2004 Presidential Election. [Archive]

csebal

August 18th, 2004, 03:01 PM

Well, i hate to discuss politics, as it mostly leads to flame wars, but i got something on the topic a few months ago from a friend, i tought it may be worth sharing

GEORGE W. BUSH

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
202-456-1111

president@whitehouse.gov

LAW ENFORCEMENT:
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been lost and is not available.

MILITARY:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard I avoided combat duty in Vietnam.

COLLEGE:
I graduated from Yale University with a C- average. I was an active cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. Therefore, I began a career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but found no oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt just after I sold all my stock. I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal which acquired land using taxpayer money. With campaign help from my father and donations from our right-wing friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America. I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas Treasury by billions in borrowed money. I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.

With assistance from my brother, governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing the election by possibly 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
I am the first President in US history to enter office with a criminal record. I spent the US surplus and successfully bankrupted the U.S.Treasury. I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S.history. I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month
period. I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continued every month throughout my Presidency to date.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her. I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President. I am the all-time US and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations. My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S.History,Enron. My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during the election decision of 2000. I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating any one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed. I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history. I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts. I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history. I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States Government.

I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history. I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission. I withdrew the U.S.from the World Court of Law. I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention

I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television. I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history. I
garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history. I have set the
all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest main public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

I have invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost to taxpayers of over one billion dollars per week. I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, preemptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation (under the guise of searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction). I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. Citizens, and the world community. In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the
lies on our British friends. I am now supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD. This is to fulfill my so far failed pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to justice.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in war time. I am also the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%)
view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view. All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. All records or minutes
from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

PLEASE CONSIDER ME WHEN VOTING IN 2004.

I'm not from the US, so i cant confirm the details about internal politics and stuff written in that email snippet, but i can tell you, that this one is painfully true:
"I am also the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security."

From the outside, Bush seems like a bullying jackass, who pays no attention to international laws or treaties, so basically doesnt gives sh*t about international politics. For him, there seem to be two sides: with me, or against me..

Considering the ammount of 'anti-planet' bombs he has at hand, this is more than scary.

That kind of politics will one day break the bond between the EU and the USA, and im not sure we wanna live trough that, no matter which continent we live on.

Take the current war for example: it has nothing to do with terrorism, that may have been the causus belli, the reason for the war, but i think the 'evidence' the whole war was based on was already proved wrong.

What happened? The Intelligence Agency apologized for the mistake, and the war went on.

The only reason Bush has a chance is, that its not the world that has to elect the new US president, but the people living there. I just hope they make the right choice.

The above post is not intended to offend anyone: my only problem with the USA to date is its president, which can - and hopefully will - change soon.

Mephisto

August 18th, 2004, 03:52 PM

*Moderator mode /on*
Hi all!
As most of us know, all of this has been beaten to death already in other threads and I really see no connection to SEIV here. I will move the thread to the general discussion area where it belongs and leave a shadow here. And, please, remember, keep it civil, different people have different views on the world.
*Moderator mode /off*

Atrocities

August 18th, 2004, 06:03 PM

Bush's tax cuts are what stalled the lay offs in my area. My old company has even stated that if not for the tax cuts they would have closed their doors. And here comes Kerry with his TAX increases and people think he is the greatest thing to walk on water since GOD.

He is a liar, a backstabbing MF, and to top it all off, he VOTED to cut the funding of the CIA, FBI, and NSA following the first attack on the trade center. And now he says what happened on 9-11 was all Bushes fault? Please.

He blames the economy in the US on Bush, when it was Bush who inheritied Clintons economy which started to go down hill in 97 after he opened the flood gates for free trade with China. A note to all you kiddies, China makes things a lot cheaper than we can here in the US, and they flooded our markets with their inferior products and swamped many business right out of business. And then we still have the NAFT problem that Clinton signed in.

No, I think it is best that we keep BUSH for another four yeats in order to KEEP what little jobs we do have and grow more.

Phoenix-D

August 18th, 2004, 06:04 PM

If you wanted to get anal about it, we could have gone after Iraq at any time; they never really fullfilled the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire.

By the time we knew for sure no significant WMDs would be found the war was over; and even if not, going in shooting things up and leaving is NOT an option.

Atrocities

August 18th, 2004, 06:06 PM

csebal - That article is not at all accurate and it is designed to be as inflamatory as possible. You should have read the one about Clinton, and Gore a few years ago. And the one about Kerry is a lot better read than this one about Bush, and is backed up by facts and not some liberal democrates imagination.

Fyron

August 18th, 2004, 08:02 PM

With assistance from my brother, governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing the election by possibly 500,000 votes.

Don't you just love the sheer ignorance of the US political system that causes people to say such things? The total, national popular vote is NOT a factor in the election of the President of the US. It never has been. This is completely irrelevant to Bush having won the election.

What causes a person to win the Presidential election is winning a majority of votes in the electoral college, which is NOT based on population directly. It is based on 2 votes per state + X votes based on population. Thus, 100 of the votes have nothing to do with population, but with geography. Many of them come from relatively very low population states. Further befuddling the issue is the fact that many states give their _entire_ electoral vote count to the candidate that wins the election in that state.

These things are what allows discrepencies between total popular vote and winner of the election to occur. Usually, the two go to the same person. But a few times (I think Bush Jr. was the 3rd), it has happened that the national popular vote and the electoral vote do not end up going to the same person. There is nothing illegal or fishy about this, at all. It is how the Presidential election system in the US works. Now, you be of the opinion that it is silly, and the election should be based entirely on the popular vote. You may or may not be right. But, saying that Bush did something wrong in 2000 just because he did not win the popular vote is wrong.

Now, whether Bush did something shady to win the vote in Florida is an entirely separate issue. It should NOT be confused with overall popular vote, which is, again, not related to who wins the US Presidential election. The whole issue was a big mess. Who knows what really happened. Gore did voluntarily cede the election to Bush at the end, so regardless of whether he legitimately won the Florida election, he did win the overall election, due to Gore ceding it to him. There is no contesting that fact.

Gandalf Parker

August 19th, 2004, 12:21 AM

Somehow I dont seem to be seeing any of that. The jobs in my household, my taxes, my benefits, my general opinion of the future. Sorry, I wont be voting for Bush to go around again. Nor Arnold (California).

Atrocities

August 19th, 2004, 01:21 AM

"trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected. That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice.� - J F Kerry

(What was once considered as cowardice by Kerry has become his crown jewel for election.)

What we saw around here starting in 96 was a slow down of our economy. My employer at the time was the world�s largest supplier of its product, and the third largest employer in the county.

In 97 we saw the price of our produce drop by 70% worldwide as the Chinese dumped their production onto the market. The following years we saw even greater loss to the point where we had to lay off people. The situation continued to deteriorate until Bush's tax cut went into effect. The tax cut allowed my employer to right off the depreciation of their new equipment and the building they had just built. This saved the company and 600 some odd jobs.

The economy here was the worst hit in the recession, and despite this, sales of homes, cars, goods, and such are all doing well.

I cannot speak for other parts of the nation, but I do know that if Kerry is elected, the situation will go from bad to worse.

Remember we are in the economic quick sand because of Clinton�s economic policies and Kerry going around saying its all Bush's fault is a bold face lie.

Bush had no control over the events of 9-11 that tanked our economy horribly. Kerry on the other hand did have some control and he used it to vote for a funding cut of the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He supported Clinton�s foreign policies, policies that sent the message that we were weak because we cared about not offending the Arab populations of the world. Now look at where those policies have led us. http://www.notokerry.com/military_voting.htm

No president wants to be a war president. Bush is not a warmonger nor is he a stupid man. Bush has delivered on his promises to cut taxes, increase security, and strengthen our economy. Kerry has a very low success rate when it comes to doing as he says he is going to do.

In fact Kerry enjoys saying one thing when he has plans on doing exactly the opposite. It is very aggravating to try and follow Kerry's promises, as there are so many of them.

Our economy is improving, the evidence supports this. It is just taking a very long time to affect us on the lowest rungs of this economic ladder we live upon.

Please consider that Kerry will say and promise anything to get elected. Bush has done what he said he is going to do and if we give him the time to finish the job, another four years, I think we will all be a hell of a lot better off.

And remember, Arnold inherited a bankrupt state. A state put into bankruptcy by Democrats.

Besides, Bush and his party are not interested in banning or controling many of the things that I enjoy owning or doing. Kerry belongs to a party that wants to control or regulate everything with laws including personal freedom of choice.

For me it is a clear choice, if I want to keep what little I have now, I must vote republican acrossed the board. Under Clinton I lost money, rights, control, and freedoms. Under Bush I have lost nothing and have even gained some.

Kerry is a proven liar now. Of this there is no dout in my mind. Kerry will be bad for the US, and bad for all of us.

The fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations (CNO), Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, said -- 30 years ago when he was still CNO -- that during his own command of US naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass, by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets.

"We had virtually to straight-jacket him to keep him under control," the admiral said. "Bud" Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions -- but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage.

�John Kerry just bet the farm on a fairy-tale Version of his Vietnam service, figuring, no doubt, that it always worked for him before. What he doesn't realize is that huge numbers of veterans who didn't care if he was a Senator from the People's Republic of Massachusetts will crawl across broken glass to keep him from becoming Commander-in-Chief. That battle is now joined.� � Scott Swett, webmaster of WinterSoldier.com (7/31/04)

In 1992, John Kerry came to the defence of Bill Clinton, whose avoidance of service had become a campaign issue for George H. W. Bush. �I'm here personally to express my anger, as a veteran,� Mr Kerry told National Public Radio, �that a president who would stand before this nation in his inaugural address and promise to put Vietnam behind us is now breaking yet another promise and trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected. That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice.�

His words. Don't buy into the liberal media's hype. Look deeper and explore the truth. Most of the anti Bush sites are busy making up things and slinging mud without any facts to support them. I should say true facts.

No To Kerry (http://www.notokerry.com/) The turth supported by fact.
(BUSH) (http://www.georgewbush.com) Bushes site does not target Kerry like Kerry's site does Bush. So again, a nice role reversal courticy of the Democrats.

Links to the Truth About John F Kerry (JFK2) (http://members.aol.com/viperash50/links/links.html)

rextorres

August 19th, 2004, 04:18 AM

I was a Republican way back when until I realized that unless my personal income grew to over $200,000 a year or I was willing to become a born-again christian the Republican party had nothing to offer me.

Anyway

- I can't afford to send my kids to private school so I'd like to have well funded schools with a small student ratio
- I'd like there to be enough police so that they show up within five minutes if I am in trouble
- I believe in a strong military
- When there's a fire there should be someone to put it out
- I hate potholes in the street so I want there to be money to pay for these
- I'd like my tap water to be drinkable
- All the money I've put into social security and medicare I want paid back with a monthly stipend if I make it to retirement
- The food I and my child eats should be safe to eat
- I want the homeless to have a place to go because most of the homeless aren't mentally compitant to take care of themselves

I rely on the government to provide these and similar sorts of functions.

I am told by the newspaper that I paid about a $1000 less in income tax Last year although looking at my taxes I paid about the same - still the loss of any of the above line items is worth way more to me than that $1000.

With Bush's tax cuts, however, none of these functions will be possible in the near future because the country will be bankrupt.

That's why I am not voting for Bush.

