Talk Elections

  It is offten said that toadys news is tommrows history, so how will history view the 2004 election? Consider this, The incumbent president was hated by large segments of the population. He was riduculed regularly as a moron, a western hick, and a simple minded ideologue guided too much by faith- based morality. He was said to be unable to grasp the complex problems faceing out county. His western Draw, Self-Mocking Humor and public speaking style were mocked by eastern sophisticates and intellectuals. Europeans called him our nations buffoon. Political cartoonists created insulting caricatures of the man.
   His handiling of the war was criticized as shotr-sighted, bumbling, unjustified or vengeful, while John Kerry promised to direct a much smarter, more complex strategy. His Opponents claimed that he misled the nation into war for other reasons, then belatedly made "freedom" the justification for it. The real reasons he he went t war according to them was to cater to wealthy industrialists and big companys who profit from it.
    They protested that it was an illegal war, with no constitutional basis and no international support. They charged him with violating their constitutional rights in the name of national security. The president was Widely blaimed for causing the biggest public division in the nations history. He was attacked by pundits as a colossal failure.
    What kind of president could generate so much hostility and ridicule for both personal and official failings? How will history judge such an incompetent, polarizing hick? Well, Historians have already judged him. These conclusions were drawn from the news reports of the 1864 election when Abraham Lincoln was our Incumbent wartime president. The Major news media, then as now, were on the wrong side of history.  If President Bush's bold strategy (the Bush Doctrine) ultimately succeeds against terrorism, where will future historians place him? My guess, Is near the top of the pile.

Depends on whose history you're talking about.  For his supporters, he was a strong champion of American values, life, liberty, and democracy who truly understood what it meant to be a leader and who was unjustly mocked by ridiculous, egotistical intellectuals who were so hopelessly out of touch with reality that it was laughable.  For his opponents, he was a moronic, self-serving, arrogant brat whose only support came from people even dumber than him: people whose only care in life is the Bible and bigotry.

Hopefully, no one from either of these groups will be writing the history.

Hah, that's actually a very good assessment.

Bush is not a "Westerner."

He's a New Englander posing as a Southerner.

Whatever your opinion, Texas is usually considered Southern these days. So he is not a Westerner.

ok, I can Understand that.

It depends on his second term. If Iraq spiralls even deeper into chaos, the WMD report damns him in March, and the economy tanks (yes, some are warning of stagflation), then he's toast. So far most historians agree he's been the worst president ever (look up Google if you disagree), but he could change.

JFK, if he was not shot, would have been reelected in a landslide but then would have bungled Vietnam like Nixon and not have been a hero he is today.

I wouldn't say that he would be toast.  He's already achieved the crown jewel of American politics: being a two-term president.  He can't get anything more.

The Republican Party, however, would probably be toast in the event that you describe.

He's a weakened  two term president. And of the above happens, he would be remembered as an incompetent rich frat kid. And besides, if the WMD report paints a bad picture, his approval rate premenantly falls into the low 30-upper 20 category and the Dems gain both houses he could be impeached.

I'm not sure how he's weakened.  He won the election with more electoral votes than last time and with a majority of the popular vote, and the Republicans expanded their majorities in both the House and the Senate.

If the above happens, he might be remembered as such, but I doubt he'd care.

I suppose that if you meant "toast" as in, in history's eyes, then you're right.  I thought you meant "politically toast".

How did this guy get Re-elected?

1) Religion
2) Anti-gay bigotry
3) Fear

Of course a small minority of those who voted for him were motivated by an accurate estimation of their economic interests.

He's in a much stronger position than any two term president since FDR.  It would take a series of catastrophies or scandals to weaken him. 

The "anti gay" stuff is a pile of it.

Just because you don't want gay marriage crammed down your throat doesn't mean your anti gay.  Something you lefties can't seem to understand.  Too bad.  Continue to lose elections then.  Fine with me.

Fear?  Element of truth to that one.  I was fearful as hell the left wing, pacifist wing of the Democratic Party (about 80% of the party these days) was gonna control national security.  The majority shared that fear.  Didn't trust Democratic Party on national security and well they shouldn't.

