|
US election
I'm not sure if its over or not now, but from what I saw its probably safe to say that Bush won.
I'm glad that I don't live there. |
Re: US election
Heyyo,
Hmm, from what I've seen? I think kerry's gonna win... But then again I've been watching the Daily show With John Steward, and Rob Corddry was playing Halo during the show... "I was testing how the covenant thought about the election..." lmao :P |
Re: US election
naah bush ooks more and more like a winner of that election...
Wonder what consequences that will have on the world the next 4 years... but then, worse men than him have been sitting in that officie without destroying the earth, so we live to see another election someday. |
Re: US election
4 more wars!!! :P
eek. I just hope Bush concentrates more on the relationships with his 'allies' and also on his in-land policies. |
Re: US election
from cnn.com
Quote:
|
Re: US election
Quote:
|
Re: US election
I heared on tv that counting of the provisional votes in ohio may still last 10 days ...
|
Re: US election
bush wins. A sad day for us all :D
|
Re: US election
we'll see. kerry wouldnt have been my all time favourite neither
|
Re: US election
well actually i was reffering to Nixon... but reagan is a good candidate too ;)
i guess truman, johnson and kennedy weren't angels either... but then... at least we're sure to get rid of bush in 2008 |
Re: US election
At least this time the election has been more or less regular and undisputed.
This permits two interesting conclusions, a positive and a negative one: The positive one is that this time there is no doubt about electoral fraud and other unpleasant circumstances. The negative one is that this time nobody can say that Bush hadn't been elected if it weren't for the manipulations committed by his cronies - this time it's without doubt a clear majority of Americans (3 miillion votes advantage for Bush, I heard) that actually and truly wanted Bush. It proves once more that starting a war to distract from domestic politics is a strategy that works if there is either auch an efficient censorship that any criticism is suppressed (see Russia - Putin - Chechnya), or such a lack of critical thinking, knowledge and interest that criticism doesn't arise at all and the population just swallows everything (USA - Bush - Iraq). Keep people in constant fear of existing threats, exaggerate all kinds of threats, invent, and in case of need, create some new ones (see current situation in Iraq), and the people will flock together in fear and swear allegiance to a strong leader. The Communists of the McCarthy era that served as The Ultimate Threat have been replaced by global terrorism. Nowadays evertyhing is terrorism, and terrorism justifies just about anything. I could vomit when I hear comments in the news like "After 9/11, terrorism has become..." wtf?? As if terrorism hadn't existed before! In Germany, we had more terrorism during the 70's (R.A.F. etc.) than nowadays. And yet, nobody thought of sacrificing all civil rights and freedom of speech on the altar of the oh-so-holy war on terrorism. Well, back to topic: 4 more years with Bush will bring more of that crap for sure, and knowing that there won't be four more years, he might drag his country even further to the ultra-conservative, religiously fundamentalist right...there won't be any progress in global protection of the environment or prosecution of crimes against human rights, either. And if he continues to lower taxes for the rich and increase his country's financial deficit, he will also continue the catastrophic economic policies... His undiplomatic attitude will certainly not help to close the gaps both between the US and the rest of the world and between the two main political orientations in the US. In these things, however, there lies some hope, as strange as it may sound. All these factors might create the pressure that's necessary to achieve a real political change, and not just a change of names (which would have been the case if Kerry had won, I suspect). Besides, Bush's person won't play a role in the next election, and it remains to be seen whether the Republicans have a good successor for him. And if the Democrats succeed in nominating someone convincing, they may have better chances than ever... maybe with Hillary Clinton? [Btw: I guess on Nukebox they'll be celebrating Redneck day now, huh? :D] |
Re: US election
On a side note:
- All states voting on banning Same Sex Marrige have banned it! - Alaska has NOT legalized Marijuana! - Montana has passed Medical Marijuana usage! - Oregon has lost the Medical Marijuana battle... - Columbia, MO has passed a law that says that anyone caught in the city of Columbia, MO with under 35 grams of Marijuana, must be sent to a Municipal Court rather than a State Court. This is great news for the college town, where if students had been caught and sent to a state court before, they would've lost their financial aid for schooling. I CAN say that I am proud to be a resident in a city (St. Louis, MO) where Kerry won over 80% of the vote!!! |
Re: US election
http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/conte...&ratingBar=off
http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/conte...&ratingBar=off Some shockwave films that nicely sum up US politics. |
Re: US election
dude honestly i am ashamed to be an American right now :( ........... remember children - "We are going to win the war on terer(terer = bush can't speak english = terror)" , or is it oil ......
