PDA

View Full Version : Not just a slim win, but a huge conservative victory.



PanzerJaeger
11-03-2004, 17:55
For you guys in other countries who might only be keeping up with the presidential election: you should know just how big a win this election has been for not just Bush, but conservatives in general.

We now hold the presidency, with a popular vote..

Weve gained a bunch of seats in the senate, which increases our majority...

Weve picked up some seats in the house of representatives, which we already had a majority in...

The power we have now is scary even to me... with the large popular vote, weve got a mandate from the people, and control every part of government except the judicial, and it looks like we will have the supreme court soon as well.

I even heard on the news about the possible death of the democratic party.. a complete overhaul of it. ~:eek: While i doubt that, its obvious the country has moved in a strongly conservative way, stronger than even i could hope!

This could be good or bad... if we rule well, the economy grows, and we win Iraq, then people will look at total conservative rule favorably, but if all goes to hell, we've no one to blame.

I just thought id bring this up, as the congress hasnt been discussed much here yet.

Sasaki Kojiro
11-03-2004, 17:57
With more power you'll just screw it up more and there will be a backlash. 8 or so years from now be prepared for a string of democrats.

TinCow
11-03-2004, 17:58
I think Iraq is the key for the Republicans now that they have won the election. Successfully resolve the situation there and they will likely gain a national consensus. If it continues spiralling downwards, the populous will quickly defect and things will got a lot worse at home and abroad. Let's hope for all our sake that they succeed.

Thoros of Myr
11-03-2004, 18:03
IF the democrats are able to put together a party that has the ability to capture the majority.

Just now they had every chance to succeed and failed quite badly.

Templar Knight
11-03-2004, 18:04
just remember: Power Corrupts

but I look forward to four years of peace and prosperity

PanzerJaeger
11-03-2004, 18:05
They say Reagan changed the Republican party forever, but after Clinton left, the Democrats went right back to their far left ways.

Gawain of Orkeny
11-03-2004, 18:05
Now that was spoken like a true American TinCow. We need more people with your attitude. Lets get this war over so that we can go back to doing the things at home that need to be done.

The_Emperor
11-03-2004, 18:09
Now that was spoken like a true American TinCow. We need more people with your attitude. Lets get this war over so that we can go back to doing the things at home that need to be done.

Like planning the invasions of Iran and Syria? :help: Well lets hope Bush tones it down a little this time around.

Gawain of Orkeny
11-03-2004, 18:11
I was complimenting Tincow on his being more concerned with the good of the country than partisan party politics. Take it as you like.

R'as al Ghul
11-03-2004, 18:12
I offer my condolences.
Just saw it all on TV...We had a one-party state in Germany, not too long ago.
It can evolve complete and utterly wrong.
:bow:

R'as

JAG
11-03-2004, 18:18
Yes, you always need a strong oposition. Because over here the left wing party - labour - has had NO effective opposition Blair and co have been able to get away with things they should never have, simply because they have such power. I hope for the US sake, the democrats bounce back.

The_Emperor
11-03-2004, 18:20
Yes and while I agree that Iraq needs to be sorted out and the troops brought home, I seriously wonder what plans Bush has for the next four years.

But hey I have a right to be concerned after all Tony Blair is so attached to Bush our country will be forced to go along with any new ventures he plans...

It would be great if he decides to have a quiet Presidency focusing on domestic issues, but I am sure you can understand me being nervous about his forgiegn policy plans that will certainly effect us in the UK.

Templar Knight
11-03-2004, 18:21
well like I said power corrupts, I hope the Conservatives in Britain get a little bit better and stop pussy footing around

The_Emperor
11-03-2004, 18:23
well like I said power corrupts, I hope the Conservatives in Britain get a little bit better and stop pussy footing around

What are you talking about? You can't get much more conservative than Tony Blair these days!!

Templar Knight
11-03-2004, 18:24
fair point

Slyspy
11-03-2004, 18:42
I'm still searching for those "far left" democrats! ~:confused:

At least Panzer is now happy that he is part of the ruling elite. ~;)

Vlad The Impaler
11-03-2004, 18:55
i totally agree with PanzerJaeger. i have many friends romanian-american citizens and they mostly voted for Bush and republicans.i am not living in America so i think my opinion it doesnt matter but i like Bush and as lawyer i completly understand their electoral system .
i am sick of left , my country was a comunist country and i dont simply like left wing and especially left wing hipocrisy.
i am expecting great times. ~:cheers: to all republicans and :bow: for kerry's conceding.it is honourable

PanzerJaeger
11-03-2004, 19:04
Thanks m8. ~:cheers:

TinCow
11-03-2004, 19:24
Now that was spoken like a true American TinCow. We need more people with your attitude. Lets get this war over so that we can go back to doing the things at home that need to be done.

Thanks, I think what a lot of people forget is that we all have to live here. Regardless of who wins ANY election, we need to do our best to improve our nation and make life better. The only way to do this in a civilized society is to work with the system. This means cooperating with whoever is in power, regardless of whether you agree with them, and compromising where necessary. Right now, there is a great deal of animosity between the electorate on both sides. This serves no one at all. We need to heal the wounds and move on.

Those people who say they are considering leaving the country are cowards. The US needs everyone to buckle down and get to work solving our problems now. Stick around and help us, don't bail (physically or mentally).

pyhhricvictory
11-03-2004, 19:36
There is no need to leave the country, the DHS will "disappear" political dissenters soon enough.

Accounting Troll
11-03-2004, 19:44
Winning the popular vote by a margin of four million will make a big difference to George Bush as his failure last time meant that the democrats were able to question his legitimacy to rule.

It will be interesting to see if countries like France attempt to heal the divisions with America now they know that the Americans support Bush's policies.

I predict a civil war within the ranks of the Democrat Party between the people who think they need to move to the right to win in 2008 and the people who think they are going to have to move to the left. These internal divisions will probaly cost the Democrats the 2008 election.

Beirut
11-03-2004, 19:49
Well, I wish y'all Americans the best. Hope everything goes well for you. (Mostly because I live upstairs from you. ~:eek: )

Let me give you the street talk from here in Canada. What people here are saying, in general, is that they cannot believe how stupid the average American is for voting him back into office. There you have it, with no sugar coating.

Personally, I don't hold quite that severe an opinion, but in all honesty I cannot understand your choices. But perhaps this is how it should be. If we all thought alike, we'd be one country. For example, Kerry would have easily taken 90% of the vote had it been held here. That is the extent of our differences.

It's strange looking in from the outside and seeing Bush and what he is doing and has done, and your people's reaction to him. maybe I am beggining to understand, slowly, what you see in him (casting aside the propaganda and oblivious BS banter and sound bites that come from both sides). If I was to nail it down, it's the Average Joe persona of the guy.

I cannot be convinced in any way that Bush's actions in trying to find bin Laden and the war in Iraq are not complete failures in every way. But like the guy next door, standing there with a beer in his hand, promising that he'll finally build that garage "next year", which he's been saying every year, you want to believe him, and you really do hope he'll build it and you'll be happy to see him happy. Bush is that guy, a normal, full of faults but fun at a BBQ kind of guy. And Americans trust the Americanism of that hopeful effort more than the words of any fancy lawyer, who they would rather see drown than show up for drinks.

Bush is simple. And Americans crave simplicity. Not in a bad way, but in an old fashioned way. I don't think Bush represents accomplishment to the Americans, he represents hopeful effort, even blind hopeful effort, which is what so many of us live with every day. One look at Bush and you just know he's having trouble making it through the day just like everyone else. But he really does look like he's trying. And maybe he will build that garage he's been dreaming of. Next year.

In a crazy sort of way, I grudgingly admit that most Americans voted for Bush because they are hopeful. That ain't all bad.

pyhhricvictory
11-03-2004, 19:56
I have to agree, there will be a split of the Dems. There was already one forming between the supporters of the DNC line (move to the right so we can get moderate conservatives) and the actual liberals that could be a challenge to the conservative disease. You could see the lines forming before the election, most liberals that I know wanted to see Dean win the nomination and run as a clear alternative to Bush. The Dem leadership and the DNC wanted someone who would not scare the center and center-right voters and try to convert some of them. It was a HUGE mistake for the dems to run a campaign based on "anybody but bush" instead of an actual platform. I hope that the split appens soon and we cann get a viable three or four party system in place befor the next election.

PanzerJaeger
11-03-2004, 20:02
It was less his hopefulness, and more Kerry's weakness on defence. All the words in the world dont make up for that record.

And aside from that, the polls show that the #1 issue for the majority of americans was social issues! Who would have thought?

Americans dont like what the democrats stand for socially.. partial birth abortion, gay marrige, God in the Pledge.

It seems the american people still care about morals and values.. and thats solid republican territory.

Xiahou
11-03-2004, 20:21
Thanks, I think what a lot of people forget is that we all have to live here. Regardless of who wins ANY election, we need to do our best to improve our nation and make life better. The only way to do this in a civilized society is to work with the system. This means cooperating with whoever is in power, regardless of whether you agree with them, and compromising where necessary. Right now, there is a great deal of animosity between the electorate on both sides. This serves no one at all. We need to heal the wounds and move on.
Interesting.... would you agree that Democratic percieved obstructionism cost them this election- particularly in the Senate? I think this is particularly true in the case of Daschel.