Religion?  Oh brother.  More of the Opedo paranoid obsession with Christianity. Being opposed to gay marriage is "anti-gay bigotry".  Contantly taking shots at Christians is what, Opedo?  Enlightened thinking?  You're the bigot.

Uh, your not being forced to be gay.

Why do you think he's referred to as Opebigot?

I'm take the position that the MA should not tell PA what to do and support measures that would prohibit that.  I don't care what MA does in MA.  

The problem is this neo-facsist attitude on the part of the loony left, so typified by opebigot.

Here we see the neo-fascist loony left again.

...and gays aren't "forced" to be straight.  Geez.  Loony left gets more goofy every day.

yeah but thier forced to live with a straight definition of marriage.

The Taliban wing of the GOP gets more bigoted by the day.

Why don't you political failures ever worry about incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage?

Were not the ones proposing the FMA, if its anybody whose worrying about marriage, its you.

And if anything that can be classified as a "political failure".

Losing all three elected branches of government in ten years can be classified as a political failure.

Bill Clinton just retired 4 years ago.

IN ten years, not for ten years.  Actually, the Democrats lost all three within six years.

We had them though :)

The Confederacy had Richmond.  :-)

His approval rate is only 49%, a record low for someone who got reelected.

How can one be 'bigoted' against an ideology? Particularly one that is blatantly against what I consider to be a decent life?  Hating religion is like hating communism or fascism - why wouldn't I hate the religious?  They're out to get me.

As for ramming things down your throat (hilarious image, that) - obviously you are an anti-gay bigot, because gay marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with you.  Other individual's marriage isn't your business, and the fact that you wish to make it so shows you're a freedom-hating religious. 

It's one thing to regulate someone else's behavior, and another to regulate your own behavior. Not recognizing gay marriage is the second.

From the old opebo file:

No, specifically barring same sex couples from marrying is to regulate the behaviour of others.  It has nothing whatever to do with your behaviour.

Same sex couples are not specifically barred from getting married. If there are two gay guys, and one decides to get married to a woman, he can do that. Anyone is allowed to marry anyone of the opposite sex.

They are specifically barred from marrying one another.  That's none of your business.. or mine, or anyone elses.

Um, yes, it is the state's business what they sanction.

They are not specifically barred from marrying one another. A homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman.

The State - on your nosy behalf - is interfering in the marryin' of the homosexuals.  None of your business.

Um, no, it's not. It's not interfering with anything; all that's being regulated is the states own behavior.

No, the behaviour of individuals is being regulated, obviously.  One might just as well say that laws against murder are regulating the states behaviour against murderors, rather than the behaviour of murderers themselves.

The behavior of the state can be regulating the behavior of individuals, but it's not in this case.

Homosexuals are not getting arrested or punished for "getting married." The state is just not sanctioning gay marriage.

So it is penalizing them in a way that is different from imprisoning them - by costing them money, preventing them from having financial and medical benefits, as well as barring them from legal access to their deceased spouse.  Yes, the State is penalizing the behaviour of individuals, a behaviour that is no one else's business.  Unequal treatment before the law violates individual rights.  All to satisfy the sick interfering desires of you christian bigots.

Uh, no. They are not losing money or being denied medical benefits, and they don't have a spouse, so I don't know what they want access to.

The sick interfering desires of not interfering?

Partner then.

And obviously you are interfering - they want to get married, reasonable people think it is fine, and you religious want to prevent it.

So they want the state to do something, and not doing it is not interfering.

No, they want the state to stop doing something - which is interfereing with them by descrimination.  It is similar to the laws against people of different races marrying.

Anyway, perhaps a better question - to get past your pointless semantic nonsense, would be to ask - why do you think they should not get married?  That you think there should be any other consideration than the fact that they wish it reveals that you are a hateful bigot.  Its none of your business Philip. 

We just went through the difference between the state doing something and not doing something, moron. That's a pretty important distinction, and since you quit debating that point I'll assume you're either unable to grasp it or just BSing.

