Fripp, unfortunately he was not born in the US, thus not eligible. The Libertarians, who I most agreee with, are too extreme and scare the piss out of me. I'd vote for Nader, but Ralph is too stupid a name for an American president. Kerry is a total left wing nut sucker and really scares me more than the Libertarian candidate. Socialism doesn't work.... The Clinton's are proof, they just set us up for the schtick were in. The Green party haven't got a clue, let alone basically defeating their own purpose by sinking vessel's and polluting the oceans, spiking trees and sparking forest fires.... and killing people. Constitution? Who are they? Haven't heard a word. Sounds retro. What's left? Hmmm...

Write in.... Velvet Clown.... Not American? sh*t!

The socialist has no chance, and I know nothing about him. But I am a democratic/socialist, or would be if I was old enough....but I wouldn't vote for him. John Kerry's the only choice that has a CHANCE and that at least resembles what I would want. It's like the choice of rock over pop, prog not being an option.

Would you rather have a feces sandwich or a urine cocktail? Real food is technically on the menu, but since so few people are ordering it it's foolish to consider it a real choice.

Oh, and whatever you order, our electoral kitchen staff will make the final decision.

Order or Die! Rock the Menu!

James Lee wrote: Would you rather have a feces sandwich or a urine cocktail? Real food is technically on the menu, but since so few people are ordering it it's foolish to consider it a real choice. Oh, and whatever you order, our electoral kitchen staff will make the final decision. Order or Die! Rock the Menu!

Ha! How very apt! Brilliant, Sir Jam-tart!

Have fun voting, Americanos!

Oh, and when you're done, please don't invade my piddling little country -- we hardly have any oil, really....

Peter Rideout wrote: Oh, and when you're done, please don't invade my piddling little country -- we hardly have any oil, really....

In the words of Pres. Bush: "You can run, but you can't hide!"

Just thank your lucky stars he found Jesus...Canada could have been the setting for the biggest armoured beer run in history!

James Lee wrote:   In the words of Pres. Bush: "You can run, but you can't hide!" !

Some one forgot to tell Osama . I wouldn't like to play hide and (go) seek with that guy, he's f**kin' brilliant at it.

gdub411 wrote: George W. is the 2nd best president of this century only behind Ronald Reagan. Both great americans!!!...which is the greatest country on earth and if you don't agree we'll have to conquer your wimpy arses!!

Great idea! Better start with an easy country though. Somewhere small with no wealth and little in the way of infrastructure. Somewhere like, say....... Vietnam. That should keep you busy for a few years . (no offense to 'Nam vet's.)

BTW I totally agree that G.W. is the second best president of this century, (after Clinton. Reagan was not pres in this century mate, check your calendar.)

emdiar wrote: BTW I totally agree that G.W. is the second best president of this century, (after Clinton. Reagan was not pres in this century mate, check your calendar.)

LOL LOL ROFL LOL

I can't believe I missed that- good call, em

I voted for Bush and you guys have to pull for him as well. I made a bet that George W. would win and the stakes are high. I get a yummy mocha cappucinno if he wins...for free!!! You guys as my progressive family have to pull for me to win. I would do the same for any of you...so the next time they elect your King I'll pull for whoever ya want me to.(this applies to the English chaps out there).

So pull for Bush because heaven knows I don't want to fork out the cash for a coffee!!

Mmm.

Bush.

Mmm.

Not that kind of Bush!

Reed Lover wrote: Not that kind of Bush!

I don't like my bush bushy. 

Trim the Bush, trim the Bush...

^ No, Rainbo, it'll just grow back:Yank it out by the roots! Hack it down! Douse it with Agent Orange! Blast it with napalm!

Smells like VICTORY!

My last election thoughts, in the style of Larry King, with irrelevant hyperlinks.

Now I'm picturing...John Kerry, head bowed under the streetlights, walking away from the camera while http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.php?hid=nUFIfHW5td0%3D - Abba's "The Winner Takes it All" plays. Edwards, like Ratso Rizzo to Kerry's http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064665/ - Midnight Cowboy , begs to let him stay at his place for a few weeks (see, not only isn't he going to be VP, he lost his senate position as well...)

If 52% is good enough, I have some college exams I need re-examined.

Every democrat in the US now understands the meaning of http://www.fact-index.com/c/co/coitus_interruptus.html - coitus interruptus .