I also think that while Republicans shouldnt become too arrogant, they clearly got a huge mandate from voters. I think that unless Dems want to sink farther into ruin in both houses of congress, its very important for them to give up the appearance of knee-jerk opposition to Republican initiatives. While Republicans should not brush off their Democrat peers, they also should not forget that they weren't elected to let Democrats get their way- they were elected for their Republican agendas.

pyhhricvictory
11-03-2004, 20:23
I don't really think that many liberals actually belive that partial birth abortions are a good thing, at least I have not met many (actually I have not met any who agree with the practice). There may be a few fringe elements that belive that it is OK, but it is a brutal practice that should only be used in very extreme situations.

It is a misconception that liberals make a huge issue out of gay marraige. Liberals make an issue out of equality, they fought for civil rights for blacks in the 50's and 60's and are fighting about equality for gays now. I hate listening to conservatives when the go on about homosexuality destroying the sanctity of marraige but they still support divorce. If you believe in the sanctification of marraige and its strong moral and social role in society, ban divorce. The whole issue was a political trick to get an unsophisticated part of the electorate that wouldn't have voted energized and voting for fear and bigotry instead of the inalienable rights that our constitution holds dear.

Mount Suribachi
11-03-2004, 20:25
Some good posts here - Beirut, Vlad, PJs last one.

Dems, don't get too upset, you weren't blown out of the water, you were only a few college votes away from winning. An extra couple of % in Ohio and its all different. Go here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/americas/04/vote_usa/map/html/default.stm) to look at how previous elections have turned out, most of them the map is all blue or all red, rarely is it as close as this one.

Bush is one of the most ridiculed, hated, mocked & despised leaders in modern history, whose policies have been extremely divisive, yet he still won. Why? Well, I think he has something of the Margaret Thatcher about him, ie he is hated, loathed, but those who hate and loathe him are the ones who would never vote for his party anyway. Mr & Mrs Middle America don't march through the streets of New York and they don't control the media so you don't hear much about them, but they're out there and they care about the kind of issues that PJ brought up, and they're out there in large enough numbers to swing the vote for Bush.

Just one word of advice for the Democrats - don't go with Hilary in 2008, she will divide America just as much as Bush. If the GOP have a candidate more moderate than Bush and with enough charisma & charm, Hilary would be a disaster.

Mount Suribachi
11-03-2004, 20:31
Oh, and those who regard the Reps (or any party) having a mandate & control as a bad thing, I most heartily disagree. As much as I have been disapointed with Blair and many of his policies, I would much rather he had the power & authority to exercise his policies than be stuck in gridlock, every policy delayed, endlessly argued over, comprimised, watered down, diluted, nothing getting done. And I can't believe someone compared Bush having the authority to get things done in DC to Nazi Germany, good grief..... ~:confused:

Kommodus
11-03-2004, 20:38
Although I am glad Bush won (maybe more so that Kerry didn't win), I am unnerved by the overall election results. Power does corrupt; Republicans have had control of the government for four years, and I disagree with a number of the choices they made. They don't seem to have listened properly to the Democrats; it's as if they don't think they need them, and are content to do whatever they want without listening to other people's points of view. This is a dangerous attitude, and I certainly hope they get their act together this time around. I believe they have a chance to do much good, but if they don't take it, they will not have another chance for a long time.

I must admit I do not understand why the rest of the world is so hostile to Bush. I can understand some hostility - many people and governments worldwide disagreed with the Iraq invasion, and Bush certainly hasn't shown a lot of respect for decisions that the international community (particular the U.N.) supports. But the vast, seething, almost universal hostility I see doesn't seem justified. Bush's foreign policy decisions have not affected the rest of the world that badly. If anyone has a right to be angry, it's the people of Iraq - and they are more supportive of Bush than most of the rest of the world! I suspect worldwide media spin has made things seem worse than they are.

Mount Suribachi
11-03-2004, 20:45
They don't seem to have listened properly to the Democrats; it's as if they don't think they need them, and are content to do whatever they want without listening to other people's points of view.

With all due respect, the Democrats weren't elected, the Republicans were. I wouldn't expect any ruling party to ask the oppostion what they should do, and if I had voted for them I would be seriously peeved.

TinCow
11-03-2004, 21:04
Interesting.... would you agree that Democratic percieved obstructionism cost them this election- particularly in the Senate? I think this is particularly true in the case of Daschel.

I didn't pay a lot of attention to the Senate campaigns since my state didn't have any seats up this year, so I can't speak to that side of it. What lost the election (IMO) was the Anybody But Bush campaign. Hatred is a poor campaign platform and it doesn't convert a lot of people to your cause. Each year I keep waiting for an election that won't involve mudslinging and spin doctoring. Until we behave like civilized people and stop with the insane conspiracy theories and demonization of our opponents, we will never be considered seriously by anyone on the right.

This is an example of what lost us the election:


Congratulations Conservatives, on your grand victory. Now, you can shove down the throats of the nation's people your conservative agenda, based off of your false Judeo-Christian morals and kickbacks to your friends corporate/industrial sector. Sleep tight with your corporate executives rolling in your filthy lucre and appoint to the Supreme Court that jesus-freak redneck you've always wanted. You people make me sick...

Xiahou
11-03-2004, 21:08
Another aspect is how divided the democrat base is. It consists of old time unions, minority special interest groups, the Moore kook fringe, socialists, many Catholics (for some reason) and so on. Most of these groups have wildly varying views on the issues.... makes it tough to Democrats to put together a coherent platform (other than hatred) when they don't really have a unified base to appeal to.

Alexander the Pretty Good
11-03-2004, 21:12
It is a misconception that liberals make a huge issue out of gay marraige. Liberals make an issue out of equality, they fought for civil rights for blacks in the 50's and 60's and are fighting about equality for gays now. I hate listening to conservatives when the go on about homosexuality destroying the sanctity of marraige but they still support divorce. If you believe in the sanctification of marraige and its strong moral and social role in society, ban divorce. The whole issue was a political trick to get an unsophisticated part of the electorate that wouldn't have voted energized and voting for fear and bigotry instead of the inalienable rights that our constitution holds dear.

I don't want to make this a homosexual marriage thread (maybe I do but nevermind), but I have to disagree with you on a couple points. First: homosexual marriage, and its crusade among the social liberals and Democrats, is not about equality. Homosexuals have the exact same rights that heterosexuals have; if they (meaning gays) want to marry, marry someone of the opposite sex. Second: some conservatives, at least (myself included), don't support divorce, or at least no-fault divorces. Banning all divorces has the unpleasant consequence of forcing people to live through abusive marriages (even if they are uncommon, though I don't know any numbers). Banning no-fault divorce would be the right way to go. And just because marriage has been damaged by no-fault divorces doesn't mean that all interpretations of marriage are valid; just because some people get away with theft doesn't mean we should allow anyone to steal.

As far as being a dirty trick by those nasty conservatives, if an issue matters to people, why can't you run on that issue??? Isn't that something like... I don't know... democracy??? ~:confused:

Goofball
11-03-2004, 21:23
The power we have now is scary even to me...You're right to be scared. I'm glad to hear you say that, and I hope other conservatives share your concern. As a Canadian, I'm speaking from experience. In our election of 1993, we handed the reins of government almost in its entirety to the Liberal Party, handing them 177 seats in the House of Commons, compared to the 80 seats they had prior to the election. The Progressive Conservative Party, Canada's other mainstream political party, was reduced to 2 seats, compared with the 157 seats they had before the election. Not only did this reduce the PC Party below the amount of seats required for "official party status," but it meant that the Liberal Party now controlled 60% of the 295 seats in the Commons, effectively giving them a dictatorship.

Fortunately, the Liberals took a fairly centrist approach to governing, so there wasn't much massive, sweeping, social and political change as there could have been. What did happen was that the ruling Liberals developed a sense that they were above the law and as the ruling elite they could do whatever they wanted. Over the past 11 years, corruption has become an epidemic in the Canadian federal government, and with no real opposition party to keep them in check, the Liberals were able to keep most of it hidden until only recently.

What American conservatives now need to keep in the front of their minds, is that their mandate is much stronger on paper than it is in reality. Although you control all three branches of government, there is still 48% of your population that does not share your conservative morality. In fact, the number is probably much higher than 48%, because there are probably hundreds of thousands of voters who held their noses while they voted for Bush because even though they don't approve of his evangelical morality, they believed he was the President who could "protect" them from the evil terrorists. So to try to legislate conservative morality down the throats of the entire American population now would not only be mean spirited, but would also be political suicide in the future.

Alexander the Pretty Good
11-03-2004, 21:25
Jeez, how much power does the Republican party have? Not as much as you think.

I'm going to say this again:
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ENOUGH VOTES IN THE SENATE TO BLOCK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING.

Meneldil
11-03-2004, 21:35
Well, I'm french, and quite frankly, I can't understand your point of view.
Basically, people are saying the exact same thing as Beirut pointed out (they cannot believe how stupid the average American is for voting him back into office).

I know relations between France and USA weren't that great in the last few years, and I was really hoping for that problem to be solved. I don't know a lot about Kerry, but I assumed he would have attempted (and probably managed, or so I guessed) to heal relation between our countries.

Right now, I'm really disapointed, mainly because G.W. Bush represents all the things I hate in America : religious and conservative beliefs, lies, propaganda and his "I don't care about what the rest of the world thinks, let's do whatever we want" way of thinking.

It might annoys you, but from what I've seen in french and german TV shows, the average Bush voter is a silly farmer, who says 'God' at least twice in each sentence, who likes Nascar races, who spend his free time drinking beer and whose most intelligent speech is "Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi-Cola", or "French are dumb/suck/whatever" (when he learns that the guy interviewing him is from a french TV).
Well, at least I'm happy to meet some people who voted Bush and look much more intelligent than what we are used to see on european TV.