|
Re: US election
Quote:
seems like this is breaking the constitution.. everyone is supposed to be equal so that means all marriages are banned here in the US... [edit] me agrees with biohazerd... and this country was probably never equal... [/edit] [edit2] it was almost easily predictable that Bush was going to win.. even a Kerry supporter like PMB wanted Bush to win.. a Kerry supporter at my school wanted Bush to win so that Bush can make himself look more like an idiot.. [/edit2] |
Re: US election
Quote:
http://www.georgewbush.org/spots/media/sanechoice.mov http://www.georgewbush.org/spots/media/unprotected.mov http://www.georgewbush.org/spots/media/questions.mov http://www.georgewbush.org/spots/media/rock.mov http://www.georgewbush.org/spots/med...ing-higher.mp3 |
Re: US election
Same sex marriage is against the bible ie against the church. Church should be able to dictate that law and thell ban it. churches shouldnt have to marry 2 gay people just cause the govt says so. i am glad its banned in a few states. yes i voted for bush, he has more morals that that hippie idiot kerry.
|
Re: US election
for some reason I recall in the constitution that the government should have nothing to do with any religion...
everyone has their choice of their own religion but now the government bans gay marriages.. just because christianity is wide spread doesn't mean it should dictate what everyone does... when religion and government mix is when you get Iraq.. [edit] it would be the same as this... "Lets ban all [insert hated group here] from being able to [insert verb here]." The first amendment gives us the right to any religon we choose. what if the religion didn't care about same sex marriages? then should all same sexed lovers under that religion be able to marry but not same sexed lovers under christianity? but then that wouldn't be equal now would it... [/edit] |
Re: US election
The government should allow gay marriages, but not force religious organizations to marry them. If they can't find a priest to marry them, then I guess they won't get married in that way.
|
Re: US election
Quote:
VERY nicely put HangFire, I agree. :) I cause yes, people should have the right to believe and do what they want. Just because religion choses to believe that marriage is a sacred bond between a male and a female doesn't mean the rest of the world has to see it so. I for one am a christian, and don't condone gay couples n' such, but hey, I ain't against them. I actually have a few gay friends, n' I don't care... but when they say stuff like, "You're cute," ok, then I get a little freaked out n' wanna run for my life... but that's just insticts eh? :P I was once told by a priest, "God gave us the ability to chose, the freedom to choose, what we do with our choices is up to us. We can choose to follow the lord, or not." So yeah, I choose to follow the lord n' stuff, but I'm not a hardcore christian. I'm sure there's others out there that can relate to my current situation with religion. You know? I attend church on sundays in the mornin', n' I do my prayers before bed, but I don't go condeming anything that Christianity says is wrong, it's just not who I chose to be. I actually believe we shouldn't force our beliefs on others or else it becomes more of a dictatorship than a democarcy. I know my answer isin't as glamarous n' monumental as PM's will be if he posts here again (I swear I'm not brown nosing :P), but hey, just my point of view. I tried to shorten this one, see if I can cut back on my ramblins'... sry guys, I tried, cut down like, 4 lines, which I'm writing now to explain this all. I'm just too much of a French-Canadian rambler to feel like cutting anything out, one of my main probs with school essays, they were always like, 3 pages. :D |
Re: US election
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, I find comments like these to be quite typical among more conservative-thinking people. Whenever there's the freedom to choose something, many conservatives react as if now everybody were forced to decide for the new alternative. It was like that when laws concerning funerals were changed here in Germany. For example, these new laws allowed burials on specially reserved areas which do not belong to any graveyard owned by any religious community. Thus, many conservatives cried havoc and rejected these new laws. It is as if the government had decided to allow coffins being painted in pink. As a reaction to this, conservative circles would have protested that they'd never have their coffins painted in pink - but who would force them to do so? They could continue as they pleased, nothing would change for them! Still they protest against anything that allows more freedom... This is the point where their attitude becomes hypocritical: On one hand, they reserve the right to do as they please, and they would revolt if that right were to be taken from them. On the other hand, they try to deny others the rights they claim for themselves. Doing so, they deny one of the most fundamental pieces of common sense, general agreement and a precondition for a peaceful coexistence of all kinds of humans, which has found its way into all constitutions of those states that we call civilised: The principle of equality. No liberal politicians would ever think about banning the conservative Christians' form of partnership - a Christian marriage. Even allowing an alternative form of partnership like some kind of gay marriages would not take anything away from Chrsitian people who want to live according to their belief. But conservative politicians don't only think about banning other forms of partnership, they do it. This shows an attitude that's quite common among people who belong to an organised religion: "We have God and the absolute truth on our side, thus we are superior and don't have to be equal. We can force others to live by our laws, but not vice versa. We demand that we and our belief be accepted, yet we refuse to accept other people and their respective beliefs." If this is what they (and you?) think, then you should ask yourselves if it is truly a democracy you desire, or a fundamentalist theocracy - for inspiration, visit the Middle East. :| If that's not what you want, then why not accept the idea that on this world, a state allows each man to live after his fashion (as long as it doesn't break other people's fundamental rights), and that it doesn't judge which way of life is the only true and correct one - if there is one at all ? If you have decided for one and think it's a right decision, congratulations. But like you had the possibility to make that decision by yourself, why don't you leave it to others to decide for themselves in the same way ? I think that making all these decisions possible without discrimination is the duty of a modern state. Judging which is the right way for oneself is reserved to each individual, and judging which is the right way at all is a question above all humans. If you really believe in God, trust in your God to judge, and leave earthly matters that affect all people (religious or not) to earthly institutions that benefit all people (religious or not) without anticipating a final judgement that is not yours to make and forcing this judgement onto others. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [inalienable] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." |
Re: US election
consider this post a glamorous and monumental reply (go **** yourself MarD :D :D :D)
|
Re: US election
consider this post as spam...