A few other things

- I am still trying to understand why it is that the NRA et.al. think that banning assault rifles is a bad thing.
- It's also hard to figure out why people are against raising the mpg of vehicles when it would lower our dependence on foreign oil and the technology is readily available so that even SUVs could benefit.
- What's wrong with wanting clean air? I grew up in Southern California and no the value of it.
- Why should someone be allowed to throw a stick of gum on the streets would it then be OK to throw a bag of garbage on the street too?
- Why is it that a fetus is only valuable until it is born but then services to help the born child are being cut?
- Isn't the death penalty taking a human life? - If that's the logic behind being against abortion shouldn't you be against the death penalty as well?
- I don't know why someone would want to cut down a 2000 year old tree
- Since most outdoor places will be visited before I visit them I'd like to have an approximation of the experience that the first person had. People who ride ATV ruin that for the rest of us

csebal

August 19th, 2004, 05:20 AM

I can understand your concerns about internal affairs, as we have our own - although on a less smaller scale, we are a smaller country after all - similar problems here in our own country.

What you can't see - or dont care about - is how the USA looks for the rest of the world. Bush may be better in internal affairs, but on the international level, he failed terribly.

Then again, would i be in your place, i would probably choose the one i profit from most. As an outsider i hope the one you choose will not be Bush - after all, i would hate if WW3 would happen in my life. Even the idea, that Bush may be using - no matter how small - nuclear weapons against his enemies makes me think about leaving the planet on the next colony ship.

Jack Simth

August 19th, 2004, 11:03 AM

rextorres said:
- I am still trying to understand why it is that the NRA et.al. think that banning assault rifles is a bad thing.

Keeping in mind that you are talking about orginizations of individuals, and that specific reasons for individuals vary widely, I know of three basic reasons:

For some, it's a matter of caution (some would say paranoia). If assault weapons are Banned, what's to stop them from banning all firearms? If all firearms are successfully eliminated, what's to stop the government from voting themselves into hereditary positions? Respect for the US Constitution? Considering that in banning firearms they are going against the Second Amendment already? Or that in holding suspected terrorists without trial they are going against the Fifth and Sixth Amendments? However, if the general populace has enough in the way of firearms to stage a successful rebellion against an oppressive regime, then there is less likely to be an oppressive regime in the first place.

For others, it is simply the principle of the thing - the US Constitution says that "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed", and view banning assault weapons as infringement.

Others just think that guns are cool, and would prefer owning them leagally to owning them illeagally.

Personally, I'm planning on breaking pattern and voting Libertarian - Bush was on watch when the Patriot Act (and the later supporting bills) was passed, so I'm not about to vote for him. I saw a commercial for Kerry saying he wanted to strengthen it even more, so I'm not going to vote for him, either.

Gandalf Parker

August 19th, 2004, 12:18 PM

Atrocities said:
"trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected. That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice.� - J F Kerry

(What was once considered as cowardice by Kerry has become his crown jewel for election.)

Im not seeing that. Ive only seen Kerry mention his service in response to comments. (btw I am a vietnam vet)

What we saw around here starting in 96 was a slow down of our economy. My employer at the time was the world�s largest supplier of its product, and the third largest employer in the county.

Sorry about that. I can understand your position on that. Its nice to see someone actually speak of personal reasons rather than just repeat the "things are this way" media facts.

What I saw was that when Clinton started running for pres the subjects were all about the embarassing federal deficit and whether Russia would bomb us in our sleep. During Clinton my fears went away.

I know it common to say that everything good was done by my guys and everything bad by the other guy. But Clinton pulled 2 terms so I think he must have had something to do with some of the good changes.

I cannot speak for other parts of the nation, but I do know that if Kerry is elected, the situation will go from bad to worse.

Maybe. But what I see around here is impacts of Bushes actions. Even with a low work force (one of the hardest hit by reserves on duty) we have a low job market. I didnt really want a tax break which I guess is a good thing since I havent seen one either.

Remember we are in the economic quick sand because of Clinton�s economic policies and Kerry going around saying its all Bush's fault is a bold face lie.

Remember? Quicksand? I know the repubs are big on shaking things up so that some go up while others go down, but I would have been happy with things staying as they were.

Bush had no control over the events of 9-11 that tanked our economy horribly.

Do you really feel that the 9-11 incident did major damage to our economy? I thought that after 9-11 we were sending a laughing message because it DIDNT do what the terrorists had hoped. It was only after we started the Iraq police-action that I saw economic impact.

Please consider that Kerry will say and promise anything to get elected. Bush has done what he said he is going to do and if we give him the time to finish the job, another four years, I think we will all be a hell of a lot better off.

Well that says it pretty clear. Kerry can do little in 4 compared to what Bush can accomplish by carrying thru for 8. Im not thrilled with Kerry (Im not a democray or a republican) but I really dont want another 4 with Bush.

And remember, Arnold inherited a bankrupt state. A state put into bankruptcy by Democrats.

A state which went bankrupt while Dems were in office. Not necessairly by Dem policies. Arnold inherited a balance budget then made changes Im not thrilled with.

For me it is a clear choice, if I want to keep what little I have now, I must vote republican acrossed the board. Under Clinton I lost money, rights, control, and freedoms. Under Bush I have lost nothing and have even gained some.

Sounds like you have made rational decisions for rational reasons. And you do seem to have clear ideas about the difference between the two parties. Of course I wouldnt use those words to describe it all but symantics is just a propoganda tool. You logic and reasons seem sounder than most Ive talked to.

--
Democrats say give us your money and your problems.
Republicans say keep your money and your problems.

-- �� Its easy to understand.
Under the Democrats we will be the Federation.
Under the Republicans we will be the Ferrengi.

Atrocities

August 19th, 2004, 05:28 PM

Rex I am sorry that you are so misinformed. If I had to explain everything to you I would be here all day. Vote for Kerry, it is the tv fed, liberal lie, best way to go for people who refuse to open their eyes. No if you choose to get informed here is a sight that might help you understand the gun grab issues.

If you think Kerry is going to give all those wonderful thing you mentioned in your post, well I am sorry to be the one to tell you that he won't. In the end he will be just another president tha we cannot wait to vote out of office.

Atrocities

August 19th, 2004, 06:06 PM

Thank you GP for being so polite. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Im not seeing that. Ive only seen Kerry mention his service in response to comments. (btw I am a vietnam vet)

So is my father, and he is voting for Bush as well. His reason is that he does not trust a man who claims he is a war hero when he is not. My Grandfather, who is a war hero, and he is angerier than hell over Kerry's claim that he is one. Needless to say, he too is voting Republican this year.

Sorry about that. I can understand your position on that. Its nice to see someone actually speak of personal reasons rather than just repeat the "things are this way" media facts.

What I saw was that when Clinton started running for pres the subjects were all about the embarassing federal deficit and whether Russia would bomb us in our sleep. During Clinton my fears went away.

I know it common to say that everything good was done by my guys and everything bad by the other guy. But Clinton pulled 2 terms so I think he must have had something to do with some of the good changes.

Speaking of fears, under Clinton I had many. First his tax increase that took from me a hell of a lot of money that I never got back and could have used. Then his gun grab policies that made running my business very difficult for no reason. Under Clinton I saw our military weakend and our world wide reputation damaged. Under Clinton the office of the President became a joke. Under Clinton, we saw our economies future sold to the Chinese for re-election.

Clinton my have pulled two terms, but that says nothing about him other than he had the money to pull it off. To be honest, he was relected because of his economic teflon shield that he (1) inheretited from Regan / Bush, and (2) didn't fail him until mid 1996 when the economy started to crumble.

Maybe. But what I see around here is impacts of Bushes actions. Even with a low work force (one of the hardest hit by reserves on duty) we have a low job market. I didnt really want a tax break which I guess is a good thing since I havent seen one either.

We all are feeling this GP. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif But again other than the reservest being called to active duty, this is not Bushes fault. The economy started to tank in 96, and the events of 9-11 did not help.

Remember? Quicksand? I know the repubs are big on shaking things up so that some go up while others go down, but I would have been happy with things staying as they were.

I think we all would have been happier that way, but they were forced into change by Clintons economic policies and the events of 9-11. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Do you really feel that the 9-11 incident did major damage to our economy? I thought that after 9-11 we were sending a laughing message because it DIDNT do what the terrorists had hoped. It was only after we started the Iraq police-action that I saw economic impact.

The effects of 9-11 on our economy can not be ignored now. It did have a major adverse effect on our economy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Well that says it pretty clear. Kerry can do little in 4 compared to what Bush can accomplish by carrying thru for 8. Im not thrilled with Kerry (Im not a democray or a republican) but I really dont want another 4 with Bush.

One of the reasons I dislike Kerry is because he has been a senator for how long, and has done little and accomplished nothing other than to vote for budge cuts for the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the military. Now he sits back and lies about it when his voting record clearly shows the truth.

A state which went bankrupt while Dems were in office. Not necessairly by Dem policies. Arnold inherited a balance budget then made changes Im not thrilled with.

Well I cannot speak to this, he is not my Govenor. Good luck.

Sounds like you have made rational decisions for rational reasons. And you do seem to have clear ideas about the difference between the two parties. Of course I wouldnt use those words to describe it all but symantics is just a propoganda tool. You logic and reasons seem sounder than most Ive talked to.

Thank you. I know that no matter what happens, the US will still be here in four years, and we get to do this all over again. Lets just hope that things are better then than they are now.

rextorres

August 19th, 2004, 06:12 PM

Post deleted by rextorres

Atrocities

August 19th, 2004, 06:21 PM

Things are not always what they seem.

rextorres

August 19th, 2004, 06:42 PM

Umm I wrote that I am not voting for Bush because his tax cuts are bankrupting the country (implying that his deficits are causing the bankruptcy). This was a general statement not directed at you.

In the very next post you wrote . . .I quote:

"Rex I am sorry that you are so misinformed. If I had to explain everything to you I would be here all day. Vote for Kerry, it is the tv fed, liberal lie, best way to go for people who refuse to open their eyes."

I am assuming you meant that the deficit is a liberal lie . . . but like I said it's not clear what you meant.

So once again I ask in response to your post.

Are you saying that the deficit is a liberal lie or that there is no deficit?

It's requires a very simple answer to a very simple question.

Atrocities

August 19th, 2004, 06:46 PM

EDIT

Rex, you can assume whatever you want from what I post. If you enjoy taking comments and calling them rants, a nice role reversal I might add, then that is your right. I choose not to debate symantics with you especially manufactured ones that you have fabricated out of thin air and claim I made in my Posts.

As for the environment, has Bush drilled for oil in the artic? No. Is Bush responsible for the horrible forest fires of recent years? No. The catastrophie of those fires were the direct result of Clinton/Gore environmental policies. Policies I am happy to say are in the process of being changed.

As for clean air, under Bush 2 stroke motors are being phased out of production. That is something that Clinton promised to do but never did.

As for the deficate, I never mentioned this and will have to research it. But from first glance, we are at war and during war decificates do tent to rise. Yes I am alarmed about this, but I do not see Kerry as the answer to it. In fact I view Kerry as a threat to balancing it.

So Rex if you want to pull things out of the air and toss them onto the debate table that is your call. But please don't blame my Posts as the source of for your rants. Thanks.

(And I am sorry for flaming you earlier. That was out of line.)

Gandalf Parker

August 19th, 2004, 07:29 PM

rextorres said:
Are you saying that clean air, clean water, public schools, social security, police and fire protection, etc. is too much to ask?

Its all pros and cons. The repubs seem to live for the present. Keeping the most of what they make, gaining the most ground, even if it detracts from others later. Investing in the future means "my problems, my future, my families future, my states future, my countries future".

Demo's seem to be willing to accept less today in order to invest in a further tomorrow. Investing in the future tends to be "our problems, our future, our families future, our states, our countries".