PS : sorry for my crappy english, but I'm exhausted, and don't have time to look for grammatical errors and typos. I'll have a look at my post later ~D

Goofball
11-03-2004, 21:48
just remember: Power Corrupts

but I look forward to four years of peace and prosperity
*coughs and sends a sip of beer shooting out of his nose*

I'm sorry, did you actually write that with a straight face?

In his last four years, Bush invaded two countries and rode a strong economy into the toilet. How (even in the wildest stretch of the imagination) does that equate to "peace and prosperity?"

Bob the Insane
11-03-2004, 21:53
Americans dont like what the democrats stand for socially.. partial birth abortion, gay marrige, God in the Pledge.

It seems the american people still care about morals and values.. and thats solid republican territory.

Ummm.. excuse my ignorance but are Democrates not Americans too??? ~D

Seriously though, 50+ million Americans (55,321,297 so far according to CNN) liked what they stand for. It just so happens that 58,876,015 (again thank you CNN) Americans do not like the Democratic message or simply perfer the Republican one... And if the 115 million odd people represents 60% of the electorate then there are about 75 million Americans who don't care enough either way to vote...

Does not sound like a white wash to me especially if you consider the number of "don't cares" greatly outnumbers any individual candidate's vote...

Goofball
11-03-2004, 22:00
Americans dont like what the democrats stand for socially.. partial birth abortion, gay marrige, God in the Pledge.

It seems the american people still care about morals and values.. and thats solid republican territory.Ummm.. excuse my ignorance but are Democrates not Americans too??? ~D

Seriously though, 50+ million Americans (55,321,297 so far according to CNN) liked what they stand for. It just so happens that 58,876,015 (again thank you CNN) Americans do not like the Democratic message or simply perfer the Republican one... And if the 115 million odd people represents 60% of the electorate then there are about 75 million Americans who don't care enough either way to vote...

Does not sound like a white wash to me especially if you consider the number of "don't cares" greatly outnumbers any individual candidate's vote...
Actually Bob, when Panzer says Americans, he means conservatives. As far as he is concerned, liberals and Democrats are Europeans.

Xiahou
11-03-2004, 22:02
But those numbers are huge by American standards- record high numbers in fact. So you can try to make much of how many Americans did not vote, but comparatively Bush has won by a large margin in the popular vote with some the highest numbers of voters ever. Also, lets not overlook the clear victory in the legislature.

Goofball
11-03-2004, 22:06
But those numbers are huge by American standards- record high numbers in fact. So you can try to make much of how many Americans did not vote, but comparatively Bush has won by a large margin in the popular vote with some the highest numbers of voters ever. Also, lets not overlook the clear victory in the legislature.
I'll quote myself:


What American conservatives now need to keep in the front of their minds, is that their mandate is much stronger on paper than it is in reality. Although you control all three branches of government, there is still 48% of your population that does not share your conservative morality. In fact, the number is probably much higher than 48%, because there are probably hundreds of thousands of voters who held their noses while they voted for Bush because even though they don't approve of his evangelical morality, they believed he was the President who could "protect" them from the evil terrorists.

Oswald
11-03-2004, 22:08
I find it remarkable that our wonderful press has labelled Ohio a near democrat win, yet ignored Pennsylvania where the the race is still up in the air, is closer and may yet go Republican.

The British Bolshevik Cooperative (BBC) actually was running the race as 240-240 in the electoral college AFTER Kerry-noob had realised he was routed.

This was not a close race IMHO, the Republicans won decisively compared to 2000.

We now have all 3 arms of government firmly in good hands. I dont accept that this is bad. At last basic sensible policies can be implemented. :balloon2:

I think we have seen the peak of the communist/socialist tide that began a century ago firmly put in the past. For the first time in over a century more Americans consider themselves Republican than Democrat.

Wake up Europe, get rid of all the sov sympathisers who sneaked into ur guts.

:balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2:

TinCow
11-03-2004, 22:08
But those numbers are huge by American standards- record high numbers in fact. So you can try to make much of how many Americans did not vote, but comparatively Bush has won by a large margin in the popular vote with some the highest numbers of voters ever. Also, lets not overlook the clear victory in the legislature.

Uh... yes, but no. The number of voters was the highest ever, but that had nothing to do with the election, it was the result of population growth. The % of voters is what is significant, not the #. This was a high turnout rate, but by no means the highest ever.

Xiahou
11-03-2004, 22:14
Sorry Goof, you have it backwards if anything. Are you calling effective control of all 3 branches of government (by your admission), a paper mandate? I'd call total control along with a popular majority a mandate that's based very much in reality.

Kommodus
11-03-2004, 22:21
It might annoys you, but from what I've seen in french and german TV shows, the average Bush voter is a silly farmer, who says 'God' at least twice in each sentence, who likes Nascar races, who spend his free time drinking beer and whose most intelligent speech is "Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi-Cola", or "French are dumb/suck/whatever" (when he learns that the guy interviewing him is from a french TV).

Really? That's how the majority of Bush supporters are portrayed on European TV? ~:confused:

Maybe that's one reason why anti-Bush sentiment is so strong world-wide, and particularly in Europe. I personally know many Bush supporters, and none of us are like that at all (although many of us do talk about God occasionally). For the record, the Kerry supporters I know are quite intelligent themselves.

I'm glad to see that you at least don't view all of us like that. It gets irritating to be portrayed as an ignoramus, simply for thinking a certain way, after really trying to stay politically informed and make wise decisions. We do have valid reasons for thinking and voting the way we do.

I have to wonder what would motivate any media corporation, U.S. or otherwise, to portray Americans that way. I certainly don't view all French as idiots, and I would never believe it no matter what any television reporter said. I have more respect for humanity than that.

Politics can get really hurtful sometimes. ~:(

Goofball
11-03-2004, 22:31
Sorry Goof, you have it backwards if anything. Are you calling effective control of all 3 branches of government (by your admission), a paper mandate? I'd call total control along with a popular majority a mandate that's based very much in reality.
What I am saying is that the legislative, judicial, and executive power that the Republicans wield (effectively all of it) is disproportionate to their actual popular support. Over 48% of voters said they didn't like what Republicans stood for, yet Republicans now control the entire government. That needs to be kept in mind. Any decisions that were made with respect to social (or any other) issues, though they would affect 100% of your population, would only have the support of 51% of your population.

Ser Clegane
11-03-2004, 22:47
Wake up Europe, get rid of all the sov sympathisers who sneaked into ur guts.


What for? To become a carbon copy of the US society?

Thanks, but "no thanks"...

ToranagaSama
11-03-2004, 23:13
Well, I wish y'all Americans the best. Hope everything goes well for you. (Mostly because I live upstairs from you. ~:eek: )

Let me give you the street talk from here in Canada. What people here are saying, in general, is that they cannot believe how stupid the average American is for voting him back into office. There you have it, with no sugar coating.

Personally, I don't hold quite that severe an opinion, but in all honesty I cannot understand your choices. But perhaps this is how it should be. If we all thought alike, we'd be one country. For example, Kerry would have easily taken 90% of the vote had it been held here. That is the extent of our differences.

It's strange looking in from the outside and seeing Bush and what he is doing and has done, and your people's reaction to him. maybe I am beggining to understand, slowly, what you see in him (casting aside the propaganda and oblivious BS banter and sound bites that come from both sides). If I was to nail it down, it's the Average Joe persona of the guy.

I cannot be convinced in any way that Bush's actions in trying to find bin Laden and the war in Iraq are not complete failures in every way. But like the guy next door, standing there with a beer in his hand, promising that he'll finally build that garage "next year", which he's been saying every year, you want to believe him, and you really do hope he'll build it and you'll be happy to see him happy. Bush is that guy, a normal, full of faults but fun at a BBQ kind of guy. And Americans trust the Americanism of that hopeful effort more than the words of any fancy lawyer, who they would rather see drown than show up for drinks.

Bush is simple. And Americans crave simplicity. Not in a bad way, but in an old fashioned way. I don't think Bush represents accomplishment to the Americans, he represents hopeful effort, even blind hopeful effort, which is what so many of us live with every day. One look at Bush and you just know he's having trouble making it through the day just like everyone else. But he really does look like he's trying. And maybe he will build that garage he's been dreaming of. Next year.

In a crazy sort of way, I grudgingly admit that most Americans voted for Bush because they are hopeful. That ain't all bad.


The problem you're having in comprehending our elective results is in viewing them solely from the point of view of the war.

Americans, dare I say it, have greater concerns. THIS fact is more probably what the rest of the world will find so incomprehensible.

Our *internal* politics and concerns weighed larger than a war, which while not going precisely as we all would wish, really isn't personally effecting us in the least. It's all about the personal. A 1000 plus deaths in a nation of ~300 million is, sorry to say, inconsequential. The only true personal concern for the American voter regarding the war is the monetary cost involved. Also, on a personal level, but to a much smaller effective degree, is "would opinion", but the true fact is that the good folks in the Red states really don't give a D about "world opinion".

So, it really came down to *personal* issues. Unless, a non-American can conceive of, and comperhend the *personal* issues of American, the re-election of Bush will be incomprehensible.

An example of the personal is Homosexual Marriage. This is an issue brought to the fore during this election year. Eleven states had Ballot Referendums on the issue, ALL 11 passed *anti-* legislation. Meaning the people of 11 states voted their values, which was against Homosexual Marriage. Note, ALL of those states were Red states, Bush states.

I only cite the issue of Homosexual Marriage, because it is the most glaring *personal* issue, while not necessarily the most important.

The point is to highlight the significant *personal issues* differences between the liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. This election was about voting your personal issues/personal values, liberal vs conservatives.