Saying that a gay person is allowed to marry someone from the opposite sex is the wrose argument I've ver heard. It's like saying the Soviet Union was a democracy b/c everyone had the same right to vote for the Communists. Crawl back into your hole and fetch better arguments.

No, it's like saying everyone in the Soviet Union had equal rights, because everyone in the Soviet union had the same right to vote for the communists.

Same sex divorce is on the questions that must be ask about when discussing same sex marriage.  Marriage creates a contractual relationship and there is every reason to believe that these, lke different sex relationships, will end.

I went to bed.  But apparently just missed you falling to the level of ad hominem attack.  Darn.

Your distinction is completely unimportant.  In fact it is false.  The State is 'doing something' by arbitrarily enforcing a prejudicial type of 'marriage', in order to please the majority - hate-frenzied religious like yourself - and penalize the minority - nice gay people.

No, it is not doing something. That is a fact.

As for ad hominem attacks, either quit accusing people of being 'sick bigots,' or shut up.

Yes, the government is defining marriage as something that fits a specific exclusionary religious population.  The government is discriminating, just as it did when it allowed people of the same race to marry, but not people of different races.

I don't consider 'sick bigot', when applied to your whole ilk - kith, kin, regional and religious identity - to be ad hominem.  Nothing personal against you Philip, all you Southern redneck religious nuts are sick bigots. :)

That's just the State's own definition of marriage. They aren't going around throwing people in jail who define it differently.

They're forcibly excluding them from a State service provided for others - it would be as if you were denied a driver's license because they disapprove of your destination.

No, that's interferance, because they'll pull you over and punish you for driving without a license.

The State's 'interference' in this matter is in favouring one group of people over another - similar to Jim Crow.

Uh, no. Every person has an equal opportunity to get married. Homosexuals just don't want to, because they're homosexuals.

No, marriage has been carefully fashioned in a way to exclude them and deny them equal treatment.  There is no reason for marriage to be designed in this unfair way - the fact that it is traditional is perhaps the best argument against it, given this country's inhumane past.

Marriage has been carefully fashioned in a way to exclude them?! LMAO! You're talking about a 5 thousand year old institution!

Anyone can get married, assuming they want to.

Just as I said - in its current form it is quite barbaric.

Wrong, there are historical incidents of gay marriage.

Interesting.  Well, in many ways the US is a worse and more puritannical country than it was in the past.

Please enumerate places where gay marriage flourished.

I doubt it was ever allowed to 'flourish' - too many of the wrong kind of people in every society I've ever heard of.

Only by ignorant or stupid people.

All the former confederate states are southern.

Hahah!  So you're saying Texans consider themselves Southern and Southerners agree?

It's alive and well in half of Canada, the Netherlands, and Denmark, if I recall correctly.

How did he get re-elected? That is a tough one.   The war's not going good.  The recession was a pretty good sized one, although we are recovering.  He seemed to isolate many groups (gays, blacks) more than most Republicans.  He will never change his mind on anything, and everything is always black and white.  He raised the national debt far more than even Reagan.  John Kerry must've been a really, really, really bad choice if was beat by Bush.   

so make it exactly the same way heterosexual divorce is handled. problem solved.

Gays should have the same benefits that straight people do.... with civil unions.  Marriage should stay between a man and a woman.

If Iraq turns out well and 25 years from now Iran, Iraq, Egypt and the like are all functiional free market democratic societies, Bush will go down in history as a truly great president, along with the likes of Jefferson, washington, Reagan and FRD, if not, then not :)

Bush 43 will be recorded as a very important and consequential president, the jury is just still out if they are good or bad consequences.

The election was 51/48 hoping it was consequential/good.

Let's hope the majority got it right projecting the future...

You are absolutely wrong as usual.  Marriage is a religious ritual and in essence a covenant between a man, a woman, and God.  It's not a bond between two people of the same gender or three or more people of different genders.  It's a bond between one man and woman.  Its religious and cultural history and tradition literally dates back eons.  And it's not the place for couple of gay activists to suddenly redefine it just because they don't like the traditional definition.  They don't have the right to do it any more than polygamists have the right to decide that more than two people can get married.  Marriage is what it is.  If you don't like it, come up with your own ritual.