Both sides tend to paint horrible pictures of what will happen if the other side is carried to the extreme. I think they are both right when they do that. So I tend to vote in a way that doesnt let either one go too far for too long.

Under the republicans we would become the Ferrengi.
Under the democrats we would become the Federation.
Under the U.S. marijuana party we would become Rhysa.
Under the american heritage party we would become the Dominion.
For more parties visit http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

Renegade 13

August 19th, 2004, 09:59 PM

Speaking as someone who does not live in the US, and can perhaps provide a somewhat impartial opinion:

A few points: The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11/01 had exactly the effect they wanted them to have. Think about it; most people were saying they'd failed due to the relatively low death toll, compared to what it could be. However, look at the amount of money the US has recently spent on the "war against terrorism". Hundreds of billions!! I think your deficit for this year is something like half a TRILLION!!

The terrorists simply wanted to destroy the US economy, and with the massive anti-terrorist spending that has occured, they have succeeded in a huge way.

From the view of an outsider, it looks like the US is on its Last legs. If you don't pull your economy together sometime soon, that's going to be it, some other country, such as China, will be the lone world superpower. That's something I'm sure none of us want. I sure don't, as I'm from Canada, and to a certain extent we rely on the US to provide an amount of protection to us.

Basically, the terrorists succeeded.

Another point. Both of the candidates would, in my opinion, be horrible to have in office. Its simply a question of which would be the least of the two evils. Personally, if I was voting, I'd vote for Bush. Kerry is willing to make the US into a country with few personal freedoms, and if that would happen it would be a huge blow to world democracy. However, Bush was the one to put in the Patriot act in the first place! So who knows which of them would be worse for the freedom of Americans. Why would I vote for Bush? He's in favor of the owning of firearms, which I think is a right anyone should have, anywhere in the world (unless you're a convicted criminal, or some other good reason). That is about the only thing I can say that is in favor of either of the candidates.

Lets face facts; they're all politicians!! They will lie, cheat, distort the facts, whatever it takes to satisfy their own personal demons, or to try to accumulate power.

I for one, am quite glad I'm living in Canada, instead of the US. We have more freedom than you do now, we are politically stable, among other things.

I just hope the actions of the US leaders don't push the world into World War Three. Although I bet that within 15 years it will be happening, or have just happened. Rather than being a far off dread, it will be an immediate reality.

Of course, remember that all of this is my personal opinion. If any of the "facts" I have stated are in error, please correct me. Also, if you would like to contradict anything I said, or state a counter-opinion, I would greatly appreciate it if you do so. I will not be offended, or insult your opinions, as some others would do.

Gandalf Parker

August 19th, 2004, 10:51 PM

Renegade 13 said:
A few points: The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11/01 had exactly the effect they wanted them to have. Think about it; most people were saying they'd failed due to the relatively low death toll, compared to what it could be. However, look at the amount of money the US has recently spent on the "war against terrorism". Hundreds of billions!! I think your deficit for this year is something like half a TRILLION!!

If I remember correctly thats not much compared to what it was when the republicans were Last in office.

And when someone says that 9-11 had a horrible impact on our economy Im not sure if the cost of the reaction is quite the same as the impact on our economy. Is the impact what the terrorists did? Or what Bush did?

Fyron

August 20th, 2004, 03:35 AM

The Last time Republicans were in office, they increased the national debt as a means to end the Cold War once and for all, without a single shot being fired. Reagan's huge increase in military spending caused the Soviets to increase their spending to keep up. The economy of the US was strong enough to shrug it off. That of the USSR was weak, and collapsed. Russia still hasn't really recovered from ~65 years of rape by an oppressive military dictatorship, but at least the Russian people have more freedoms than they did previously...

Another point. Both of the candidates would, in my opinion, be horrible to have in office. Its simply a question of which would be the least of the two evils.

Indeed. Unfortunately, there is no lesser of two evils in this case...

Atrocities

August 20th, 2004, 03:45 AM

We really need a better way.

Will

August 20th, 2004, 06:07 AM

Well, I've been moving around the past few days, so I missed this thread. So I am going to belatedly jump in http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

In a perfect world, I would probably vote Libertarian, and have Badnerik actually win. I don't entirely agree with all of his proposals (and that is most likely impossible anyway), but I agree with most.

However, that is over-ruled by the fact that I do not want Bush in the White House. It is my opinion that he has sided with his hawkish advisors too often, and messed up relations with the rest of the world (I was going to say warmongering advisors, but that wouldn't be diplomatic http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ). There are a lot of people that don't think that is a big deal, usually because they have an isolationist view on international politics. But from what I've learned of history, all isolationist states end up having more harm than good come from ignoring the rest of the world. Like it or not, we live in a world with many different cultures, and agression is not the way to deal with it.

I also think that he has largely ignored most domestic issues, including the economy. In my view, cutting taxes and lowering pollution regulations is not an economic policy. The "trickle-down theory" for taxes has one huge, glaring flaw in my view, and that is the assumption that if those citizens with large incomes pay less of that income in taxes, they will spend more in the private sector. But it turns out that a lot of them don't spend, they save. Which ties up a lot of capital where it cannot be used to create products and jobs. From what I know of what Kerry wants to do, the tax cuts will shift from benefitting mostly the upper classes to benefitting the lower-middle to middle class. Here, the trickle-down theory is more applicable, since people in those income brackets are more likely to do things like fix the garage roof, or replace the broken basement door. I know this because that's what my parents did with their tax return checks this summer, when they otherwise would have just let those projects slide.

I remember one of the big issues for the 2000 election was education. It's not being made a big issue this election it seems, but I was really pissed about the so-called "Texas Miracle" being brought nation-wide. I managed to escape to college before it effected me, but after going through public school, I know that the whole "No Child Left Behind" is not the way to go about education. The big deal was, under Gov. Bush in Texas, a large majority of public school students "passed" with basic or better proficiency a standardized test, where not as many did this before. What wasn't spread around much was the little bit of information that this was accomplished by lowering the standards on the tests (eg. now answering 4 out of 10 right is ok, instead of 7 out of 10; these aren't real numbers, just made up to illustrate point). So now with "No Child Left Behind", we have flawed tests at every grade level, taking up money, time, and resources that could be used on real education, instead of encouraging schools to teach only the materials on these tests.

I am also made extremely uncomfortable by the large role that Bush's religious views play in his policies. I don't have a problem with a person having religious views, but I do have a problem with religion in public office. That is just one step too close to theocracy, and a theocracy will inevitably persecute those not of a particular religion who happen to be living under that government. Kerry, while still being religious, has shown some ability in distancing himself from his beliefs when it comes to public policy.

As for the military, Atrocities was complaining about how Clinton reduced the military during his term. I say he had good reason to! The military was the size that it was because of the Cold War, and like was already stated, we increased our military in order to cause the Soviets to increase theirs, our economy could handle it, theirs couldn't. But our economy couldn't handle it indefinitely, only longer than the Soviet economy could. So, when there was no reason to have a huge military, cuts were made. I'm not sure of exactly when the study for the re-alignment of troops was started, but that should also have been completed by around the end of Clinton's second term, instead of happening now at the end of Bush's term. Our military is plenty large, and would be still too large if not for our participation in two theatres of war. The fact that Bush is looking at ways to make even more troops available (while making sure that draft board positions remain filled) makes me worried that if he gets a second term, he'll start yet another war, in the name of the "War on Terror"... and then want to draft me. If that happens, well then I will gladly renounce citizenship, because this country obviously will not be the land of the free I thought I was born in.

Anyway, that's just how I see things.

Colonel

September 6th, 2004, 12:08 AM

I cant vote as im not old enough to but I wish Kerry will win because bush is bound to be the dumbest idiot in the world and should be gotten out of office as soon as humanly possible. If he wins again we all might as well go kill ourselves because there wont be much of a world left after another four years of Govener Bushey's Reign of Terror over the world

Will

September 6th, 2004, 06:02 AM

It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

Douglas Adams was a genius.

Kyro_Hawk

September 6th, 2004, 07:44 AM

"I am gods sock puppet, he has his hand so far up arse that his words are all that pop out." - Mr. Smith - Jeremiah

I say we all forum our own political group and go nominate one of our people in 2008. Oh wait; by posting this, I just marked myself as a terrorist.

Why is it that is in a free nation, when any one speaks of forming a new political group, they are denounced as a lunatic fringe and subjected to FBI surveillance, harassment, and even for some, imprisonment?

WE ARE NOT A NATION OF FREEDOM, we are a captive nation under the control of large corporations who will never share the power with any one not on their pay roll.

Mark me a crackpot, but follow the money. Where does it lead? Why would any one want to become President of the USA? Power and money.

He who has the gold makes the rules. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. These statements have been proven time and again to be true. And those, like me, who ask the questions or make the statement, are often branded as crackpots or conspiracy theorist in order to devalidate what we say.

People are sheep and the will believe anything they are told so long as believing it ensures that their way of life will not be effected. One step at a time, one right, one freedom, and eventually we will have nothing left and then all those who turn a blind eye will scream "why did you let it happen?" They will accept no responsibility for it, and they will, as they have been trained to do by television, and programming from birth, blame everyone else for the problems they now face.

Kerry is as honest as Bush and I would not wish to vote for either of them. But given Kerry's propensity to take, I think the safest bet is to vote for the arsehole.

Make no mistake, in twenty to forty years things around the world are going to get a lot worse as our planets oil reserves run dry and our resources dwindle. It is already happening, and instead of concentrating on protecting what we have or looking to new sources, we fight over whets left.

There is a reason we do not want the sand jockeys having WMD's. With WMD's they can protect their oil, without them, the rest of the world can take it.

This war was not about terrorism; it was about oil and only oil. The rest was, and is BS. And no matter who is in office, the objective will always be about oil. Oil is money, and money is power, and power rules the world.

Call me a loon, but remember, in order to hear, you must listen, and those who seldom listen never hear.

tesco samoa

September 6th, 2004, 11:47 AM

Well one things you USA people will not have to worry about.

WHo ever is voted in will be hated around the world. Just as bush was, just as clinton was and just as much as the ones before clinton as well.

I do not understand why people think that voting bush out of office will go back to some acid coded vision that the world will love USA again. When it never did.

Remeber who you vote for. Govn't wins. Which also happens to be some old school rich white guy.

To me your 2 big parties are one and the same.

PvK

September 6th, 2004, 05:19 PM

Gandalf Parker said:

Renegade 13 said:
A few points: The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11/01 had exactly the effect they wanted them to have. Think about it; most people were saying they'd failed due to the relatively low death toll, compared to what it could be. However, look at the amount of money the US has recently spent on the "war against terrorism". Hundreds of billions!! I think your deficit for this year is something like half a TRILLION!!

If I remember correctly thats not much compared to what it was when the republicans were Last in office.

And when someone says that 9-11 had a horrible impact on our economy Im not sure if the cost of the reaction is quite the same as the impact on our economy. Is the impact what the terrorists did? Or what Bush did?

It's pretty clear that it's what Bush did. Same answer with our civil rights. They were thrown away, along with our money, by our own government, to increase its own power and wealth, and that of its political allies.

PvK

Gandalf Parker

September 6th, 2004, 06:00 PM

Kyro_Hawk said:
I say we all forum our own political group and go nominate one of our people in 2008. Oh wait; by posting this, I just marked myself as a terrorist.

Why is it that is in a free nation, when any one speaks of forming a new political group, they are denounced as a lunatic fringe and subjected to FBI surveillance, harassment, and even for some, imprisonment?