The War, for Americans, frankly, was ancillary to these concerns, at worst, and at best, the War was representative of the Conservative and the Liberal.

Bush's election is representative of American majorily defining itself as Conservative, or to be truly accurate, America has rejected the *Fringe* issues, be it Homosexual Marriage or otherwise.

Moving this beyond the Homosexual, just for example, Secularization. Another strong *personal* issue. During the last few years there has been a growing Seculariztion movement; with a good deal of Secular legislation passed around the country. In America, a Secular nation, "Secularization* is being pushed to the extreme. Bush's election is representative of the Majority view against this *extreme* Secularization emanating from the Liberal Left. Again, this is a *Fringe* issue.

There are MANY other *personal* issue of greater or equal concern to Americans as the War.

Unfortunately, I believe the outside world is wholly unaware of Internal American Politics and the significance such to the American people. Consequently, the outside world will view Bush's election solely through the prism of the War, which is contrary to the American view.

It's quite apparent that Bush is *more* representative of majority *personal* issues and values.

Y'all need to stop viewing American through the prism of Iraq.

What I'd like to know is WHY do you all do so, that is view us soley through this prism, as if its all there is to our lives. As if the ONLY relevant and *resultant* differences between Bush and Kerry would be their posture toward the Iraq War.

Don Corleone
11-03-2004, 23:16
You know, I get a hoot out of this sort of hand wringing.

Goofball warns us that in a governmental system designed for gridlock, we ought to be careful to hamstring the winning party to make certain those crazy Republicans don't go even crazier.

Several of you point to the fact that 'som many people just didn't vote' means that Bush and the Republicans don't have the authority to govern. I'm sorry to break it to you, but our numbers are on par with any Western democracy and like you, we apparently have about 40% of our population that wouldn't make a decision for themselves if you put a gun to their head. Bush is the first president in 16 years to get over 50% of the popular vote, and you people claim 'well, it wasn't a super majority, so it's a tie'?!?!? Nice try.

Finally, we have my new favorite friend, Mr. Meneldil. He wanders in here, finds about as many insulting stereotypes he can to describe Republicans in particular, Americans in general, and then launches into this little ditty:
Right now, I'm really disapointed, mainly because G.W. Bush represents all the things I hate in America : religious and conservative beliefs, lies, propaganda and his "I don't care about what the rest of the world thinks, let's do whatever we want" way of thinking.
You know... three things I want to say about this: 1) I don't insult and belittle France or the French people for electing Chirac; I respect your sovereignty 2) When did a belief in God become 'hateful'? (Religion was listed as the first thing you hate about America) and 3) I think the American compulsion for French-bashing is by and large relatively silly and immature. The vast majority of French people I have come across in my experiences, both here in America and abroad have been intelligent, friendly and courteous. You sir, are none of these things. If you want to know why a portion of America has a knee-jerk reaction to French people, look in the mirror. It's exactly the venom you're spewing about Americans that makes some Americans think the French are not worth interfacing with. I know better, but I do have to say you are a poor representative for your people.

Colovion
11-03-2004, 23:37
So... so you're saying that hating "religious and conservative beliefs, lies, propeganda and [Bush's] 'I don't care about what the rest of the world things, let's do whatever we want' way of thinking" is wrong? He said he's disapointed.... so why are you so vehement against him suddenly?

Don Corleone
11-03-2004, 23:58
Hating somebody for being religious, wrong? Yes. That's one of the biggest problems I have with the liberal intelligensia. If you don't want to believe in a God, that's fine, don't. But you're trying to silence anyone who does. Don't we have a right to our beliefs? Don't we have a right to voice them?

Goofball
11-03-2004, 23:58
You know, I get a hoot out of this sort of hand wringing.

Goofball warns us that in a governmental system designed for gridlock, we ought to be careful to hamstring the winning party to make certain those crazy Republicans don't go even crazier.
Don, nowhere in my post did I say that the Republicans don't have the legitimate, legal authority to govern as they see fit. What I am saying is that there is a sizable (close to 50%) portion of the population who do not approve of Republican values. If Republicans choose to use their new mandate to aggressively pursue an agenda of forcing the legislation of various social issues, it will:

1) Definitely alienate half of the population

and

2) Hopefully lose them the legislative majority and Presidency in future elections.

Lehesu
11-04-2004, 00:02
The pendulum has swung way off to one side, as it often has. Right now, it has swung way too far to the conservative; next election, I think there will be a backlash and the pendulum will swing back the other way. I am not a part of any party, but I hate it when the pendulum goes too far to one side; that's why I wanted Kerry to win.

Don Corleone
11-04-2004, 00:03
Well, fair enough, and if I misconstrued your arguments Goofball, I apologize. However, if Kerry had won last night ~:eek: and in making his acceptance speech this morning he said "And I intend to bring about an America where all people have the right to marry the person they choose" I guarantee you would not be here discussing the fact that 1/2 of the population disagreed with him and he should hold back.

Jacque Schtrapp
11-04-2004, 00:05
comparatively Bush has won by a large margin in the popular vote with some the highest numbers of voters ever.

Indeed. In fact, he achieved a true majority in the popular vote, 51%, something not even Bill Clinton was able to do.

A word to all the non_Americans mentioning their fellows astonishment over the "stupidity" of Americans for voting GW into office again: When the average US citizen stops and actually thinks about it we can indeed see how vast an impact even internal things in our country have on the entire world. However, we are citizens of our country first and foremost, just as you are of your country, and we do what we feel is best for us, again as you do what is best for you. It is (usually) not an intentional slight or machination for world domination, it is simply the day to day humdrum that makes up the average Americans daily life. We want what everyone else wants: a home, family, and success, but being so far removed from other countries (from where I sit you could drive a thousand kilometers in any direction and still be well inside US borders) we rarely need to concern ourselves with your problems. To that end, a majority of Americans elected GW to address our concerns as we felt he was better able or better qualified (or for whatever other reason) than his opponent to achieve the things near and dear to our hearts. Please try and remember that he is our leader elected to deal with our problems according to our (not Europe's) wishes. In closing I will say that there likely are people out there better equipped and more capable of handling the US Presidency, as fate would have it those people didn't apply for the job. Perhaps in four more years one of those people will throw their name into the mix and end up with the comfy chair in the big white house... just don't be surprised if that person shares the same poilitcal affiliation as the man who now occupies that seat.

~;)

Colovion
11-04-2004, 00:05
Hating somebody for being religious, wrong? Yes. That's one of the biggest problems I have with the liberal intelligensia. If you don't want to believe in a God, that's fine, don't. But you're trying to silence anyone who does. Don't we have a right to our beliefs? Don't we have a right to voice them?

tsk tsk

I'm not trying to silence anyone. You have perfect rights to believe anything you want - but why does Bush have to inject his beliefs into his campaign and his administrative principles? Human rights is issue #1. So suddenly people can't choose their own life directions because the person in power thinks what you are trying to do is wrong via their religion. Voice your religion all you want, just remember to seperate Church from State.

Don Corleone
11-04-2004, 00:13
Look, Colovion, I wasn't telling you that you should be religious or shouldn't be. I wasn't addressing anything you had said.

Meneldil said he was disappointed that Bush got elected because Bush represents all of the things that he hates about America. Number one on that list is religion.

You can try to spin that any way you want to, but he only gave voice to a viewpoint I see quite a bit of from the left.

With regards to gay civil unions, I sort of agree with you, but my position is actually 180 degrees away from yours.... I don't believe that in today's day and age marriage should be a legal contract. All the problems we're having with gay marriage stem from the fact that we decided to encode a religious institution into marriage. I would argue this is the root cause of the problem, and the problem is solved not by allowing gay men or women to marry each other, but by recognizing that marriage is a religious institution that has no legal standing.

P.S. Great post Jacque

Xiahou
11-04-2004, 00:14
Don, nowhere in my post did I say that the Republicans don't have the legitimate, legal authority to govern as they see fit. What I am saying is that there is a sizable (close to 50%) portion of the population who do not approve of Republican values. If Republicans choose to use their new mandate to aggressively pursue an agenda of forcing the legislation of various social issues, it will:

1) Definitely alienate half of the population

and

2) Hopefully lose them the legislative majority and Presidency in future elections.
1) Guess what? That's the way democracy works. It's always worked that way- but now that Bush, whom you can't stand, has a stronger majority than Clinton ever had it shouldnt be used to enforce policy that they were elected for?

2) Hope all you want, votes are what matter. ~:cool:

Colovion
11-04-2004, 00:19
Look, Colovion, I wasn't telling you that you should be religious or shouldn't be. I wasn't addressing anything you had said.

Meneldil said he was disappointed that Bush got elected because Bush represents all of the things that he hates about America. Number one on that list is religion.

You can try to spin that any way you want to, but he only gave voice to a viewpoint I see quite a bit of from the left.

With regards to gay civil unions, I sort of agree with you, but my position is actually 180 degrees away from yours.... I don't believe that in today's day and age marriage should be a legal contract. All the problems we're having with gay marriage stem from the fact that we decided to encode a religious institution into marriage. I would argue this is the root cause of the problem, and the problem is solved not by allowing gay men or women to marry each other, but by recognizing that marriage is a religious institution that has no legal standing.

P.S. Great post Jacque

agreed

let homosexuals get married but if they want to get married in a church that has to do with the church, and nothing to do with legality

Jacque Schtrapp
11-04-2004, 00:29
tsk tsk

I'm not trying to silence anyone. You have perfect rights to believe anything you want - but why does Bush have to inject his beliefs into his campaign and his administrative principles?

