in charge during the Cuban missle crisis? Would he have showed the restraint and diplomatic prowess of JFK? Would he have plunged us into the abyss because the USSR were "evildoers" who had to be dealt with harshly in black or white terms?

[BaM*BaM]

The USA foreign policy failure:

WE ARE MAKING ENEMIES FASTER THAN WE CAN KILL THEM!!!!

[jimbo]

Ah .... there's that pompous little smirk we all love so dearly.

What a guy.

In Sunday's Dallas Daily news: the extreme republican social agenda is starting to be pushed, first the ultra-conservatives and evangelicals have to get the moderate republican's who helped them win out of the way:

The elephant in the room: GOP schism

Many moderates say they no longer feel invited to the party

09:35 PM CST on Sunday, November 14, 2004

By COLLEEN McCAIN NELSON / The Dallas Morning News

A win doesn't mean that all is well in the Republican Party.

Though their candidate came out ahead on Nov. 2, some moderate Republicans are as despondent as Democrats. While Christian conservatives have been credited with turning out like-minded voters in crucial swing states, many moderates say they have been marginalized.

"There is no future for moderate and progressive Republicans in the Republican Party," said Jim Scarantino, president of the centrist GOP group Mainstream 2004. "The far right wing and the fanatics have seized control."

Mr. Scarantino isn't sure where his brand of Republican politics fits into the GOP. Some Christian conservatives say it doesn't.

"If they can't agree and support the president and the platform, then they ought to go over to the Democrats," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the conservative group Concerned Women for America.

After President Bush's re-election, evangelicals were quickly branded the "it" political group. They have taken a two-week victory lap, appearing around the clock on cable news networks while touting a conservative social agenda.

Out of the spotlight and largely overlooked, some moderates said they feel like politicians without a party.

Issues such as gay marriage and abortion have exposed fissures in the majority party, as conservatives push for what they call "pro-family" policies and moderates urge renewed focus on fiscal conservatism.

Evangelicals have been quick to seize on their moment in the spotlight, launching efforts to expand their influence and criticizing Republicans who don't toe the conservative line on social issues.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell announced plans last week for an "evangelical revolution," forming the Faith and Values Coalition, which he described as a resurrection of the Moral Majority.

And conservatives accused Sen. Arlen Specter of disloyalty when the Pennsylvania Republican suggested that the Senate might reject anti-abortion judicial nominees. Evangelical groups urged Mr. Specter's colleagues to reject his bid to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

'Ruthlessly exploited'

For years, moderate and conservative Republicans have coexisted, albeit somewhat awkwardly, agreeing to disagree on issues including abortion, gay rights and the environment. But this year's Republican convention made clear that moderates wield little or no influence, said Mr. Scarantino, whose group was launched by former Republican governors and other officials concerned that the GOP had taken a hard right turn.

While big-name moderates such as John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudolph Giuliani took the stage in New York, conservatives controlled the party platform.

"The party has ruthlessly exploited moderate Republicans," Mr. Scarantino said. "I think they're deluding themselves thinking they're ever going to get anything more than the opportunity to be on the stage."

Dennis Sanders, a gay minister who runs The Moderate Republican blog, has written in recent days about the tough questions facing his wing of the party. Many moderates likely are "considering leaving the GOP this morning after a Bush win," he wrote on Nov. 3. "I've considered it myself. I can only say this: Don't give up."

Some moderates remain optimistic, predicting that the president will take a measured approach, striking a balance by doing just enough to satisfy evangelicals without raising the ire of other groups.

The Bush administration "wants to have a positive legacy," said Ann Stone, chairwoman of Republicans for Choice. "They're going to figure out what they can give these guys that's not going to alienate everybody else."

Political scientist John Green said that the president and his allies are adept at counting votes.

"Evangelicals and other conservative Christians were clearly an important part of that coalition, but they were not the only people in the coalition," said Dr. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. Mr. Bush "needs the support of all the Republicans in the coalition to get his agenda passed."