Actually there are many parties and more forming all the time. http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
In fact if we had only two parties running this time then I wouldnt be so worried about the outcome.

Kerry is as honest as Bush and I would not wish to vote for either of them. But given Kerry's propensity to take, I think the safest bet is to vote for the arsehole.

Considering Bushes tendency to send, I dont think that "safest" is the word I would use there. The most personally profitable maybe, but not safest.

I want to create a new party. Its called the seesaw party. We consider both major parties to be dangerous if left in office too long so we vote back and forth with each election so they will balance each other out.

Colonel

September 6th, 2004, 08:49 PM

tesco samoa said:
Well one things you USA people will not have to worry about.

WHo ever is voted in will be hated around the world. Just as bush was, just as clinton was and just as much as the ones before clinton as well.

Um, I dont know if you know but Clinton was loved by a bunch of countries includeing UK (granted they follow us no matter what) alot of african nations, hell even the Russian President Yelson liked Clinton. As for Govener Bushey the reason everyone hates him is because he is trying to inforce a radical right wing agenda

Kyro_Hawk

September 6th, 2004, 11:50 PM

What specifically did the Bush do to our economy? I want specifics, not hearsay or IMHO's. Prove to me that the BUSH hurt our economy as bad as the Clinton did.

And this ploy where Kerry's wife IS NOW SICK like CLINTON is just sickening!!!! Oh My God how dumb do they think we are. They are playing for the sympathy vote.. WHAT CRAB APPLE BULLSH*T IS THIS?

OH sure Clinton might be ill, but the timing of his, and then Kerry's wife's illness are more the coincidental. Its all part of the Democratic plan to win the sympathy vote.

What next, the BUSH's dog will get sick and one of his daughter will have to have an emergancy arm transplanet or something.

Colonel

September 7th, 2004, 12:15 AM

You want specfic thing that Govener Bushey did, Here You Go. Bushey spent the 5.6 TRILLION, that Clinton had gained for the goverment in his years, also it should be mentioned that when clinton took office we had a deficet from the reganomics and bush senior continueing that policy. How did Bushey Jr. do this, he gave tax cuts and tax refunds to the top twenty percent of americans who dont even need it. This is besides the money that is still being wasted on the war. Next what did he do, he spent the Last 2.5 trillion which was set aside by clinton to pay for Social Sequrity, and what was it spent on you ask another round of tax cuts in 2003 and who did they beneifit, who else but not the top 20% but the TOP ONE PERCENT of americans. Also he helped create tax shelters (place to hide tax money) for huge mega cooperations most of these tax shelter in the cariebean. and how does this ruin the economy, when mega coorperations are doing well they tend to down size to get more money and in turn buy out other small buissnesses. SO THIS IS HOW HE DID
Also it should be mentioned that all of his tax cuts are 3 times as much as the war
Also he repealed in his first round of tax cuts the Estate Tax, which is a tax on the inheritence of people and basically only effects the top 1% of uber rich people which introtuces alot of currency to the goverment (this is also called the Death Tax by repulicans and the Paris Hilton Tax
---And this is why we need to get rid of the nut case

Katchoo

September 9th, 2004, 11:17 PM

Kyro_Hawk said:
What specifically did the Bush do to our economy? I want specifics, not hearsay or IMHO's. Prove to me that the BUSH hurt our economy as bad as the Clinton did.

And this ploy where Kerry's wife IS NOW SICK like CLINTON is just sickening!!!! Oh My God how dumb do they think we are. They are playing for the sympathy vote.. WHAT CRAB APPLE BULLSH*T IS THIS?

OH sure Clinton might be ill, but the timing of his, and then Kerry's wife's illness are more the coincidental. Its all part of the Democratic plan to win the sympathy vote.

What next, the BUSH's dog will get sick and one of his daughter will have to have an emergancy arm transplanet or something.

Teresa Kerry is not sick like Bill Clinton. Teresa Kerry was taken to Mercy Medical Center-North Iowa after complaining of an upset stomach. She got tested & looked over, and was released. She's fine, and likely was suffering from a lack of sleep (and stress) following a 4 city jaunt in 2 days.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, has undergone a heart bypass operation to clear arterial blockage.

Grab yourself a warm cup of hot chocolate and chill before you end up in an an emergency room with an upset tummy yourself.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/beerglass.gif

Mephisto

September 10th, 2004, 07:30 PM

As a paramedic I can tell you that an upset stomach can be easily taken for a heart attack. To really exclude a heart attack you have to go to a hospital and take a special "advanced" EKG and take blood samples. There is nothing unusual about this procedure, in fact it is standard procedure from a medical point of view.

Katchoo

September 11th, 2004, 12:09 AM

Mephisto said:
As a paramedic I can tell you that an upset stomach can be easily taken for a heart attack. To really exclude a heart attack you have to go to a hospital and take a special "advanced" EKG and take blood samples. There is nothing unusual about this procedure, in fact it is standard procedure from a medical point of view.

I've had a couple of anxiety attacks, and if you're not used to them, it feels like a stroke or heart attack (to someone who's never felt what a real stroke or heart attack feels like). Whatever Teresa was feeling, I can empathise with her 100%.

Will

September 15th, 2004, 09:56 PM

AlterNet critique of Bush on National Security (http://www.alternet.org/election04/19893/).

Instar

October 28th, 2004, 01:35 AM

Gozra said:
I am reading A history of the American Navy in WWII. Mahan's I believe. I was stunned by the preface. My Wife and I visited the Battleship North Carolin in Wilimington North Carolina I remember telling her That For a Battleship with 16 inch guns it was really a small ship. The in the preface Of the Navy history book I am reading it pointed out that prior to WWII the Peace activists put pressure on The US to sign treaties with the other big powers to limit the size and makeup of the navies then being built. Well many of the other Countries proceeded to 'Cheat'(the US did not) So when WWII broke out the US had the wimpiest fleet because The 'Be nice at all cost' crowd had succeeded in tying the hands of the US navy.
What I think this boils down to is subscribing to the view that everyone will do what is best for everyone else will just get you kicked in the teeth and stomped on.

The truth of the matter is that the US got the good end of the treaty. The ratio was like for every 2 tons Japan got, the US got 5 tons. Britain and France got 4 or 5 as well. More info:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Washington_Naval_Treaty

The treaty was signed in 1922, and was probably ignored by everyone by the late 1930s. In fact, the treaty was ended in 1936, leaving enough time for all navies involved to grow.

Oh, and I voted Kerry (absentee ballot) because all of Bush's positions are immoral and I disagree with all of his positions.

Azselendor

October 28th, 2004, 01:38 PM

Actually, the damage done to the economy cannot be held against clinton as during the Last few months of his administration, the republican impeachment crippled all of his policies and his ability to carry them out.

Clinton was turned into a lame duck president after the impeachment hearings and paved the way to the dot com bust.

Gandalf Parker

October 28th, 2004, 01:48 PM

Instar said:
Oh, and I voted Kerry (absentee ballot) because all of Bush's positions are immoral and I disagree with all of his positions.

Im happy to say that I have listened to most of the presidential candidates, particularly Bush and Kerry of course. I have been swayed most by things said by Bush. (not to vote for him)

MythicalMino

November 1st, 2004, 02:39 PM

I am voting Bush, but listening to Mellencamp on my way to the polls.....

Instar

November 2nd, 2004, 02:47 AM

Gandalf Parker said:

Instar said:
Oh, and I voted Kerry (absentee ballot) because all of Bush's positions are immoral and I disagree with all of his positions.

Im happy to say that I have listened to most of the presidential candidates, particularly Bush and Kerry of course. I have been swayed most by things said by Bush. (not to vote for him)

The "debates" were ok, mostly ridiculous. They're both career politicians, and I severely dislike those things.

I should clarify why Bush's positions are immoral and wrong:
Science - His conservative staff and such are impeding science, something most abhorrent to me. Not just stem cells, mind you. Several federal studies that conservative Groups hated have been dropped from federal funding. Consider the study of disease vectors: a study done on how truck stops play roles in the transmission of diseases. The research was done on all aspects of how a truck stop and truckers spread disease: drugs, prostitutes, truck chasers, etc.. Conservative "Christian" Groups hated it and had Bush and Co. stop it.
Stem Cells - see above. Science ought not be so impeded.
Abortion - Bush is wrong again, see Judith Jarvis Thompson's "A Defense of Abortion," no one has yet countered it in my mind.
International relations - Bush is a joke here.
Gay Marriage - Bush is wrong again. Society will not crumble if we give equal rights to everyone, we can look overseas at different countries to see this.
Missile Defense - Needs to be rethought and redesigned. I am for a solution that works, however, the current one is iffy at best.
Tax Cuts - They are good when you have spare cash, but we don't! National debt is dangerously high.

Raging Deadstar

November 3rd, 2004, 01:24 AM

Lol, I'm in england, it's 4:30am and I have insomnia http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif So I'm watching the election stuff, Got to admit it's got me hooked now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Very clsoe stuff so far, Hoping for a Kerry win personally (politics is global no?) but you guys really know how to throw a close election! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Atrocities

November 3rd, 2004, 06:18 AM

YYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS VICTORY . http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

The President is still the President with both tains in the Senate and the House..... I would call that one hell of a GREAT VICTORY. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Instar

November 3rd, 2004, 07:59 PM

Atrocities said:
 YYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS VICTORY . http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

The President is still the President with both tains in the Senate and the House..... I would call that one hell of a GREAT VICTORY. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

hooray. 4 more years of "compassionate" conservatives and christian right wing. I'm so thrilled.

Jack Simth

November 3rd, 2004, 08:47 PM

Instar said:
I should clarify why Bush's positions are immoral and wrong:
Science - His conservative staff and such are impeding science, something most abhorrent to me. Not just stem cells, mind you. Several federal studies that conservative Groups hated have been dropped from federal funding. Consider the study of disease vectors: a study done on how truck stops play roles in the transmission of diseases. The research was done on all aspects of how a truck stop and truckers spread disease: drugs, prostitutes, truck chasers, etc.. Conservative "Christian" Groups hated it and had Bush and Co. stop it.
Stem Cells - see above. Science ought not be so impeded.
Abortion - Bush is wrong again, see Judith Jarvis Thompson's "A Defense of Abortion," no one has yet countered it in my mind.

So he is wrong because his ethics conflict with yours?
Instar said:
International relations - Bush is a joke here.

Most international relations between the more powerful and the less powerful are a joke anymore. As there are very few, if any, other nations with the military and economic clout of the US, most international relations involving the US will be a joke, regardless of who is president.
Instar said:
Gay Marriage - Bush is wrong again. Society will not crumble if we give equal rights to everyone, we can look overseas at different countries to see this.

What's the longest a society that was founded with exclusively (or nearly so) "traditional" marriage has survived after "non-traditional" marriges have become widespread? Perhaps it is simply a matter of caution; a "wait and see" on how well those more permissive countries are doing 50-60 years from now before jumping on the bandwagon. Meanwhile, there are a few states that do permit such, and the federal government has no constitutional authority on that issue (for now, granted - but changing that would just about take a constitutional amendment - requireing 2/3 of the states to ratify it, and likely a few decades).
Instar said:
Missile Defense - Needs to be rethought and redesigned. I am for a solution that works, however, the current one is iffy at best.

Most methods of defense are iffy at best; the ones that are less iffy, such as the capacity for swift and utter annihilation of an attacker (aka ICBMs with nuclear warheads), are extremely unpopular on the international scene (and the local scene, too). Which is prefferable? An iffy defense that doesn't make all the other countries extremely nervous or a reasonably practical defense that does?
Instar said:
Tax Cuts - They are good when you have spare cash, but we don't! National debt is dangerously high.