It would appear 58+ million Americans don't share your concerns. Indeed, one of the chief reasons political analysts are saying the American political trend is swinging from left to right is the increasing atheistic beliefs of the left. You people would benefit greatly from finding religion, if only at the poll booth.




Human rights is issue #1. So suddenly people can't choose their own life directions because the person in power thinks what you are trying to do is wrong via their religion.

Hmmm... You fail to recognize that marriage is and always has been an establishment of religion. Your desire to force religious people to accept gay marriage is actually violating the selfsame rights of the rest of the vast overwhelming majority of religious citizens of this country.


Voice your religion all you want, just remember to seperate Church from State.

Once again, for the cheap seats, there is no legal guarantee of "separation of church and state." This is an extraordinarily popular myth that really needs a thorough debunking. In fact, if you have a copy of the Bill of Rights handy you should be able to quickly locate the passage which spawned this tired old fiction. It's the 1st Amendment which reads "Congress shall make no law affecting an establishment of religion, or affecting the free exercise thereof..." It was written to protect religion from the state (you remember, the whole reason we moved here in the first place), hence, nowhere in the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights will you find any other reference to, or requirement for, a separation of church and state. By the way, the rest of the 1st Amendment goes on to protect "freedom of speech", so please stop infringing on GW's right to express his religious ferverence.
~;)

Tribesman
11-04-2004, 00:36
Oswald I think we have seen the peak of the communist/socialist tide that began a century ago firmly put in the past. For the first time in over a century more Americans consider themselves Republican than Democrat.
You could hardly call the Democrats socialist/communist .
In case you missed any of the other American elections recently you might want to see how many leftist governments have come to power in the South lately , often by a huge majority , not just 51% , but then again you may not want to look as it might upset your dreams ~;)

pyhhricvictory
11-04-2004, 00:38
Hmmm... You fail to recognize that marriage is and always has been an establishment of religion. Your desire to force religious people to accept gay marriage is actually violating the selfsame rights of the rest of the vast overwhelming majority of religious citizens of this country.
\


Then allow a civil union between homosexuals that give them the same LEGAL rights as a heterosexual couple has. If marraige is a religious ceremony then the church of choice can decide to recognize the union or not and give it blessing or not. If we, as a nation, belive that everyone is equal and deserves equal rights and protections under the law then give it to them and stop making a religious issue out of something that is a natural right.

Xiahou
11-04-2004, 00:44
Once again, for the cheap seats, there is no legal guarantee of "separation of church and state." This is an extraordinarily popular myth that really needs a thorough debunking. In fact, if you have a copy of the Bill of Rights handy you should be able to quickly locate the passage which spawned this tired old fiction. It's the 1st Amendment which reads "Congress shall make no law affecting an establishment of religion, or affecting the free exercise thereof..." It was written to protect religion from the state (you remember, the whole reason we moved here in the first place), hence, nowhere in the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights will you find any other reference to, or requirement for, a separation of church and state. By the way, the rest of the 1st Amendment goes on to protect "freedom of speech", so please stop infringing on GW's right to express his religious ferverence.
Don't worry, the Bush Supreme Court appointees should straighten this issue out. ~D ~D ~D

Colovion
11-04-2004, 00:46
Hmmm... You fail to recognize that marriage is and always has been an establishment of religion. Your desire to force religious people to accept gay marriage is actually violating the selfsame rights of the rest of the vast overwhelming majority of religious citizens of this country.

You are wrong (http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm)

marriage isn't a Church invention. If someone wants to get married in a church that is a matter of Church doctrine. Marriage outside of a church is a legal matter and of human right to choose - if someone disagrees with a person's right to choose what sex their marriage partner is going to be then that has nothing to do with anyone but the person disagreeing. If a religious person disagrees with someone's sexual preference then they should accept that they can't infringe on that person's rights as a human being.




Once again, for the cheap seats, there is no legal guarantee of "separation of church and state." This is an extraordinarily popular myth that really needs a thorough debunking. In fact, if you have a copy of the Bill of Rights handy you should be able to quickly locate the passage which spawned this tired old fiction. It's the 1st Amendment which reads "Congress shall make no law affecting an establishment of religion, or affecting the free exercise thereof..." It was written to protect religion from the state (you remember, the whole reason we moved here in the first place), hence, nowhere in the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights will you find any other reference to, or requirement for, a separation of church and state. By the way, the rest of the 1st Amendment goes on to protect "freedom of speech", so please stop infringing on GW's right to express his religious ferverence.


I wasnt' aware America was so synonymous with Religious Dictatorship, I apoligise. :bow:

Goofball
11-04-2004, 00:55
Don't worry, the Bush Supreme Court appointees should straighten this issue out. ~D ~D ~D
So, you believe that Supreme Court justices should interpret the constitution based on their religious beliefs?

LittleGrizzly
11-04-2004, 00:58
congratulations on your victory conservatives ~:cheers:

Alexander the Pretty Good
11-04-2004, 01:21
So, you believe that Supreme Court justices should interpret the constitution based on their religious beliefs?

I think he means they should interperet the Constitution according to what the Constitution actually says. ~;)

And I fully agree. It is merely a coincidence that strictly interpreting the Contitution favors conservative and faith-based positions. ~D

Beirut
11-04-2004, 02:56
Didn't Thomas Jefferson say "the United States is is no way founded upon the Christian religion."?

Colovion
11-04-2004, 03:19
Didn't Thomas Jefferson say "the United States is is no way founded upon the Christian religion."?

Well here's some of his quotes. Judge for yourself:

"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another." Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Memorial Edition, edited by Lipscomb and Bergh, 1903-04, 10:78

"...our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opnions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry" Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Julron P. Boyd, 1950, 2:545

I'd go further, as there are many that are much more vehement, but I believe that that is adequate.

PanzerJaeger
11-04-2004, 04:26
Jefferson was a great and influential forefather, but far from the only one.

Gawain of Orkeny
11-04-2004, 04:29
And heres the facts


Original Intent THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE METAPHORICAL "WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . "


The Congressional Records from June to September, 1789 record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, during those debates not one of the framers ever mentioned the now infamous phrase "separation of church and state." The phrase, "separation of church and state" is not found in the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment, nor any of the notes from the Constitutional Convention. In fact, the current application of the "separation" doctrine is a relatively recent concept rather than the enforcement of a long-held constitutional principle.

The primary occasion of the phrase "separation of church and state" dates back to a letter written in 1802 from then President Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. It is important to note that the letter was written fourteen years after the passage of the First Amendment; that Jefferson was in France at the time the Constitutional amendments (the Bill of Rights) were passed by Congress; and that he had no part in drafting or approving the First Amendment. In their letter to the President, the Danbury Baptists set forth their position that:

Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: . . .and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. . . .

In other words, the Baptists were concerned that the First Amendment's "free exercise" right was granted by the national government, rather than an unalienable right endowed by the Creator as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence. And if religion was a right granted by the government, the Baptists reasoned, government could regulate or prohibit religious activity in the marketplace. Jefferson shared their concern and replied by letter on January 1, 1802:


Gentlemen:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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. . . . I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.14



Note that Jefferson refers to the free exercise of religion as a "natural right." Recall that in 1776 Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence which relied on the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God," "unalienable rights endowed by the Creator" and "the Supreme Judge of the World."15 Also note that Jefferson prayed at both of his inaugurations and he approved several measures appropriating federal funds to pay for missionaries to the Indians.16

Whatever Jefferson meant by the "wall of separation" phrase, he clearly did not intend the modern notion of an impenetrable wall preventing individuals from religious expression.

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prevented] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline or practices. Clearly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the States.17

In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercise suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state and church authorities. . . .18

The "wall" was a jurisdictional limitation against the federal government's interference with an individual's natural right to the free exercise of religion. The federal government, reasoned Jefferson, has jurisdiction over "actions only and not opinions"; it had no jurisdiction over religion, which was a matter "solely between man and his God."

Further, on a facial review, the object of the First Amendment, which begins with the word "Congress", was clearly not intended to apply to the States. Rather the intent of the First Amendment's "establishment" clause was, according to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, ". . . to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects." 19 This is confirmed by the preliminary draft of the First Amendment proposed by James Madison to the House of Representatives in 1789:

The Civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.20

According to the Secretary,

Mr. Madison thought, if the word 'National' was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if the word 'National' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.21

In sum, the object of the First Amendment was to prevent the national government from choosing one Christian sect [denomination] over another and establishing a single national denomination.

Moreover, the Framers intended the powers and limitations contained in the U.S. Constitution to apply only to the federal government and not to the States. For example, in the famous case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Plaintiff sued to apply the Fifth Amendment to the City of Baltimore. In its holding, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall wrote:

The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. * * * If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states.22

For over one-hundred and fifty years, this was the original intent regarding the scope and jurisdiction of the Constitution, the national government and the Bill of Rights.

However in 1947, the Supreme Court, in Everson v. Board of Education,23 used Jefferson's Danbury letter as a pretext to disregard centuries of legal tradition in the common law, the Declaration of Independence, the writings of the founding fathers, the notes and records of the Constitutional Convention and over a century of American constitutional jurisprudence. With the stroke of a pen, the Court created a new "law" by incorporating the Fourteenth Amendment (which dealt exclusively with specific State powers) with the First Amendment's federal provision against an "establishment of religion".