Meanwhile, Ralph Nader is entreated by hordes of ex-followers exclaiming "no, really, Kerry meant nothing to me...it was just a one-night stand."

If I was playing the stock market, I'd put some money into http://www.porkrind.com/porkrind.htm - pork rinds right about now. Between the Atkins diet and the obvious influence of the southern and midwestern states, I'm sure pork rinds are a wise investment.

Long-term blow for democrats: not only didn't Kerry win, but the next presidential race will probably feature Hilary Clinton. Maybe the dems should just disband and pursue solo careers.

In other news, eleven states voted to ban same-sex marriages (in what some reports is called a " http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002080600_issues03.html - coast-to-coast mandate "...I must have missed the part where those other 39 states went offshore). In more encouraging news, those same 11 states have no plans to ban getting drunk and sodomizing cows.

The "Anybody but Bush" folks were willing to have anyone but Bush elected. Think about it...against everyone who wasn't Bush, Bush still won. What are the odds?

Well, I'm off to buy lottery tickets. All I need is a majority of the numbers, right?

Garion81 wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Not that kind of Bush!   I don't like my bush bushy.

I like Kate Bush!

Gosh that Bush is hairy!

Reed Lover wrote: Bush poised to claim second term President Bush is expected to make a statement later President George W Bush looks set to declare victory in the US election, but his Democratic challenger John Kerry has yet to concede. The result hinges on the state of Ohio, which carries the crucial 20 Electoral College votes needed for victory. The White House says Mr Bush has a "statistically insurmountable lead", but the Democrats say a large number of ballots remain uncounted. The president is expected to make a statement in the next few hours. You let us down you bad boys and girls! Let the blood flow,let the blood flow......

Americans are so stupid...aren't we?

i agree with billboh1971

i hope bush f**king chokes

BillBoh1971 wrote: This is a message i'm gonna post on many forums (some of them i may be banned from, but i don't care). I don't wanna insult any forum member personally though. I wanna congratulate all the perverts who voted for GW Bush yesterday. Normally i tend to respect every outcome in every election of every country, but this time i wanna make an exception. Next time innocents will die in a terrorist attack (and i'm scared to death there WILL be a next one now), those perverted cowards (yes, the Bush voters - ALL of them) will have blood on their hands too as they are partly responsible for the situation. From now on the whole world will hate the USA even more... (sorry for this post, i just wanna confront people with what they did - although i don't think there are many Bushfans in here - at least, i hope so)

Bush Bad!!...Agreed!!

114BUDG wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Bush poised to claim second term President Bush is expected to make a statement later President George W Bush looks set to declare victory in the US election, but his Democratic challenger John Kerry has yet to concede. The result hinges on the state of Ohio, which carries the crucial 20 Electoral College votes needed for victory. The White House says Mr Bush has a "statistically insurmountable lead", but the Democrats say a large number of ballots remain uncounted. The president is expected to make a statement in the next few hours. You let us down you bad boys and girls! Let the blood flow,let the blood flow...... Americans are so stupid...aren't we?

Wow on to our 3rd personality now Greg!

You cant hide behind an anagram and my avatar boy!

Reed Lover wrote: 114BUDG wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Bush poised to claim second term President Bush is expected to make a statement later President George W Bush looks set to declare victory in the US election, but his Democratic challenger John Kerry has yet to concede. The result hinges on the state of Ohio, which carries the crucial 20 Electoral College votes needed for victory. The White House says Mr Bush has a "statistically insurmountable lead", but the Democrats say a large number of ballots remain uncounted. The president is expected to make a statement in the next few hours. You let us down you bad boys and girls! Let the blood flow,let the blood flow...... Americans are so stupid...aren't we? Wow on to our 3rd personality now Greg! You cant hide behind an anagram and my avatar boy!