It's not so much the debt as the deficit that's the issue - but yeah, tax cuts are rather impractical at the moment. Of course, the debt is growing, and no politician can really afford to have a platform of RAISING taxes, now can they?

tesco samoa

November 3rd, 2004, 09:20 PM

wohoo i was right the rich white guy won....

wow... i do find it ironic that there is a sea of red for gop...

Atrocities

November 3rd, 2004, 10:47 PM

Instar said:

Atrocities said:
 YYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS VICTORY . http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

The President is still the President with both tains in the Senate and the House..... I would call that one hell of a GREAT VICTORY. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

hooray. 4 more years of "compassionate" conservatives and christian right wing. I'm so thrilled.

I would say that the mass majority of Americans would not agree with your views. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Not only did they re-elect the President, but they also gained seats in both the house and senate. Nuff said.

tesco samoa

November 4th, 2004, 05:58 PM

isn't that 51 % of 50% of the people who could vote.

From what I gather 100 million did not vote.

Whats with that senator (Oakie -R )who wants to ban gays from teaching ,? or kill doctors who give abortions. Thats some scary stuff.

How do people like that get in power ?

CNCRaymond

November 4th, 2004, 06:33 PM

Its not about banning gay folks, its about defining marrage as between 1 man and 1 women. NO ONE is saying that gay couples should not have the same legal rights as married couples, only that they cannot use the term married.

Personally I feel that any person, man or women who loves each other and has become life long partners deserve the same legal rights as married couples.

And regardless of the percentage point Tesco, record numbers of people did come out and vote. Of those who did vote, Bush garned a significant percentage over Kerry.

The issue that killed Kerry was gun rights, gay rights, and tax increases. He would have been pro-gun, pro-gay but said marrage is for a man and a women, and promised not to increase or "roll back" taxes, he would be our new president.

He stood by his conviction, something most politicians would never do, and he lost. He will run again in 2008 and win.

And if Senator Oakie-R tries that crap, I hope they drive his arse out of town on a rail road pike! People are poeple. Banning a gay teacher would be saying that a gay teacher is a bad influance on a child. How so? Its BS so don't worry about it.

Azselendor

November 4th, 2004, 09:47 PM

If I recall, Edwards and/or Hilary is favored for the democrats in 2008.

Phoenix-D

November 4th, 2004, 11:39 PM

CNCRaymond said:
Its not about banning gay folks, its about defining marrage as between 1 man and 1 women. NO ONE is saying that gay couples should not have the same legal rights as married couples, only that they cannot use the term married.

Bull. A substantial portion of the anti-gay marriage amendments also Banned civil unions, which IS saying exactly that.

That and we've tried the "seperate but equal" thing before, remember?

Azselendor

November 5th, 2004, 11:04 PM

I wonder how long until the church faxes over the "Now you scratch our back" list for bush to take care of....

Instar

November 8th, 2004, 01:01 AM

Atrocities said:

Instar said:

Atrocities said:
 YYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS VICTORY . http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

The President is still the President with both tains in the Senate and the House..... I would call that one hell of a GREAT VICTORY. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

hooray. 4 more years of "compassionate" conservatives and christian right wing. I'm so thrilled.

I would say that the mass majority of Americans would not agree with your views. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Not only did they re-elect the President, but they also gained seats in both the house and senate. Nuff said.

argumentum ad populum

Will

November 9th, 2004, 04:10 AM

Phoenix-D said:

CNCRaymond said:
Its not about banning gay folks, its about defining marrage as between 1 man and 1 women. NO ONE is saying that gay couples should not have the same legal rights as married couples, only that they cannot use the term married.

Bull. A substantial portion of the anti-gay marriage amendments also Banned civil unions, which IS saying exactly that.

That and we've tried the "seperate but equal" thing before, remember?

I just wanted to belatedly ditto this. While it is only my personal perspective, my experiences living in a conservative rural area (rural Pennsylvania) and a moderately progressive urban sprawl (Los Angeles) tell me that most of the anti-gay-marriage (or 'pro-family', or 'defenders-of-marriage') activists are simply expressing homophobia, only veiled to varying degrees. Some seem legitimate to people who only follow the quick sound-bytes on the news, while others show the blatant absurdity of the position (IMHO). In California, the "activists" aren't really all that active (in fact, the College Republicans here have the very odd platform of being "pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-gun control", which sounds awfully like a Democrat group... but this is California). The ones who say they oppose gay marriage generally have never met or talked to a homosexual person. Or, more likely, they were never aware of it if they did, so it's mostly an ignorance problem from that viewpoint. In Pennsylvania, on the other hand, I think it's ignorance combined with outright stubborness and fear. There were actually op-ed pieces in the local paper that seriously put forth the argument that the local theatre should be shut down for putting on a production of The Birdcage, before the "gay disease" infected the entire town. Then again, this is in an area of Pennsylvania where people fly the Confederate flag, and there is still blatant and obvious racism.

What I would like is for just ONE person to give me solid, credible arguments for why two people, regardless of their sex, should not be able to get married. I sometimes wonder: Do they not realize that this sounds exactly like the laws banning blacks from marrying whites? There are arguments based on religion, but there is this little bit in the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", and that's in there for a good reason. The State has no business in the Church, and vice versa. And it must be remembered that marriage was co-opted into religion, and the current religious significance is just the incorporation of very old secular (or pagan, depending on your viewpoint) traditions. In the real world marriage is the legal binding of two people, and any religious attachment to the term is merely coincidental. That little clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit a couple from having a religious ceremony to go along with it, either.

But, with all that, I do support civil unions. On the grounds that a little progress is better than none. The entire civil rights and women's rights movements were and are based on small steps toward the ideal. There are some people who just won't change their mind on certain subjects (such as blacks, jews, women, gays, etc being somehow inferior). Anything that makes the transition easier, like using a different word for the same idea, is a good thing.

Jack Simth

November 9th, 2004, 06:25 PM

Will said:
What I would like is for just ONE person to give me solid, credible arguments for why two people, regardless of their sex, should not be able to get married. I sometimes wonder: Do they not realize that this sounds exactly like the laws banning blacks from marrying whites? There are arguments based on religion, but there is this little bit in the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", and that's in there for a good reason. The State has no business in the Church, and vice versa.

Bearing in mind, that this is a question of ethics, and as such is fundamentally unarguable on several levels, here is a roundabout and incomplete attempt at one:

Let's start with something else. Something that the supermajority of people believe is wrong: Murder. Murder is illeagal. It is also called wrong in the Bible. Obviously, murder is a religious issue, and the state has no right to intervene. Perhaps it is an ethical issue, instead. With ethics, things ultimately lie on fundamental, unproveable assumptions (some samples: with Kant's "pure logic", one must first assume: 1) that logic is applicable to ethics, 2) that "better" is something to be strived for, and 3) Kant's definition of what has intrinsic value; with self-interest or extended self-interest ethics, one must first assume that personal consequences matter in questions of ethics [not a given in all schools of ethics]; "feels good" ethics usually assume that it either doesn't matter anyway or that nature/God/whatever has provided the ultimate guide when producing your feelings (or that it is an evolutionary process, and if your ethics are flawed, they are supposed to cause you problems), or some variant; with God centered ethics, even assuming that the existence of God and every event statement in the Bible is wholly accurate in every detail, one first needs to assume that the created ethically ought to obey the rules laid out by the Creator; et cetera; et cetera), which are religion-like in nature. Murder penalties are therefore unconstitutional, and thus the state has no right to interfere on that basis.

You can replace "murder" in the above with virtually anything that's illeagal (with minor tweaks to the rest of the text), really - (in no particular order) rape, incest, theft, drug abuse, tax evasion, kiddie porn, gay marriage, or prostitution, to name a few. The above is complete bull, of course. But how can the case be argued that it IS bull? More specifically, can you debunk the above for murder, rape, incest, theft, kiddie porn, et cetera without also debunking the above your favorite issue: gay marriage, especially considering that it uses a good portion of the same basic approach that you used to say that gay marriage should be okay?

Will said:
And it must be remembered that marriage was co-opted into religion, and the current religious significance is just the incorporation of very old secular (or pagan, depending on your viewpoint) traditions.

That is one hypothesis. It isn't proven, however.

Will

November 9th, 2004, 07:28 PM

There is a problem with the murder argument, though. I've heard it before, sometimes with "murder", sometimes "rape", sometimes "kiddie porn", and on and on, pretty much always something everyone who is considered sane believes is a very Bad Thing(tm). Then they say, replace this Bad Thing(tm) with gay marriage, and there is your argument for it!

Wrong.

When you do such substitutions, you're assuming that either A) the things being substituted have all the same properties as far as the argument is concerned, or B) the argument is a tautology. The "murder" argument easily disproves B. Then what of A? What are the properties of all these Bad Things(tm)?
Murder - one person depriving another person of life
Rape - one person depriving another person control over the body sexually
Kiddie Porn - one person depriving a previously innocent youth of innocence, in addition to depriving control over the body sexually

And gay marriage? Can anyone seriously make an argument that two people who love each other cannot make such a bond between themselves? All I have heard simply is an "I don't like it" argument. Well I don't like racists, Nazis, lawyers, marketing executives, insurance salesmen, circus clowns, or albinos. But they have never done anything to me personally, I just decide I don't like them. Therefore, if I can convince enough people that they don't like those things either, it may be decreed through government that those people shall not have rights under this government. This will undoubtably make me and many other people happy; that doesn't make it right or good.

A lot of people don't like homosexuality. It makes them uncomfortable. Gay people have never done anything to them, it's just they aren't liked. Therefore, if it turns out there are enough people who don't like homosexuality, it may be decreed through government that those people shall not have rights under this government. This will undoubtably make homophobics happy; that doesn't make it right or good.

Another mistake is saying that all things which are dealt with in religion cannot be dealt with in government. With many religions, a form of government is already built in. Exhibit A, the Catholic Church. When you look at the clause "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", there is nothing in there saying there is no overlap in domain. Religion or lack thereof is a central part of every person. So is living, and living in society kind of implies that one is living under at least one government. If one is living under more than one, then it is expected that the person will be restrained a little more in what they can do, while getting the benefits provided from both. There is no conflict in the Constitution as long as the "government" of religion does not interfere with the functioning of the State, and the functioning of the State does not interfere with the functioning of the Church. In other words, the Bible can say "murder is wrong", the US Government can say "murder is a felony punishable by X years in prison"... and there's no conflict! Or, religions can say "marriage is a sacred union between only a man and a woman", and the US Government can say "marriage is the union of two persons for purposes of taxation, inheritance, visitation, etc"... and there's still no conflict! There's no forcing of people to marry someone of the same sex. There's no forcing of people to marry someone of the opposite sex. There's no forcing to marry, period.

As for the "hypothesis" of marriage... ok, if you're taking the position that marriage started with the story of Adam and Eve in Eden from Judeo-Christian mythology, then of course marriage wasn't co-opted into religion. But even when I believed in that stuff as a kid, I thought of it more as fables than actual history, just like I didn't really believe that Jack climbed up a magical beanstalk to steal from the Giant in the sky. So that bit is only valid for those that have a similar view of that and all similar stories of origins of man, etc.. It is merely supporting evidence, and is not necessary to the argument as a whole.

Jack Simth

November 9th, 2004, 08:54 PM

Will said:
There is a problem with the murder argument, though. I've heard it before, sometimes with "murder", sometimes "rape", sometimes "kiddie porn", and on and on, pretty much always something everyone who is considered sane believes is a very Bad Thing(tm). Then they say, replace this Bad Thing(tm) with gay marriage, and there is your argument for it!