|
Re: US election
Quote:
Hahaha, I knew I'd have something like that comin' at me for my comment. :P But yeah, remember TWrecks, there's like, different degrees of christianity, and people like Bush are like, the hardcores. It's either for or againstsomething, no middle, no comprimises. He gets heard by all and consider this to represent America, and christianity. So just remember, before getting mad at christianity in general, remember that no one thinks exactly alike, and that you can't really have 1 person represent millions upon millions of people cause yeah, each person's unique. (I've really gotta learn to word my opinions better...:D). I for one would've preferred having Kerry represent the country I'm gonna live in, but hey, decisions were made, and I just hope that they were for the better of the country... Also, remember, there's people who are pretty dumb govenors too. Did you guys hear aboot the Govenor of alaska, and what he did with the cash for "federal homeland security funds?" he bought a private jet... yes, to fight terrorisim. 9_9 http://www.akdemocrats.org/index.php?con_id=5 |
Re: US election
Thats not that stupid. Whats stupid is giving Alaska funds to "Fight terrorism".
|
Re: US election
Heyyo,
Heh, HangFire, it gets worse dude, apparently Alaska has more security funds per person than NY. Yet again I heard this on the Daily Show with John Stewart on the "Back In Black," portion of the show, but he's usually pretty accurate. He said something like, "Every alaskan gets 40 cents per person for funds, and NYers get 22 cents per person." So yeah, with all those extra funds sittin' around any kindof idea (in this case stupid) was bound to show up. :P |
Re: US election
nice post, wrecks... i generally agree with all of it, but i was just wondering about one thing: Is it ethical to force open-mindness upon other people? - what if they don't want to be open-minded?
|
Re: US election
@ MarD: I was referring to those "hardcore" Christians.
@ Exilibur: Interesting question, but I don't think it's a problem. Look, they don't need to be open-minded, and even if it were necessary, there would be no way to force them to be liberal. With more fundamentalist or fanatic people, there is not even a way to get them to see reality... they live in their own world and their own reality. Take an example: In the USA, there's a certain (and not unimportant!) group of Christians who call themselves (or get called) "creationalists". Those are people who believe word by word what's in the bible. Evolution? Darwin? Physical or biological laws? Forget it. For them it's all in the bible. In some areas, schools no longer teach the creation of the world and its development according to widely accepted scientific facts - they teach the creation of the world etc. as written in the bible! Some of these creationalists have even built a replica of Noah's ark according to the most exact dimensions they could extract from the biblical writings, and they believe that Noah took a pair of each species onto his Ark and thus preserved life. You cannot get such a person to become open-minded. You can't even reason, discuss or argument with them; it's pointless. Say that the Ark wasn't big enough to hold animals of all species, let alone keep them away from each other so that the lions don't end up eating the zebras - such people will swear it was. Prove them wrong, and they will say that many animals have been transported as eggs or babies. Prove them wrong again, and they will shrug and say something like God has accomplished it somehow and it's not up to us humans bla bla bla. Ask them why they don't believe that the stars are hung up in the sky and dangle down towards a flat earth. Ask them what they think where the space shuttles went and why the Earth looks so suspiciously spherical from space... you could beat them up and still wouldn't get them to accept anything. They are beyond any argumentation, you don't reach them. So I guess it's absolutely impossible to force people to be open-minded. The good news is that they don't need to be forced into more liberal thinking. All it takes is to prevent them from forcing others under their rule, and keep them out of public institutions. If they want to live in their world, fine. You could say that this is what we all do in one way or another. For them, liberal people live in a world of make belief and shut their eyes in front of the godly truth or whatever. All it takes is an earthly government that will keep groups with conflicting opinions from attacking each other. It's not required to achieve something by force that cannot be achieved by any force in this world. If they think that it's against God's will to have sex for any other purpose than reproduction, and that only married couples may have sex at all, no problem. It's their good right to believe that, and if I say I am for