The state is " arbitrarily in forcing a prejudicial type of marriage "? You don't get it.  Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, period! It is just as arbitrary as the girl Scouts only allowing girls in.  If boys are allowed then it's not really the girl Scouts is it? You may think it's arbitrary and that's fine, the You didn't create the ritual and it's not yours to change. 

I may decide tomorrow that I want to marry Tina and Nancy, but I can't.  Should I start crying and whining about how long been discriminated against it held the hate frenzied religious people are penalizing me? This is typical of liberals.  When they don't get their way, they start crying like two year olds.  Just because you don't like it doesn't make it discrimination.

No, it's nothing like interracial marriage.  This is because interracial marriage occurs between. . . .  Care to take a guess. . . . .  A man and a woman.  That is the only standard marriage is held to.

Read this quote of yours very carefully. . . .

"That you think there should be any other consideration than the fact that they wish it reveals that you are a hateful bigot. "

this is fascinating.  I don't think that I should be allowed to marry Nancy and Tina, does that make me a hateful bigot against myself? What if I want to join the NAACP? I'm white .  How about the girl Scouts? I am a man, how about the National Organization for Women?

your logic is absurd.  You have decided that you and people like you have the right to redefine anything you don't like.  You don't.  You are free to come up with your own ritual just like somebody did eons ago when marriage was invented and defining it any way you want.

You left out a rather important fact.  Marriage is a religious ritual.  Enforcing the terms of that bond is hardly arbitrary.  Arbitrary is suddenly deciding they don't like the terms of the deal and trying to change it to suit your own personal desires while telling everybody who disagrees with you that they are bigots and hate frenzied.  Or perhaps you want to redefine the word arbitrary also?

I think that “marriage” is society conferring affirmative sanction and benefits upon relationships that it sees as beneficial to itself.  A man and woman, living together, raising their children has traditionally been thought of as beneficial for society as a whole.  If the marriage dissolves some or all of those benefits are withdrawn.  A non-custodial divorcee loses all society granted benefits.  A custodial single parent loses much of them.  As benefits to society are diminished, so are benefits from society.

Denial of the status of marriage to gay couples is neither bigoted nor hate driven.  It us just that the benefits to society from such a relationship are not apparent, and so none are conferred. 

How it is possible that whether or not society decides to confer the title of “marriage” on a particular kind of relationship together with the attendant benefits of that title could not be the business of other members of that society escapes me. 

I think, OBEPO, I see where you are confused.  You think that because your relationship with your gay friend is none of my business, and I agree, that whether or not I (herein a stand-in for society) decide to confer title and benefits upon you for that relationship is also none of my business.  Your logic is flawed. 

Whenever a society decides to grant, say, tax benefits upon individuals because of what they are doing, it is always the business of that society and of the other members of that society.  That’s why the Tax Code, Regs, and Rulings take up a couple bookshelves.  It is an entire system of discrimination, discriminating precisely who and who not, where and when, can and can’t, etc.  This is not the same as prejudice discrimination.

You scream that I am a bigot and I hate you because I won’t grant you the title and benefits you demand.  I don’t hate you anymore than I hate hobbyist farmers who fail to show a profit three out of five years.  I just won’t give either of you the tax benefits you desire.  You both think I’m unfair.

Your relationship with your goat is none of my business either.  That doesn’t mean I am going to give you a tax break because of it.  Actually, if you can file Schedule F I might. 

Wow, people were very vocally against gay marriage on the forum eight years ago.  Interesting to compare these attitudes to today and see how much opinions have shifted.  Glad to know they've shifted far more in favor of equality. 

I saw a poll last week which showed 41% of the public approves of the job Bush did as president. That's much better than when he left office. History may eventually remember Bush as a good president and as usual the liberal media will be on the wrong side of history.

Even if history does rehabilitate his legacy, you're not making yourself sound credible by going on about the "liberal media".

I know right. It's amazing to see them use the same arguments people used against inter-racial marriage and be completely clueless and oblivious to the fact.