The result of this legal hocus pocus was devastating: first, the Court reversed 150 years of Constitutional precedent which limited the First Amendment's application to Congress, i.e., the national government; second, the Court declared that federal courts were now empowered to restrict not only the religious activities of the national government, but the religious expressions of the people and the States as well. Five years later in Zorach, the Court tried in vain to resuscitate the First Amendment's original intent:

We are a religious people who institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. When the state encourages religious authorities. . . it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people. . . . To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious group. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. . . .[W]e cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion.24

"There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition," wrote Chief Justice Rehnquist in his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree,25 "that the Framers intended to build the 'wall of separation' that was constitutionalized in Everson. But the greatest injury of the 'wall' notion," continued Justice Rehnquist, is the mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. [N]o amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.26

Ultimately, however, the Everson case and its progeny prevailed.27

Although the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . ., " most of the Court's recent decisions in this area involve neither Congress nor the "making of a law." For example, in Lee v. Weisman, the Court equates a Rabbi at a high school graduation ceremony with "Congress" and Rabbi's prayer during the graduation ceremony as the "making of a law." Indeed, using the Court's criteria, the First Amendment is internally inconsistent: a person's right to "free exercise" of religion may now collide with the prohibited "establishment" of a religion.

Moreover, contrary to the intent of the Framers, the Court now believes that it alone has "secret knowledge" 28 to decide what is "constitutional" for the rest of the nation. For example, in Boerne v. Flores29 decided July, 1997, the Court held that Congress' attempt to protect the religious liberties of the people by passing the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA) was "unconstitutional." In its holding the Court opined that RFRA was "not a proper exercise of Congress' enforcement power because it contradicts vital principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal-state balance."

Finally, the Constitutional Framers understood that government encouragement of religion was not equal to the establishment of religion; that, as George Washington said, "religion and morality were indispensable supports" to political prosperity.30 Indeed, on the day the First Amendment was passed by the Congress in 1789, Washington accepted Congress' charge to proclaim a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God." As Chief Justice Rehnquist opined in the Jaffree case, "History must judge whether it was the Father of our country in 1789, or. . . the Court . . . which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause."31

The fears of the Danbury Baptists have come true . The Supreme Court has become, in Jefferson's words, a "despotic branch." By rejecting natural law and the doctrine of original intent, the Court now assumes: first, that the State--not the Creator--grants men their fundamental (unalienable) rights, and second: since our rights are no longer "unalienable" they can be regulated or even abridged with impunity.

Two centuries after the First Amendment was approved, the Court now sits in judgment of our beliefs as a "national theology board"32 and uses the First Amendment as a "bulldozer of social engineering"33 to remove all religious expression from the marketplace of ideas. The Court no longer feigns adherence to the Founders' original intentions regarding the object of the First Amendment or the natural rights of the people found therein. Ironically, as predicted in Zorach, the Court now protects the rights of "those who believe in no religion over those who do believe" by engaging in the methodical religious sanitization of our institutions and communities. The Court has guaranteed freedom from religion as opposed to freedom of religion.

While our forefathers left us a legacy of faith, optimism and shared values, the Court has forced us to leave our children a moral wasteland littered with the refuse of cynicism, despair and anarchy.

Let us return to common sense--to natural law and original intent--before it is too late

Now lets see if some of you liberal lawyers and laymen can explain this case.


In 1844, a case came before the U.S. Supreme Court [Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 43 U.S. 126 (1844)] in which a Frenchman, suspected of being a "deist" or "infidel," wanted to build a school quite different from most -- one in which the teachers would not be clergymen. His will left millions of dollars to the City of Philadelphia to build a school in which "no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever" should be allowed in. He stipulated that "only the purest principles of morality" should be taught, by which he obviously meant Secular Humanism/No Bible.

(I say this is "obvious" because of the opprobrium with which the atheistic French Revolution was viewed in America. Both the City of Philadelphia and Girard's heirs suspected that by this provision he wanted to exclude the Bible from the school and to prohibit Christianity from being taught.)

Both the City of Philadelphia and Girard's heirs conceded that an atheistic school such as this would be repugnant to the Christian law of this country. This is one of the arguments raised before the Supreme Court by Daniel Webster:

[T]he plan of education proposed is anti-Christian and therefore repugnant to the law.

His reasoning before the US Supreme Court was based on Biblical authority:

Both in the Old and New Testaments its importance [viz., the religious instruction of youth] is recognized. In the Old it is said, "Thou shalt diligently teach them to thy children," and in the New, "Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not . . . ." No fault can be found with Girard for wishing a marble college to bear his name for ever, but it is not valuable unless it has a fragrance of Christianity about it.

One has to exercise a little historiographic wisdom here. What kind of world was it back then the a man of Daniel Webster's stature (called "the Defender of the Constitution") could rise before the US Supreme Court and cite Bible verses as the basis for setting aside probably the largest devise of its kind in the history of the New World?

Webster argued that the single anti-Christian provision of Girard's will should force the entire will to be set aside. But courts will attempt to salvage a will by removing any clause offensive to public policy. This is what the City of Philadelphia argued. They granted that the atheistic school clause was anti-Christian and therefore unlawful, but they argued that Webster should have

. . . joined with us in asking the State to cut off the obnoxious clause.

The City agreed with Webster that this was a Christian nation and that the Bible must be taught in schools. Giving a tortured interpretation of the Frenchman's will, the City argued:

The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a Christian man derives his faith -- the Bible. . . . [T]here is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz., a pure system of morality.

So here we have two parties before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that a clause in a will requiring a Bible-free school cannot be enforced in America because this is a Christian nation. If the ACLU's version of history were true, the Supreme Court would have laughed these lawyers out onto the street. Nobody after Everson can make arguments like this before the Court. (But then, the case which took prayer out of schools in 1962 did not cite a single judicial precedent. The doctrine of "separation of church and state" required a wholesale revision of American history. The Holy Trinity case, of course, cited this 1844 case to prove that America was a "Christian nation.")

So what exactly did the Girard Court hold? How did it react to these Bible-thumping lawyers before it?

After both sides argued that the anti-Christian provision of the will was repugnant to law, the unanimous opinion of the US Supreme Court was delivered by Justice Joseph Story, whose Commentaries on the Constitution were regarded as the greatest statement of U.S. Constitutional Law. The Court ruled that Christianity could NOT be excluded from the school.

Christianity . . . is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public. . . . It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider . . . the establishment of a school or college for the propagation of . . . Deism or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country.

Note that "deism" is equated with "infidelity." The Supreme Court said they were not to be tolerated in a Christian nation. Deism is not approved the way modern writers say the Founders did.

John Adams denounced "infidelity":

The idea of infidelity cannot be treated with too much resentment or too much horror. The man who can think of it with patience is a traitor in his heart and ought to be execrated as one who adds the deepest hypocrisy to the blackest treason. [20]

The Founders believed that a school which would teach Deism is against public policy. That's what the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1844. That holding cannot be made after the Everson case. Not because the Constitution requires it, but because the Secular Humanist Court now requires that atheists are not to be annoyed by prayers, Bible readings, or manger scenes in public.

It might be instructive to recall the words of Scripture:

the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous. Proverbs 13:22

The Vidal Court very wisely does not allow the will to fail, but takes millions of dollars from an apparent unbeliever and uses them to build a school which will teach Christianity. The Court looks at Girard's will, which expressly states that no clergy can even enter the school -- even as visitors -- and says, that's OK:

Why may not laymen instruct in the general principles of Christianity as well as ecclesiastics [that's "clergy" for you public school graduates.]
And we cannot overlook the blessings which such [lay]men by their conduct, as well as their instructions, may, nay must impart to their youthful pupils. Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the college -- its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? . . . Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?

You cannot even IMAGINE the current Supreme Court saying anything like this. That's why the Court has had to ignore all legal precedent in formulating its doctrine of the "separation of church and state." It's not in the Constitution, nor its legislative history, nor in Court cases throughout the 19th century.

This case blows the myth of "separation" to pieces, but most Americans have had their historical memories flushed down the Orwellian Memory Hole and can't even grasp what's going on in this case. Nobody in this case believed in a "separation of church and state" as now understood, and nobody believed that the Constitution required the Bible to be removed from schools.

Lemur
11-04-2004, 05:52
This case blows the myth of "separation" to pieces, but most Americans have had their historical memories flushed down the Orwellian Memory Hole and can't even grasp what's going on in this case.
As I have said before, Americans have a very limited sense of history, and rarely seem to inquire into where things came from, and how they began. The separation of church and state is the least of it.

Most conservative politicians seem to believe that American began circa 1950. Most liberal politicans believe that everything started in the 1960s. Both are boring.

Bob the Insane
11-04-2004, 10:12
This thread is getting really interesting... nice discussion...

An addition to my earlier comments about claims that America had spoken of it's huge support for Bush through the votes and how when you look at the numbers that is an exaggeration...

I did not mean to say that this was not a rock solid victory for the Republicans given the way the US election system works, it obviously was...

And such things are perfectly possible over here in the UK too as the party that wins the most seats in an election will be invited to form a Government, even if they don't have a majority.. The way seats in the House of Commons are won is through the local election of MPs in parlimentry boroughs (one MP per borough)... So the overall vote in each borough can be very close but if they all narrowly go to one party, that party will have a big majority in Parliment...

And I am sure politians in this country would be quick to ignore that about 21% of the population actively voting for them and 20% actively vaoting against them is not a nationwide statement of support...

So no critisim of the US system is going to come from me... ~D

TinCow
11-04-2004, 15:31
Now lets see if some of you liberal lawyers and laymen can explain this case.

I love it when non-lawyers cite ancient cases that are no longer applicable to modern law in an effort to make it seem like they know what they are talking about. Dredd Scott was a Supreme Court decision too you know.