Wrong.

When you do such substitutions, you're assuming that either A) the things being substituted have all the same properties as far as the argument is concerned, or B) the argument is a tautology. The "murder" argument easily disproves B. Then what of A? What are the properties of all these Bad Things(tm)?
Murder - one person depriving another person of life
Rape - one person depriving another person control over the body sexually

Both assume some particular definition of person, which is very religion-like, if not necessarily precisely religious. Should the government be able to dictate what is and is not considered a person? If no, then you can't charge a solipsist with murder or rape; if yes, then it can easily become quite reasonable to put an abortionist on trial for murder.
Will said:
Kiddie Porn - one person depriving a previously innocent youth of innocence, in addition to depriving control over the body sexually

That applies to the extreme of kiddie porn - some jerk sticking it in a five year old - it does not necessarily apply to a twelve-year-old doing a strip-tease in front of a camera for cash (which is basically what the various task-forces trying to take down the kiddie-porn recruiters fish for).
Will said:
And gay marriage? Can anyone seriously make an argument that two people who love each other cannot make such a bond between themselves? All I have heard simply is an "I don't like it" argument.

So you've never heard the long-term social stability question? What's the longest a society that was founded with exclusively (or nearly so) "traditional" marriage has survived after "non-traditional" marriges have become widespread? According to one source I've heard (granted, he was a televangalist, and is biased - but then again, everybody's biased to some degree - doesn't necessarily mean that their data is false) was three generations. Now consider the Jews. Theirs is pretty much the only culture that has survived relatively intact through multiple millenia of subugation and persecution (of varying severity, granted). They have a lot of rules - religious rules that they live by - which include such things as sanitation, a ban on incest, and a ban on eating pork, to name three. Now, in modern times, we find that many of these are actually extremely practical health concerns. Thanks to an understanding of germs, we know that people who don't wash regularly are considerably more likely to contract diseases. Thanks to an understanding of genetics, we know that the childeren of incest are considerably more likely to have defects from negative-recessive gene pairs. Thanks to an understanding of biology, we now know that pigs contain a parasite which pigs are immune to, but is devastating to humans if the parasite gets into their systems (sure, it's not certain that you will catch it if you eat pork that still has some surviving parasites, but essentially all pigs carry that parasite, and barring some rather unusual circumstances, eating pork is the only way to pick it up). Many of their practices are present and required (in some form) in most modern societies - theft, murder, rape, a weekly day of rest, and incest laws, to name a few. Whether you assume their laws were handed down to them by God, or that they evolved over a given length of time as survival factors for a society, it's a bad idea to start dropping portions that are integrated into your society without first running long-term field tests.
Will said:
Well I don't like racists, Nazis, lawyers, marketing executives, insurance salesmen, circus clowns, or albinos. But they have never done anything to me personally, I just decide I don't like them. Therefore, if I can convince enough people that they don't like those things either, it may be decreed through government that those people shall not have rights under this government. This will undoubtably make me and many other people happy; that doesn't make it right or good.

A lot of people don't like homosexuality. It makes them uncomfortable. Gay people have never done anything to them, it's just they aren't liked. Therefore, if it turns out there are enough people who don't like homosexuality, it may be decreed through government that those people shall not have rights under this government. This will undoubtably make homophobics happy; that doesn't make it right or good.

Their's no attempt (that I'm aware of, anyway) to prohibit them the vote; they aren't being prohibited free speech; they aren't being systemically executed; killing them is still murder; they aren't being prohibited to engage in commerce; they aren't being prohibited to hold jobs (for the most part - there is the military exception to that - but the military is, of necessity, extremely pragmatic when dealing with problems - it's much more efficent to remove the 2% that cause 50% of those around them to lose efficency than it is to train the 50% to not be bothered by it). It's not the blanket denial of rights that your statement above could easily be read to imply. In some ways it's more of a preservation of the language - an object designed to be sat upon with four legs and a back is not a chalkboard; a large, flat chunk of slate mounted on a wall and designed to be repeatedly written on and erased is not a chair; two men in love is not a marriage. In some ways it's trying to prevent a slippery slope - if two men in love can be a marriage, why not three men in love? Or one man and three women? Or a forty-year old man and a thirteen-year old girl? Or ...?
Will said:
Another mistake is saying that all things which are dealt with in religion cannot be dealt with in government. With many religions, a form of government is already built in. Exhibit A, the Catholic Church. When you look at the clause "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", there is nothing in there saying there is no overlap in domain. Religion or lack thereof is a central part of every person. So is living, and living in society kind of implies that one is living under at least one government. If one is living under more than one, then it is expected that the person will be restrained a little more in what they can do, while getting the benefits provided from both. There is no conflict in the Constitution as long as the "government" of religion does not interfere with the functioning of the State, and the functioning of the State does not interfere with the functioning of the Church. In other words, the Bible can say "murder is wrong", the US Government can say "murder is a felony punishable by X years in prison"... and there's no conflict! Or, religions can say "marriage is a sacred union between only a man and a woman", and the US Government can say "marriage is the union of two persons for purposes of taxation, inheritance, visitation, etc"... and there's still no conflict! There's no forcing of people to marry someone of the same sex. There's no forcing of people to marry someone of the opposite sex. There's no forcing to marry, period.

By the exact same token, there is no conflict if religion says "marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman" while the state says "marriage is the union of a man and a woman for purposes of taxation, inheritance, visitation, et cetera". Yet your initial argument was that the state defining marriage as being a union between a man and a woman was wrong.

Will

November 9th, 2004, 10:33 PM

I've heard the long-term social stability argument. I think it's bunk, conveniently looking at certain civilizations that were either already in decline, or about to enter it, then extrapolating that homosexuals caused it. While at the same time ignoring the Greeks, and other Mediteranian civilizations where it was relatively common for there to be homosexual relations (about as common as it is now, or more, as far as I can tell). They certainly didn't begin to fail after "three generations". I think an argument used by one of my old english teachers to demonstrate logical fallacy covers this argument pretty well: "During the summer, people tend to eat more ice cream. People also tend to drown more often. Therefore, ice cream causes people to drown." Two things that can barely be said to be related, and causality infered from that.

Slippery slope. Another logical fallacy. Next.

As far as the restricting of rights, as it stands now, gay couples are not allowed to file joint tax returns, they are not allowed hospital visitation rights, there is no automatic inheritance, etc. Many rights afforded to opposite-sex couples are denied to same-sex couples. The amendments being thrown about propose to make this permanent. Now if you are talking about an amendment that simply says a same-sex couple cannot use the term "married" to describe themselves, that takes away the issue of rights, true. But it still has problems. For one, it is putting the country through a difficult legal process to essentially define a word. I would like to see you propose an amendment banning the usage of the word "chalkboard" to describe an inanimate object usually with four legs used for a person to sit in. It's useless, pointless, and... it's not what the amendments are going for in the first place. Semantics are not the issue for the people proposing the amendments, the issue is "We don't like the fags". And that is just ugly.

As for definition of "person"? What makes the definition "religion-like"? I see no reason why there cannot be a secular definition of "person", and I'm pretty sure everyone has a more-or-less secular definition in their head when they think of "person". The religious stuff is pretty much reserved for terms like "soul", "spirit", etc. Government doesn't dictate what is or is not a person because it is simply understood. If that's not enough for the pedants out there, how does "one of the species Homo sapiens sapiens" work for them?

And how exactly have you decided to sneak abortion into this? I was arguing that same-sex couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples. Never brought up abortion. It's a completely seperate issue as far as I'm concerned.

rextorres

November 10th, 2004, 12:52 AM

A simpler and more apt analogy would be the issue of interracial marriage.

A lot of the same arguments that were used in the past to justify banning interracial marriage are now used by the very same types of people to justify banning gay marriage.

Instar

November 10th, 2004, 01:24 AM

Jack Simth said:
Bearing in mind, that this is a question of ethics, and as such is fundamentally unarguable on several levels, here is a roundabout and incomplete attempt at one:

Let's start with something else. Something that the supermajority...

Argumentum ad populum. logical fallacy.

Jack Simth said:
...of people believe is wrong: Murder. Murder is illeagal. ...

No, murder is a wrongful killing. By definition, murder is wrong. Sorry to argue semantics, but that is the correct definition.

Jack Simth said:
...It is also called wrong in the Bible. ...

Relevance?

Jack Simth said:
... Obviously, murder is a religious issue, ...

No, actually, it is not.

Jack Simth said:
and the state has no right to intervene. Perhaps it is an ethical issue, instead. With ethics, things ultimately lie on fundamental, unproveable assumptions ...

Not so. Ethics makes very few assumptions. The assumptions made in ethics usually pass the reasonable person test, that is, thigns a sane person would agree to.

Jack Simth said:
...(some samples: with Kant's "pure logic", one must first assume: 1) that logic is applicable to ethics, 2) that "better" is something to be strived for, and 3) Kant's definition of what has intrinsic value; with self-interest or extended self-interest ethics, one must first assume that personal consequences matter in questions of ethics [not a given in all schools of ethics]; "feels good" ethics usually assume that it either doesn't matter anyway or that nature/God/whatever has provided the ultimate guide when producing your feelings (or that it is an evolutionary process, and if your ethics are flawed, they are supposed to cause you problems), or some variant; with God centered ethics, even assuming that the existence of God and every event statement in the Bible is wholly accurate in every detail, one first needs to assume that the created ethically ought to obey the rules laid out by the Creator; et cetera; et cetera), which are religion-like in nature. Murder penalties are therefore unconstitutional, and thus the state has no right to interfere on that basis.

You can replace "murder" in the above with virtually anything that's illeagal (with minor tweaks to the rest of the text), really - (in no particular order) rape, incest, theft, drug abuse, tax evasion, kiddie porn, gay marriage, or prostitution, to name a few. The above is complete bull, of course. But how can the case be argued that it IS bull? More specifically, can you debunk the above for murder, rape, incest, theft, kiddie porn, et cetera without also debunking the above your favorite issue: gay marriage, especially considering that it uses a good portion of the same basic approach that you used to say that gay marriage should be okay?

This is crap dressed up as philosophical musings. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you misconstrue ethics completely.

Jack Simth said:

Will said:
And it must be remembered that marriage was co-opted into religion, and the current religious significance is just the incorporation of very old secular (or pagan, depending on your viewpoint) traditions.

That is one hypothesis. It isn't proven, however.

You're saying that one can equivocate murder with gay marriage. Equivocation is a logical fallacy.

Instar

November 10th, 2004, 01:43 AM

Jack Simth said:
Both assume some particular definition of person, which is very religion-like, ...

What? Defining a person is not religious at all. A living human being is considered a person.

Jack Simth said:
... if not necessarily precisely religious. Should the government be able to dictate what is and is not considered a person? If no, then you can't charge a solipsist with murder or rape; if yes, then it can easily become quite reasonable to put an abortionist on trial for murder.
Will said:
Kiddie Porn - one person depriving a previously innocent youth of innocence, in addition to depriving control over the body sexually

That applies to the extreme of kiddie porn - some jerk sticking it in a five year old - it does not necessarily apply to a twelve-year-old doing a strip-tease in front of a camera for cash (which is basically what the various task-forces trying to take down the kiddie-porn recruiters fish for).
Will said:
And gay marriage? Can anyone seriously make an argument that two people who love each other cannot make such a bond between themselves? All I have heard simply is an "I don't like it" argument.

So you've never heard the long-term social stability question? What's the longest a society that was founded with exclusively (or nearly so) "traditional" marriage has survived after "non-traditional" marriges have become widespread? ...