democracy, I say that I'm for their right to believe that, whether I like it or not. If they have children and teach them all that stuff, it starts to become problematic, however, because the poor children cannot choose and are too young to judge by themselves... but in the end I think we have to accept it. The limit is wherever they want to carry their opinion over into public institutions (= everything which doesn't belong to their church or their private life) such as "normal" schools etc... a government must take measures to prevent that. I think that's a compromise both sides can live with (although they might not like it), but also one that's beneficial for all sides in the long run and most of all - possible. Another interesting question, though: What makes people become like this? Is it the natural way people think, and have more liberal people moved away from the norm? Or is a more open-minded attitude the norm, and have those fundamentalists moved away from this norm? And if so, why? |
Re: US election
Every country has a president which deserves for.
BTW - Don't forget, guys, about $7 of BU rules... :P |
Re: US election
Quote:
J/K. The cold war is over. Or is it? BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!!! |
Re: US election
Quote:
Quote:
2. This rule #7 (hey! another symbol!) was probably introduced with the unpleasant discussions from Nukebox in mind... As Pierre once mentioned in a not-so-glamorous and monumental, but nonetheless very true post, we already found out that BU is ok for political discussions due to the rather friendly and (intellectually) mature community. Besides, when I discuss such stuff with anyone, I wanna discuss it with people I like and whom I have regular contact with, and not with an anonymous hobby debating club in some obscure wannabe-pundit hideout somewhere on the wide, wide web. ;) Or do you want me to ban myself? :P |
Re: US election
I don't You get banned by Your-self or by someone else. Few forums needs You, but You are a moderator - You need give the good example for "normal" memebers then. I think this paragraph 7 (yeah, I meant about paragraph - not about dollar) should be better clarified (or maybe a bit rewritten). ;)
|
Re: US election
Quote:
kerry also was opposed to gay marrage. if it becomes illigal they will still have civil unions, but the church should not be disgraced with having to marry 2 gay people.. and i ment to say if church wouldve been able to dictate the law they wouldve banned it. not that they should dictate the law. |
Re: US election
I suppose you're forgetting what happened in the southern states in the 1900's...
when schools were being forced to take blacks in... they were probably thinking the same.. why should this school be disgraced by having to teach black people.. I agree with everything T Wrecks has posted.. |
Re: US election
Thats different with schools. Thats a government institution, not a religious organization. You can't force a religious group to change their beliefs, even if they are biased against a particular group.
|
Re: US election
well they can start the own churches to allow their marriages..
why are we even talking about how they going to get married.. they've already been banned from being married.. now it's up to the supreme court to fix this stupid law.. |
Re: US election
Then why dont they!
the christian or catholic churches.. i am catholic do not condone gay mariage let alone want to perform it. its immoral and i dont understand the unti bushism (new word) hes better than that tree hugging kerry. neg its only banned in 4 states. by the peoples votes. but with a conservative supreme court and the only liberal there dying i am happy to see that it will be banned for good. |
Re: US election
if they government bans gay marriages they can't marry..
just don't ban it and let them make their own religion to allow themselves to marry.. I feel like moving out of this country.. America being free is just a bunch of bull shit since most people here in the country obviously don't want everyone to be equal... |
Re: US election
mariage is between a MAN and a WOMAN
|
Re: US election
Why should that matter?
we live in America.. this country was born on the ideal that everyone is equal.. look at T Wreck's post.. he has a quote from the Declaration of Independance.. by those state's passing that law.. it's interfering with the "pursuit of happiness" you don't want homosexuals to feel happy.. you want them to feel bad about who they are.. you would feel much happier if you lived in a country like how Iraq was.. mass killings of people who didn't conform to how you thought the "right" way is.. this is probably one of the reasons Alan Turing commited suicide.. [edit] KWo is right.. I stop here.. [/edit] |
| All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:30. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.