Seperation of Church and State has been a fundamental part of our governmental system for a long, long time. The judicial system, even when under conservative control, has affirmed this time and time again. To say otherwise is simply showing ignorance. Examples of Supreme Court cases emphasizing seperation of church and state:

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971) (VERY IMPORTANT)
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave. , Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)

Devastatin Dave
11-04-2004, 16:02
Good article on the SLAUGHTER the left recieved on the 3rd!!!

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=5195

Gawain of Orkeny
11-04-2004, 17:08
I love it when non-lawyers cite ancient cases that are no longer applicable to modern law in an effort to make it seem like they know what they are talking about. Dredd Scott was a Supreme Court decision too you know

I love your interpretation of a longtime now. You glorious history of secularism begins by your own post in 1948. Its no older than I. According to your thinking the constitution is an old worthless peice of paper unless some radical judge can read it the way you like. Isnt it interesting that the first case you site is 1948 after I posted this


However in 1947, the Supreme Court, in Everson v. Board of Education,23 used Jefferson's Danbury letter as a pretext to disregard centuries of legal tradition in the common law, the Declaration of Independence, the writings of the founding fathers, the notes and records of the Constitutional Convention and over a century of American constitutional jurisprudence. With the stroke of a pen, the Court created a new "law" by incorporating the Fourteenth Amendment (which dealt exclusively with specific State powers) with the First Amendment's federal provision against an "establishment of religion".

TinCow
11-04-2004, 17:32
I love your interpretation of a longtime now. You glorious history of secularism begins by your own post in 1948. Its no older than I. According to your thinking the constitution is an old worthless peice of paper unless some radical judge can read it the way you like. Isnt it interesting that the first case you site is 1948 after I posted this

FYI, in law the most recent precedent determines the law. That is why old cases are irrelevant. There is very little in law that has not changed over the last 100 years, let alone the last 20. If I were to cite an 1844 case in court, I would get funny looks from the bench and a new hole torn by opposing counsel.

Tachikaze
11-04-2004, 17:43
The Election of 2004 was a victory for ignorance, bigotry, and, the power of fear. It was a dark day for the US and the world. I feel sorry for the poor, the millions without healthcare, gays, non-Christians, the parents of soldiers in Iraq, the environment, American workers losing their jobs to international outsourcing, and the people of Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Syria, who may soon be bombed, burned, and tortured.

People studying history look back at times when dictators and fundamentalist maniacs were voted into office, and wonder how the people could be so blind to elect them. Well, we have seen it in action. The US has re-elected a monster.

The conservatives are on their way to converting the US into River City, Iowa, and worse, Hillsboro, Tennessee (two fictious towns from The Music Man and Inherit the Wind respectively. This nation is becoming a laughingstock of the world, and I am embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with it now. I hope the people of the world realize that almost half of us voted against this distorted and psychotic human being who is busy grinning like an idiot in front of his supporters.

Now, we can sit back and wait for the witch hunts, book bannings and burnings, and trials before the House Committee on Unamerican Activities.

And speaking of Inherit the Wind, or Clarence Darrow, the one line that I keep hearing in my head as I watch events unfold is: "Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding". That's what I'm seeing happening in this country today, and what I saw play out in this election.

Gawain of Orkeny
11-04-2004, 17:59
FYI, in law the most recent precedent determines the law. That is why old cases are irrelevant. There is very little in law that has not changed over the last 100 years, let alone the last 20. If I were to cite an 1844 case in court, I would get funny looks from the bench and a new hole torn by opposing counsel.

I dont believe you are correct as far as constitutional law goes. How can you interpret the constitution if you start with the premiss that its old law and worthless? I would remind you that the case that started this whole mess as usual was a 5 to 4 descision. Its time to put the law back the way the founding fathers intended.

TinCow
11-04-2004, 18:18
I dont believe you are correct as far as constitutional law goes. How can you interpret the constitution if you start with the premiss that its old law and worthless? I would remind you that the case that started this whole mess as usual was a 5 to 4 descision. Its time to put the law back the way the founding fathers intended.

I never said that the Constitution is old law and worthless. My point was that citing old cases is usually a fast track to an incorrect understanding of the law. The way our system works, cases build on each other. The newest case will take the holdings of the older cases and apply current interpretation and understanding to them. This is why the law is so complex... you cannot simply read the Constitution and declare that the law. The Constitution is vague and unclear in every single aspect. We look to interpretation of that law to clear up these problems. Interpretation evolves over time, building on previous decisions. For example, all free speech law is based upon this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yet our law now says that ridicule of public figures is judged in a different manner from private citizens and that disparaging public figures requires that the offensive remarks be actually believable rather than simply outrageously offensive. That is directly derrived from interpretation of the First Amendment... yet the Constitution says nothing that even addresses any issue remotely related to that holding. So, how did we get to that law? Gradual evolution through re-interpretation of previous cases as applied to current social perceptions. By its very nature, the law requires that you look at the entire spectrum of legal opinion on the subject, not at any particular case. As such, the older the case, the more out of date and irrelevant it is.

Gawain of Orkeny
11-04-2004, 18:25
Yet our law now says that ridicule of public figures is judged in a different manner from private citizens and that disparaging public figures requires that the offensive remarks be actually believable rather than simply outrageously offensive. That is directly derrived from interpretation of the First Amendment... yet the Constitution says nothing that even addresses any issue remotely related to that holding.

This sounds like a contrdictary statement to me. You say the law is derived from interpretation of the 1st amendment and then say the constitution says nothing that even addresses any issue remotely related to that holding.

I would further point out that 1947 didnt go by old law but totally ignored it and wrote new law that was not as you suggest based on old law. You cant just throw out parts of the constitution you dont agree with. The US was formed by christains as a christain nation much as those of you on the left want to deny it. This election just proved that as the number one issues were social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Not only werent the founding fathers diest as some claim but diesm and atheism were practically a crime according to them. There are two ways to interpret the constitution. Obviously you and I are on the opposite side of this issue.

TinCow
11-04-2004, 18:48
This sounds like a contrdictary statement to me. You say the law is derived from interpretation of the 1st amendment and then say the constitution says nothing that even addresses any issue remotely related to that holding.

The point was that the Constitution says nothing about how to handle ridicule of a public figure as distinguished form a private citizen. The fact that we have used the Constitution as a basis to expand upon should not be a difficult concept to understand.


I would further point out that 1947 didnt go by old law but totally ignored it and wrote new law that was not as you suggest based on old law.

Did you even read the case you cited or did you just swallow that article whole? First of all, Everson is actually considered a victory AGAINST seperation of church and state. Second, the court in Everson cited MANY older cases to support its decision. These include:

GREEN v. FRAZIER , 253 U.S. 233 (1920)
DAVIDSON v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, 96 U.S. 97 (1877)
BARBIER v. CONNOLLY, 113 U.S. 27 (1884)
FALLBROOK IRRIGATION DIST v. BRADLEY, 164 U.S. 112 (1896)
COCHRAN v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, 281 U.S. 370 (1930)
INTERSTATE CONSOLIDATED STREET RY. CO. v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 207 U.S. 79 (1907)
CARMICHAEL v. SOUTHERN COAL & COKE CO., 301 U.S. 495 (1937)
DAVIS v. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333 (1890)
PIERCE v. SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF THE HOLY NAMES OF JESUS AND, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

While there is supporting discussion based upon tangential documentation by the founding fathers, it is heavily butressed by previous caselaw. To say that Everson "totally ignored" old law and/or that it was not based on previous precedents is patently false.


There are two ways to interpret the constitution. Obviously you and I are on the opposite side of this issue.

That's fine, but you'll also have to accept the entire judicial system is on my side as well.

Gawain of Orkeny
11-04-2004, 19:08
That's fine, but you'll also have to accept the entire judicial system is on my side as well.

No it isnt. Many would argue that I am correct. This is why Bushs supreme court nominations are so imprtant. They dont all agree on your manner of interpreting the constitution . As pointed out even the original descision was 5 to 4 . You guys may have it your way for now but hopefully we can get the law returned to what the founding fathers intended. That goes for Roe vs Wade also.

Goofball
11-04-2004, 19:15
No it isnt. Many would argue that I am correct. This is why Bushs supreme court nominations are so imprtant. They dont all agree on your manner of interpreting the constitution . As pointed out even the original descision was 5 to 4 . You guys may have it your way for now but hopefully we can get the law returned to what the founding fathers intended. That goes for Roe vs Wade also.
Man, are you guys ever chomping at the bit on that one. I sincerely hope that Roe Vs. Wade is challenged and overturned. The political backlash would knock conservative politics back into the stone age (where most of their thinking is already~D ) and lead to a string of Republican election defeats.

TinCow
11-04-2004, 19:28
No it isnt. Many would argue that I am correct. This is why Bushs supreme court nominations are so imprtant. They dont all agree on your manner of interpreting the constitution . As pointed out even the original descision was 5 to 4 . You guys may have it your way for now but hopefully we can get the law returned to what the founding fathers intended. That goes for Roe vs Wade also.

Ah, I understand our disconnect now. When I say interpretation, I am referring to the actual method by which the court bases their opinions on an evolution of tha law rather than starting at step one every single time. You are referring to interpretation as the actual selection of which precedents are right and which ones are wrong. As such, we are both right and simply arguing different things. ~D

Xiahou
11-04-2004, 19:30
Man, are you guys ever chomping at the bit on that one. I sincerely hope that Roe Vs. Wade is challenged and overturned. The political backlash would knock conservative politics back into the stone age (where most of their thinking is already~D ) and lead to a string of Republican election defeats.
How do you figure? Americans are generally pro-life. According to Zogby.Zogby (http://www.calright2life.org/zogbypoll.pdf)

Kaiser of Arabia
11-04-2004, 20:52
More people voted for bush than any other president. That says alot.