Ms. Stone attributed the attention on evangelicals to a journalist-generated frenzy. "It's always sexier to talk about the Christian right. It's something that fascinates the media."

Evangelicals' pull

Regardless of what landed conservatives in the limelight, they are a powerful group.

"Evangelicals are in a very strong position right now, and they'll demand a lot," said Geoffrey Layman, associate professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland.

Religious conservatives have become for the GOP what labor unions have been for Democrats – a ready and reliable pool of activists, he said.

"The Republicans have never really had that until the Christian right came along," said Dr. Layman, author of The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics.

After laboring behind the scenes for years, conservatives are front and center. And they want the president to move quickly to address their agenda.

The to-do list includes defending traditional marriage, banning human cloning, reforming Social Security, passing more-restrictive abortion laws and stepping up enforcement of obscenity laws, said Ms. LaRue of Concerned Women for America.

And if moderates don't agree with those objectives, perhaps they don't belong in the GOP, she said.

Ms. LaRue calls Mr. Specter a RINO – Republican In Name Only – and questions why politicians such as Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island remain in the Republican Party when they didn't even vote for Mr. Bush.

"Get real," she said. "These are Democrats in Republican clothing."

Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, said the Republican tent is large enough to accommodate moderates. But he's not suggesting that conservatives are willing to compromise.

"If you read the platform, it's clearly a pro-life party," he said. "I'm sure anybody is welcome to be a Republican as long as they understand the direction the party is headed in."

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by jimbo
I know better than to post contraversial quotes here (hi slowpro) so I will have to let all those interested in the following do their own research. But I believe (just my opinion Slowpro) that the following alleged activity happened, and am curious as to whether the bush administration will ever be investigated and held responsible for triggering the chain of event s that led to it.

Quote away Jimbo! People don't mind controversy - they just don't like to have their time wasted by fabricated crap. That's a very serious allegation you tossed out there.

Can you get us a link or two to some proof (i.e., something other than your opinion) that this war crime actually happened? A video clip from the British documentary showing those American Special Forces watching (helping?) as the innocent Taliban soldiers were slain and buried in the desert would be peachy. As much as the world hates us, it seems like something of that nature would be all over the net but google can't seem to find it....

Thanks.

[StormTROOPER]

Man you guys can type, I wish I had your energy & passion, I probally would if that snowboarding, windsurfing, indecisive, yin-minded peterpan was elected. Glad to see it wasn't any of you trying to commit hari-kerry in front of the whitehouse.

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by jimbo
Another example : Some states in the south might even today vote away civil rights for blacks and race equality if the federal government and courts let them do it.

Simply unbelievable.... Where do you come up with this shyte, Mr. Fearmonger?

I give up. You are beyond the fringe. Give my regards to your sources on the dark side of the moon or wherever it is they reside...

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by StormTROOPER
Man you guys can type, I wish I had your energy & passion,....

Dragon Naturally Speaking. It rocks once it's properly trained. Only downside is you can't listen to the radio and pick on Jimbo at the same time.

Do you want to see the Dragon's translation of an NPR broadcast?

[jimbo]

Hi Slowpro, as I said in my post :

The story goes that the northern alliance has the video (if it even exists). The only way it will get out is if the pressure is on them because the they have been accused of war crimes (they are blackmailing the united states in other words) or if someone leaks it for vengeful or monetary gains.

I'm not saying there is tons of evidence, but like many of these things it sometimes takes years for the truth to surface.

It's either an elaborate hoax, or there is some truth to it and I don't think it has been settled yet.

I thought you guys might be interested.

I mainly just pointed it out as the type of thing we may be seeing more of in the future.

Decide for yourself:
Scroll down to site #8
http://www.phrusa.org/research/afgha...rt_graves.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...re&btnG=Search

[jimbo]

Dragon Naturally Speaking. It rocks once it's properly trained. Only downside is you can't listen to the radio and pick on Jimbo at the same time.

I had that program years ago, I trained it for days and it was hilarious the sh#t it would come up with. Sometimes it wasn't even recognizable as anything close to what I had just said.

I gave up and learned to type fast. LOL