Anecdotal, and a VERY skewed view of history. There is not a single shred of historical evidence that equates gay marriage to the downfall of society. This line of argument is bunk.

Jack Simth said:
According to one source I've heard (granted, he was a televangalist, ...

Appeal to authority. A televangalist[sic?] is hardly an authority on anything, other than milking the gullible of cash in the name of the Lord.

Jack Simth said:
... and is biased - but then again, everybody's biased to some degree - doesn't necessarily mean that their data is false)...

Yes, actually, it does. I call this evanglist's evidence into doubt. His evidence is more than likely anecdotal and very skewed.

Jack Simth said:
... was three generations. Now consider the Jews. Theirs is pretty much the only culture that has survived relatively intact through multiple millenia of subugation and persecution (of varying severity, granted).

The Irish have Lasted quite a long time under subjugation (up till the 1700s I would bet!). This has hardly any relevance...

Jack Simth said:
They have a lot of rules - religious rules that they live by - which include such things as sanitation, a ban on incest, and a ban on eating pork, to name three.
Now, in modern times, we find that many of these are actually extremely practical health concerns. Thanks to an understanding of germs, we know that people who don't wash regularly are considerably more likely to contract diseases. Thanks to an understanding of genetics, we know that the childeren of incest are considerably more likely to have defects from negative-recessive gene pairs. Thanks to an understanding of biology, we now know that pigs contain a parasite which pigs are immune to, but is devastating to humans if the parasite gets into their systems (sure, it's not certain that you will catch it if you eat pork that still has some surviving parasites, but essentially all pigs carry that parasite, and barring some rather unusual circumstances, eating pork is the only way to pick it up). Many of their practices are present and required (in some form) in most modern societies - theft, murder, rape, a weekly day of rest [Not so. Blue laws are gone in the US, and were immoral to start with], and incest laws, to name a few. Whether you assume their laws were handed down to them by God [God's laws include ones that allow me to rape and get away with it for 50 silver pieces...], or that they evolved over a given length of time as survival factors for a society, it's a bad idea to start dropping portions that are integrated into your society without first running long-term field tests.

How convienent that you mention field tests. Guess what?! Many countries overseas have allowed gay marriage for quite some time. The society hasn't crumbled at all!
So, according to you, immoral and wrong laws ought not be dropped without running tests? Laws prohibiting interracial marriage are quite obviously wrong, but you come out in favor of them with this argument. You're only hurting yourself with that position.

Jack Simth said:

Will said:
Well I don't like racists, Nazis, lawyers, marketing executives, insurance salesmen, circus clowns, or albinos. But they have never done anything to me personally, I just decide I don't like them. Therefore, if I can convince enough people that they don't like those things either, it may be decreed through government that those people shall not have rights under this government. This will undoubtably make me and many other people happy; that doesn't make it right or good.

A lot of people don't like homosexuality. It makes them uncomfortable. Gay people have never done anything to them, it's just they aren't liked. Therefore, if it turns out there are enough people who don't like homosexuality, it may be decreed through government that those people shall not have rights under this government. This will undoubtably make homophobics happy; that doesn't make it right or good.

Their's no attempt (that I'm aware of, anyway) to prohibit them the vote; they aren't being prohibited free speech; they aren't being systemically executed; killing them is still murder; they aren't being prohibited to engage in commerce; they aren't being prohibited to hold jobs (for the most part - there is the military exception to that - but the military is, of necessity, extremely pragmatic when dealing with problems - it's much more efficent to remove the 2% that cause 50% of those around them to lose efficency than it is to train the 50% to not be bothered by it). It's not the blanket denial of rights that your statement above could easily be read to imply. In some ways it's more of a preservation of the language - an object designed to be sat upon with four legs and a back is not a chalkboard; a large, flat chunk of slate mounted on a wall and designed to be repeatedly written on and erased is not a chair; two men in love is not a marriage. In some ways it's trying to prevent a slippery slope - if two men in love can be a marriage, why not three men in love? Or one man and three women? Or a forty-year old man and a thirteen-year old girl? Or ...?

The "slippery slope" argument is crap.

Jack Simth said:

Will said:
Another mistake is saying that all things which are dealt with in religion cannot be dealt with in government. With many religions, a form of government is already built in. Exhibit A, the Catholic Church. When you look at the clause "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", there is nothing in there saying there is no overlap in domain. Religion or lack thereof is a central part of every person. So is living, and living in society kind of implies that one is living under at least one government. If one is living under more than one, then it is expected that the person will be restrained a little more in what they can do, while getting the benefits provided from both. There is no conflict in the Constitution as long as the "government" of religion does not interfere with the functioning of the State, and the functioning of the State does not interfere with the functioning of the Church. In other words, the Bible can say "murder is wrong", the US Government can say "murder is a felony punishable by X years in prison"... and there's no conflict! Or, religions can say "marriage is a sacred union between only a man and a woman", and the US Government can say "marriage is the union of two persons for purposes of taxation, inheritance, visitation, etc"... and there's still no conflict! There's no forcing of people to marry someone of the same sex. There's no forcing of people to marry someone of the opposite sex. There's no forcing to marry, period.

By the exact same token, there is no conflict if religion says "marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman" while the state says "marriage is the union of a man and a woman for purposes of taxation, inheritance, visitation, et cetera". Yet your initial argument was that the state defining marriage as being a union between a man and a woman was wrong.

Jack Simth

November 10th, 2004, 07:16 PM

Instar said:

Jack Simth said:
Bearing in mind, that this is a question of ethics, and as such is fundamentally unarguable on several levels, here is a roundabout and incomplete attempt at one:

Let's start with something else. Something that the supermajority...

Argumentum ad populum. logical fallacy.

So choosing a starting point where most there is a high probability of a match as a starting point to argue from is automatically a fallacy? Interesting definition you have there.
Instar said:

Jack Simth said:
...of people believe is wrong: Murder. Murder is illeagal. ...

No, murder is a wrongful killing. By definition, murder is wrong. Sorry to argue semantics, but that is the correct definition.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif A minor point of semantics there - call it randomly killing someone is wrong. It's pretty immaterial nit-picking.
Instar said:

Jack Simth said:
...It is also called wrong in the Bible. ...

Relevance?

Jack Simth said:
... Obviously, murder is a religious issue, ...

No, actually, it is not.

Apparently you missed a chunk of the conversation - Will was basically saying that the state shouldn't be allowed to restrict marriage to one man and one woman on the basis that it was a religious issue; it's a religious issue because it is defined Biblically. Murder is also defined Biblically, and it's not an strickly cultural issue because there are vastly different definitions of it in different cultures.
Instar said:

Jack Simth said:
and the state has no right to intervene. Perhaps it is an ethical issue, instead. With ethics, things ultimately lie on fundamental, unproveable assumptions ...

Not so. Ethics makes very few assumptions.

I didn't say they made many of them; I said they made Fundamental assumptions; the use of fundamental usually implies a small number of them.
Instar said: The assumptions made in ethics usually pass the reasonable person test, that is, thigns a sane person would agree to.

Except, of course, that many of the schools of ethics disagree on those selfsame assumptions - Kantian ethics would ignore feelings as much as possible, on the assumption that reason is the best guide to ethics, as it is all that separates man from beast, and that nature hasn't provided an essentially perfect guide in our emotions. Meanwhile, there are a number of emotional schools of ethics that take the exact opposite approach, saying let your feelings guide you. Both types of school contain reasonable people, yet they can easily disagree on their assumptions. Moreover, they can never really convince each other, as both cases are fairly reasonable and there can't really be any true evidence on such a fundamental level. Further, they come to different conclusions in the end - sure, they all agree on the obvious things (a fourty-year old man in good health is a person; a rock is not), but they disagree on the nitty-gritty (Are monkeys people? Are unborn human children? Eating meat okay? Be a vegitarian? A veagan?).
Instar said:

Jack Simth said:
...(some samples: with Kant's "pure logic", one must first assume: 1) that logic is applicable to ethics, 2) that "better" is something to be strived for, and 3) Kant's definition of what has intrinsic value; with self-interest or extended self-interest ethics, one must first assume that personal consequences matter in questions of ethics [not a given in all schools of ethics]; "feels good" ethics usually assume that it either doesn't matter anyway or that nature/God/whatever has provided the ultimate guide when producing your feelings (or that it is an evolutionary process, and if your ethics are flawed, they are supposed to cause you problems), or some variant; with God centered ethics, even assuming that the existence of God and every event statement in the Bible is wholly accurate in every detail, one first needs to assume that the created ethically ought to obey the rules laid out by the Creator; et cetera; et cetera), which are religion-like in nature. Murder penalties are therefore unconstitutional, and thus the state has no right to interfere on that basis.

You can replace "murder" in the above with virtually anything that's illeagal (with minor tweaks to the rest of the text), really - (in no particular order) rape, incest, theft, drug abuse, tax evasion, kiddie porn, gay marriage, or prostitution, to name a few. The above is complete bull, of course. But how can the case be argued that it IS bull? More specifically, can you debunk the above for murder, rape, incest, theft, kiddie porn, et cetera without also debunking the above your favorite issue: gay marriage, especially considering that it uses a good portion of the same basic approach that you used to say that gay marriage should be okay?

This is crap dressed up as philosophical musings. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you misconstrue ethics completely.

Being insulting now? Is that what you are reduced to? There's no point in continuing this, then, is there?

Instar

November 11th, 2004, 12:40 AM

Jack Simth said:

Instar said:
Argumentum ad populum. logical fallacy.

So choosing a starting point where most there is a high probability of a match as a starting point to argue from is automatically a fallacy? Interesting definition you have there.

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Just because 99% of people agree that something is right/wrong does not make them right. And I don't understand what the heck you wrote there at all.

Jack Simth said:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif A minor point of semantics there - call it randomly killing someone is wrong. It's pretty immaterial nit-picking.

Like I said, sorry. But if we are to talk about philosophical ideas and such, we must use proper terminology and definitions. It is a habit from writing my philosophy papers.

Jack Simth said:

[quote]
Jack Simth said:
Apparently you missed a chunk of the conversation

Yes, I realize that now.

Jack Simth said:
- Will was basically saying that the state shouldn't be allowed to restrict marriage to one man and one woman on the basis that it was a religious issue; it's a religious issue because it is defined Biblically. Murder is also defined Biblically, and it's not an strickly cultural issue because there are vastly different definitions of it in different cultures.

I didn't say they made many of them; I said they made Fundamental assumptions; the use of fundamental usually implies a small number of them.

Except, of course, that many of the schools of ethics disagree on those selfsame assumptions - Kantian ethics would ignore feelings as much as possible, on the assumption that reason is the best guide to ethics, as it is all that separates man from beast, and that nature hasn't provided an essentially perfect guide in our emotions. Meanwhile, there are a number of emotional schools of ethics that take the exact opposite approach, saying let your feelings guide you. Both types of school contain reasonable people, yet they can easily disagree on their assumptions. Moreover, they can never really convince each other, as both cases are fairly reasonable and there can't really be any true evidence on such a fundamental level. Further, they come to different conclusions in the end - sure, they all agree on the obvious things (a fourty-year old man in good health is a person; a rock is not), but they disagree on the nitty-gritty (Are monkeys people? Are unborn human children? Eating meat okay? Be a vegitarian? A veagan?).

Being insulting now? Is that what you are reduced to? There's no point in continuing this, then, is there?

Well, I "called it as I saw it". With the ridiculous equivocation you were making (gay marriage is as bad as murder somehow), there wasn't a shred of decent logic there.