God Bless America. On Election Day, I was Suicidal because I thought Kerry was gonna win.

Don Corleone
11-05-2004, 20:01
Please, Capo, STOP WITH THAT PARTICULAR TALKING POINT! If you want to play that numbers game, let me point out to you that Bill Clinton was 10 times more popular than George Washington. After all, he had 10 times the number of votes in his favor. Sheesh.

You know, to get back on point a little, this is the difference between the Republican and Democratic view of the court. Many, many many pro-life support groups would pay boatloads of cash for Bush to put in candidates who come right out and say they'd reverse Roe v. Wade, or any other legal decision that doesn't agree with their views. But the fact is Republicans pick judicially conservative (not necessarily politically conservative) candidates. They don't believe in mandating from the bench, they believe in restricting themselves, and their colleagues, to interpreting law, not implementing it (the executive branch's job) or in extreme cases, inventing it (the legislative branch's job).

And while we bring up pro-life/pro-choice, I think when it comes to the first trimester, the numbers vary widely with how you ask the question. When you get to partial birth abortion, or as the left would prefer to euphamize it (though I fail to see how it does) the dilation & extraction method, you get across the board disgust and contempt, unless of course you're a lobbyist for NARAL or you've taken their money. It really was shocking and enlightening to learn that most Europeans don't realize the abortion fight in this country isn't about the right itself, but the absolute & unrestrictable right. In this country, a school nurse cannot adminsiter an aspirin to a 17 year old high school senior w/ out parental consent, but a 12 year old can go get an abortion without her parent's knowledge. And, despite this fig leaf of 'the health of the mother', the American Medical Association, which is officially on the record as very pro-choice in the first & second term, has come out and issued a 'friend of the court' brief stating that dilation and extraction is never in the best interests of the health of the mother. Yet, unless a republican judicial candidate publicly acknowledges that this producedure is an absolute right enshrined in the constitution, they get Borked without a further word. Seems fair to me.

Devastatin Dave
09-12-2005, 15:01
Thought I'd dig up this thread since the fruits are ripening on the vine with the upcoming Supreme Court nominations. Yes, another victory for the Right. God bless America!!! ~D

Sjakihata
09-12-2005, 15:04
lol - this thread is kinda old

Franconicus
09-12-2005, 15:06
Yes, God bless America. Now that the Conservatives control everything what do they do. Has the country done better since Bush was reelected?

Proletariat
09-12-2005, 17:07
Yesterday was the fourth consecutive year of safety from any major terrorist threat.

That is more important than anything else I believe so far, but God knows we've taken alot of bad with the good.

In fact, I'm pretty much dissatisfied with everything else.

From Katrina, to Kelo vs New London, to the handling of Iraq.

Byzantine Prince
09-12-2005, 17:12
Uhh, that makes sense, there's no terrorists attacks because "we're fighting them over there, where they live". lol. It's mind-boggling the things people will believe.

I feel sad because some 2000 men are dead because of that bluder, and it IS a blunder.

Geoffrey S
09-12-2005, 17:32
Yesterday was the fourth consecutive year of safety from any major terrorist threat.
But because of George Bush, or despite him?

Proletariat
09-12-2005, 17:52
But because of George Bush, or despite him?

That's not something that can be argued definitively of course, but it certainly was how his candidacy in '04 was billed.

Who knows what would've happened if it was the other way around, but it's still something that can be pointed at as a good point of this term.

Of course, time will tell if it was because of him or despite him.

Devastatin Dave
09-12-2005, 17:55
lol - this thread is kinda old

An oldie but goodie!!!

Don Corleone
09-12-2005, 18:22
Sometimes when I read what I was shrieking about on a high-caffine on my soapbox day, I cringe. I'm happy to say I think I was spot on that day. ~D

Devastatin Dave
09-12-2005, 22:24
Just for you Don old buddy, just for you!!! ~;)

Papewaio
09-13-2005, 00:14
Yesterday was the fourth consecutive year of safety from any major terrorist threat.

That is more important than anything else I believe so far, but God knows we've taken alot of bad with the good.

In fact, I'm pretty much dissatisfied with everything else.

From Katrina, to Kelo vs New London, to the handling of Iraq.

What is the frequency of terrorist attacks?

They are a bit like the hundred year storm... they may happen more often as a statistical cluster... but how many major terrorist attacks have occured on US soil in the last 100 years?

Against US interests overseas (Beirut barracks? to the amount of attacks in Iraq).

ICantSpellDawg
09-13-2005, 02:04
Uhh, that makes sense, there's no terrorists attacks because "we're fighting them over there, where they live". lol. It's mind-boggling the things people will believe.

I feel sad because some 2000 men are dead because of that bluder, and it IS a blunder.


i've never understood why you would feel "sad" that 2000 people died. If you believe in "nothing" and those 2000 people would have died eventually anyway, why would it make you sad?

Franconicus
09-13-2005, 07:20
Because he is in fact a human being. Please don't tell him. He might get angry!

Yesterday was the fourth consecutive year of safety from any major terrorist threat.

That is more important than anything else I believe so far, but God knows we've taken alot of bad with the good.

In fact, I'm pretty much dissatisfied with everything else.

From Katrina, to Kelo vs New London, to the handling of Iraq.

I think Proletarian's analysis is short but complete. Everyone can decide if this government is good or bad. I really wonder if the Americans still believe in JB.

Lemur
03-14-2008, 06:24
Check it out -- due to double thread necromancy (thanks DevDave) I'm now able to resurrect a thread from 2004! Woo-hoo! And it's still vaguely relevant! You have to admit, pulling a tread from '04 is uber-master-necromancy.

Mikeus Caesar
03-14-2008, 07:04
Check it out -- due to double thread necromancy (thanks DevDave) I'm now able to resurrect a thread from 2004! Woo-hoo! And it's still vaguely relevant! You have to admit, pulling a tread from '04 is uber-master-necromancy.

IT'S ALIVE!

http://www.overpressure.com/archives/youngfrank.jpg

Big_John
03-14-2008, 07:06
Lemur is now my least favorite poster ever.

JAG
03-14-2008, 10:45
How great it is now to see that America is heading into the complete opposite direction, with the all three leavers of power being in the Dems hands.

Brilliant.

CountArach
03-14-2008, 11:09
How great it is now to see that America is heading into the complete opposite direction, with the all three leavers of power being in the Dems hands.

Brilliant.
I had to laugh when you said Blair was part of the "Left wing party". Did you honestly think that? :laugh4:

But yeah, congrats America - only 312 days of Bush left (If my Countdown-to-George-Bush calendar doesn't lie to me... yes I have one :2thumbsup: )! I hope you don't make the same mistake again.

JAG
03-14-2008, 11:39
Well I would have been what 17? So you know, you get better perspective with age... ;) :book:

Though I think you are missing the thrust of what I said - the left wing party, not the left wing leader. I think the point I was trying to make was because of such weak opposition - which looking back on it included within the Labour party too - Blair was able to get away with anything, which was not beneficial for our democracy.

CountArach
03-14-2008, 12:16
Well I would have been what 17? So you know, you get better perspective with age... ;) :book:

Though I think you are missing the thrust of what I said - the left wing party, not the left wing leader. I think the point I was trying to make was because of such weak opposition - which looking back on it included within the Labour party too - Blair was able to get away with anything, which was not beneficial for our democracy.
I understand exactly what you mean - it looks like we down here are going to go through the same phase.

ICantSpellDawg
03-14-2008, 16:03
I understand exactly what you mean - it looks like we down here are going to go through the same phase.

Howard and Blair ruled. Blow it out of your choads.:soapbox:

Vladimir
03-14-2008, 17:43
I'm going to the last page of the backroom and bumping the last thread.

spmetla
03-14-2008, 19:01
Wow! A look back in time to when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, Solypist owned the babe thread, and when axes were cutting into only recently virigin threads.

Idaho
03-14-2008, 20:54
Lets get this war over so that we can go back to doing the things at home that need to be done.
4 years later....

:laugh4: :help:

Can any of you mods dig out some more gung-ho threads from 4 years ago saying that the US has a clear plan and it'll all be over by xmas?

If they can they will notice numerous posts from me saying that it is a major mistake and will lock the US and the whole region into a destabilising and bloody civil war.

drone
03-14-2008, 21:03
With more power you'll just screw it up more and there will be a backlash. 8 or so years from now be prepared for a string of democrats.
:yes:

Not even 8 years. The congressional election outlook for 2008 is grim for the GOP. Hopefully McCain wins so it's gridlock, the thought of Hillary/Obama with large majorities in the House and Senate does not fill me with much hope.

Kralizec
03-14-2008, 21:09
I found this gem (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=60894) while looking through the archive, but I figured that the mods wouldn't like another reanimated thread unless there's something new to add to it *coughLemurcough* ~;p

The actual link to McCain's letter is here (http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a72aa248-ed25-4ec1-9c20-1386b3ee960c&Region_id=&Issue_id=).

I predict that McCain will mince Obama if he's nominated, wich is fine by me. I'm not that opposed to Obama per se, I just think it's lame that most of the stuff he proposes could have come from any generic democrat, yet when he uses it it's suddenly a "message of change".

Mikeus Caesar
03-15-2008, 03:12
I predict that McCain will mince Obama if he's nominated, wich is fine by me. I'm not that opposed to Obama per se, I just think it's lame that most of the stuff he proposes could have come from any generic democrat, yet when he uses it it's suddenly a "message of change".

It's only because he's bla-

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)