I would say that gay marriage is ok, because of Rule Utilitarianism and the Liberty Principles. There is not enough justification to make it illegal (Liberty Principles). I cannot think of a good ethical system that would condemn it.

Jack Simth

November 11th, 2004, 02:24 AM

Instar: You ceased to be civil so I ceased to participate in this discussion. Have a nice day.

Will

November 11th, 2004, 02:53 AM

Jack Simth said:
Apparently you missed a chunk of the conversation - Will was basically saying that the state shouldn't be allowed to restrict marriage to one man and one woman on the basis that it was a religious issue; it's a religious issue because it is defined Biblically. Murder is also defined Biblically, and it's not an strickly cultural issue because there are vastly different definitions of it in different cultures.

Jack, sorry, you must have missed a chunk of the conversation. I've been saying that the State shouldn't be restrictive of its definition of marriage, because it is not really a religious issue. The workings of marriage for a government have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Just because religion happens to deal with the same concept doesn't mean you get to force your religion's concepts on everyone else. That's why the whole "respecting the establishment thereof" bit was in the First Amendment. I'm sure you would be in an uproar if the situation was reversed, and Somebody Else's Religion(tm) was used by the government to dictate how your life could be led contrary to your religion.

The so-called social stability problem is a non-issue, so there is no reason for a gay marriage ban unless it is religious, or rooted in ignorance. The latter is simply wrong because it has no basis. The former is essentially imposing segments of a religion on people who do not need or want to accept that religion. In other words, it is not harming you if what you consider an immoral action is legal, but it does harm same-sex couples if what they consider moral and good is made illegal based on Someone Else's Religion(tm).

And Jack, I don't see how Instar was not civil to you. Perhaps not civil to your arguments, but IMHO those arguments are not very good ones. I've heard them all before, they weren't good then, they aren't good now, and frankly, the position does not deserve respect. That does not mean the person is not respected. If I am missing a personal attack in there somewhere, please point it out, but as of this moment, I don't see it.

tesco samoa

November 11th, 2004, 02:06 PM

i agree will.

To me govn't should only have one rule reguarding people. And that is their is only one class of people its citizens. They are equal in all.

For a govn't to step in and state that gay marrages should be Banned is to state there are 2 classes of people. This is wrong.

For a religion to state it will not marry 2 people of the same sex. That is their decision.

A couples deserve to be equal. And deserve to be entitled to the same laws and protection. Failure to do so is a failure of the government and of the society that supports that government.

The real question is everyone equal. Yes or No.

If not then you have segeration. Which is wrong.

Instar

November 11th, 2004, 11:07 PM

Jack Simth said:
Instar: You ceased to be civil so I ceased to participate in this discussion. Have a nice day.

Whatever you want, but realize this: none of your arguments against gay marriage work. Your position against it is wrong.

Atrocities

November 12th, 2004, 12:47 PM

I just want to keep the rights I do have and stop the piliferation of "Politically Correct" laws that do little more than restrict or abolish the rights I do have.

I believe people are people and that it is none of my business and therefore by assocation, none of societies business who or whom people choose to live their lives with. I agree that the concept of marrage should be defined as between a man anda women, however gay couples should, if they do not already, have the same consititutional rights that married couples have if they choose to spend the rest of their lives together. Civil unions are a perfect match for this. Marrage is between a man and a women, Civil unions are between gay couples. This absurd notion that if we allow civil unions that people will marry their cat or dog is as I said, absurd. Any one who even remotely believes this would happen needs to seek immedate mental health assistance.

I am pro-gun, and that was my major issue with Senator Kerry. I am of those who voted the issue over the man in this election.

Instar

November 13th, 2004, 01:28 PM

"have the same consititutional rights that married couples "
they dont in most states
"I agree that the concept of marrage should be defined as between a man anda women"
why?
the government ought to call them all civil unions, and marriages be done in a church

Gandalf Parker

November 13th, 2004, 01:53 PM

Apparently those who invented the word "marriage" want to define it. Its interesting that these proceedings and all of the definitions being tossed around are being closely watched by the Mormons (remember that they faught a similar battle about state definition of marriage and lost it).

While I see why gays might wish for marriage to be recognized for them, most that I know would be thrilled to see equal unions be recognized. How many times have we all heard the phrase "immeadiate family only"? It sucks to go to the hospital and be told that you cant see your partner, or hear whats wrong, or sit in agony while the hospital tries to find a relative so they can get permission to do some life-saving act, or not be able to carry out their dying wishes.

Of course, as soon as that obviously important goal is reached, many of them would then move on to get marriage changed because they want to be married.

Azselendor

November 14th, 2004, 02:23 AM

homosexual activities isn't the end of the world. It's only portrayed that way so that we can have someone to hate and blame for all our problems.

I heard a women say "We should kill all the homosexuals" as two lesbians walked by. I immediatly turned around and asked her if Cold-Blooded murder of innocent people was acceptable to her and if she would be willing to pull that trigger.

her reply "I REBUKE YOU!"

Some argument there, eh?

Anyways, I don't see a problem with homosexuals using the term marriage. I see a problem with this becoming "Seperate but equal" BS again.

Really, all of you out there that support banning gay marriage, apply it to yourself. Would you accept the banning of hetrosexual marriage? hell no.

Then look at this.

Once we start banning things and removing freedoms - despite our own views on it - it will spread into other areas. We could ban all marriage ceremonies that take place out of a church? Or how about those pesky common-law marraiges? Maybe while we are at it, we should elimate rights for children born in unfavorable Groups? how about banning marriage for immigrants? and people of other religious backings? why not also ban marriage for certain sects of one religion while we are at it?

The fact is, when one group of people start getting thier rights trampled, it's only a matter of time until that spreads to your rights and don't think anyone would be interested in helping you when that time comes.

Atrocities

November 14th, 2004, 10:31 AM

Instar said:
"have the same consititutional rights that married couples "
they dont in most states
"I agree that the concept of marrage should be defined as between a man anda women"
why?
the government ought to call them all civil unions, and marriages be done in a church

That is regretable and in my opinion seriously wrong not to have the same rights as married couples. I am sorry, but like I said, people are people and no one should preclude one person form having the same 'rights' as another for any reason.

However, Marrage is not a right and therefore not subject to the equal rights.

Gay couples should have the same legal rights as married couples. Of this there should be no debate.

Why do I feel that marrage should be between a man and a women? Well because that is what I believe. Asking someone to answer this is a kin to asking them why they like a specific color or if they believe in God or not. And I feel that attacking someone because they believe this is the wrong thing to do. The same goes for attacking someone who does not believe this. It all boils down to personal beliefs over a term that has been historicaly defined via thousands of years, as a union between one man and one women. I simply agree that it should remain so and that gay couples that want to be married do so using the term Civil Union. It is not discrimination, it is simply defining the concept of marrage into two types, marrage and civil union with one being between a man and a women, and the other between same sex.

I really do not understand your Government Church comment so I will not say anything about it.

Instar

November 15th, 2004, 12:50 AM

Atrocities said:

Instar said:
"have the same consititutional rights that married couples "
they dont in most states
"I agree that the concept of marrage should be defined as between a man anda women"
why?
the government ought to call them all civil unions, and marriages be done in a church

That is regretable and in my opinion seriously wrong not to have the same rights as married couples. I am sorry, but like I said, people are people and no one should preclude one person form having the same 'rights' as another for any reason.

However, Marrage is not a right and therefore not subject to the equal rights.

Tough call there, actually. Married couples gain several (and quite significant) rights, many of which are denied to others.

Atrocities said:
Gay couples should have the same legal rights as married couples. Of this there should be no debate.

Why do I feel that marrage should be between a man and a women? Well because that is what I believe.

And you fail to examine/change what you believe because... ? I've changed my beliefs, thats for sure.

Atrocities said:
Asking someone to answer this is a kin to asking them why they like a specific color or if they believe in God or not. And I feel that attacking someone because they believe this is the wrong thing to do. The same goes for attacking someone who does not believe this. It all boils down to personal beliefs over a term that has been historicaly defined via thousands of years, as a union between one man and one women.

And historically, the White/Caucasian people were thought to be superior. Some traditions are worthy of discarding...

Atrocities said:

I simply agree that it should remain so and that gay couples that want to be married do so using the term Civil Union. It is not discrimination, it is simply defining the concept of marrage into two types, marrage and civil union with one being between a man and a women, and the other between same sex.

I really do not understand your Government Church comment so I will not say anything about it.

To further elaborate what I said:
I meant that there should be no government marriages. None. All unions would be termed "civil unions" and be done in a courthouse or what-have-you. The marriage would be the ritual or ceremony performed at your religious institution of choice. (edit: it would be entirely optional too)

Instar

November 15th, 2004, 11:24 PM

Atrocities said:
I am pro-gun, and that was my major issue with Senator Kerry. I am of those who voted the issue over the man in this election.

You do realize Bush promised to reenact the AWB, right?

Atrocities

November 17th, 2004, 12:33 AM

And you fail to examine/change what you believe because... ? I've changed my beliefs, thats for sure.

I have examined my point of view and did so a long time ago and all because those in the liberal media tell me I should change it, is not enough of a reason for me to do so.

And historically, the White/Caucasian people were thought to be superior. Some traditions are worthy of discarding..

Comparing the tradition of marrage to racisim is IMHO like comparing Jesus to Hitler.

To further elaborate what I said:
I meant that there should be no government marriages. None. All unions would be termed "civil unions" and be done in a courthouse or what-have-you. The marriage would be the ritual or ceremony performed at your religious institution of choice. (edit: it would be entirely optional too)

If the people support it, vote it into law, and it is up held by the high courts then so be it.

You do realize Bush promised to reenact the AWB, right?

Yes I am aware of that and even if he did re-enact it, I would have still voted for him.

Azselendor

November 17th, 2004, 02:01 AM

The irony with that comment is that hitler operated under the assumption he was the second coming...

As for bush, I can assure you that a lot of his supporters are gonna jump party lines if his social security plan gets passed.

Atrocities

November 17th, 2004, 05:49 AM

Klvino [ORB] said:
The irony with that comment is that hitler operated under the assumption he was the second coming...

As for bush, I can assure you that a lot of his supporters are gonna jump party lines if his social security plan gets passed.

I don't really know at this point what people will do given what other people do.

Will

November 17th, 2004, 06:17 AM

Atrocities said:
Comparing the tradition of marrage to racisim is IMHO like comparing Jesus to Hitler.

Godwin's Law: As an Online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

I don't think Instar was comparing marriage to racism, per se, but more to the parallel between largely ignorant masses imposing their will on an entire segment of the population based on shakey, dubious, and sometimes outright false "facts". Such as the widely held belief in previous centuries that whites were superior to other races. When really, it was probably largely a result of European cultures happening upon a sustained technological advance useful for conquering other cultures. I would say it's pretty much a fluke that say, the Chinese never considered gunpowder as a weapon, and then went on to conquer the world. Yet people, especially white ones, believed that because of their expansion, whites were superior. And some still do.

The solution of the State using only the term "civil union", and ditching the idea of marriage entirely as a State-recognized relationship would probably be the best idea, if it could be implemented. There's hundreds of years of both legislation and common law on multiple levels of government that will need to be modified for that to happen. But if it did, the biggest argument against gay marriage (the so-called religious connection) would vaporize. Unfortunately, I think there will still be a large portion of the population opposed to "gay civil unions". And a lot of people probably having a big hissy fit because government did what they "wanted" and didn't use the term marriage for homosexuals... but then went "too far" and eliminated it from the law books entirely.