My name is Gerg...who's Greg?  Horray for Bush

BillBoh1971 wrote: This is a message i'm gonna post on many forums (some of them i may be banned from, but i don't care). I don't wanna insult any forum member personally though. I wanna congratulate all the perverts who voted for GW Bush yesterday. Normally i tend to respect every outcome in every election of every country, but this time i wanna make an exception. Next time innocents will die in a terrorist attack (and i'm scared to death there WILL be a next one now), those perverted cowards (yes, the Bush voters - ALL of them) will have blood on their hands too as they are partly responsible for the situation. From now on the whole world will hate the USA even more... (sorry for this post, i just wanna confront people with what they did - although i don't think there are many Bushfans in here - at least, i hope so)

Your country is next

Gerg:This is Father Reed, I wish to speak to the entity who calls himself Greg:

Greg F**k Off!

no really...eff off the big game (Football Man Utd v Prague) is on Satellite now. Going to watch whilst we still have satellites.

gdub411 wrote: I voted for Bush and you guys have to pull for him as well. I made a bet that George W. would win and the stakes are high. I get a yummy mocha cappucinno if he wins...for free!!! You guys as my progressive family have to pull for me to win. I would do the same for any of you...so the next time they elect your King I'll pull for whoever ya want me to.(this applies to the English chaps out there). So pull for Bush because heaven knows I don't want to fork out the cash for a coffee!!

Thanks guys...I knew I could count on you. That coffee is going to be yummy. Especially yummy since it will be free.(Mmm.) Glad I didn't have to fork out the hard cash(Whew!!)

BillBoh1971 wrote: This is a message i'm gonna post on many forums (some of them i may be banned from, but i don't care). I don't wanna insult any forum member personally though. I wanna congratulate all the perverts who voted for GW Bush yesterday. Normally i tend to respect every outcome in every election of every country, but this time i wanna make an exception. Next time innocents will die in a terrorist attack (and i'm scared to death there WILL be a next one now), those perverted cowards (yes, the Bush voters - ALL of them) will have blood on their hands too as they are partly responsible for the situation. From now on the whole world will hate the USA even more... (sorry for this post, i just wanna confront people with what they did - although i don't think there are many Bushfans in here - at least, i hope so)

That's it...from now on it's Freedom Waffles for me!!

James Lee wrote: Long-term blow for democrats: not only didn't Kerry win, but the next presidential race will probably feature Hilary Clinton. Maybe the dems should just disband and pursue solo careers.

I agree unless they can find a sinister dwarf to lead them to land of popular acceptance.

Garion81 wrote: James Lee wrote: Long-term blow for democrats: not only didn't Kerry win, but the next presidential race will probably feature Hilary Clinton. Maybe the dems should just disband and pursue solo careers. I agree unless they can find a sinister dwarf to lead them to land of popular acceptance.

There is! His name is Reed Lover

"Although there were certainly better candidates running for the presidency, such as the Libertarian party's Michael Badnarik and the Green party's David Cobb, the stigma of the two-party system makes them unknown and they get no press attention whatsoever."

And how i agree...

Both candidates (Badnarik and Cobb) have a very strong program: both suggest a radical change as well as a realistic view on most issues. Too bad they had no chance at all...

For good or bad GWB is president.  I saw someone say that the Libretarian and the Green party had better ideas and they would have made better preidential candidates.  OK, if you really feel the system holds them down from people finding out about them I disagree. The internet is there and there are plenty of places to go to find out whatever you want about any one of the issues or candidates.  You get a voter booklet ever year that has a wealth of information on the candidates and propositons.  If you base your choice on political advertising, mailers, TV news than you are a fool.  It comes down to this simple fact instead of trying to blame it something else you just have to see that for most of this country GWB represents them and the way they think and feel about a lot of things. Not only GWB but the Republican party in general. I am not saying I agree but this is the way it is and no one here or in Europe or Asia or anywhere else is going to change it. Not this year.

As for America and this election the one thing that really stood out for me was the congressional races in this state who’s name the governor cannot pronounce (California). Here is an area where the two party system does hold things down. Not one of the incumbants lost!  Only in two of the races did the incumbent have UNDER 60% of the vote! Of those two only one was under a 10% margin and it was 8%. Most of them were in 65-69% range for the incumbent some over 75%. That is truly insane. Why even vote? Just have the parties appoint the next representative for life? It would save a lot money.
Redistricting is political and wrong it has nothing to do with being fair or even being part of a democracy and somehow it has to change. In this state we would have to change the makeup of our legislature but because of the redistricting lines that will never happen. How can we call ourselves a democracy when this is allowed to go on.

Garion81 wrote: It comes down to this simple fact instead of trying to blame it something else you just have to see that for most of this country GWB represents them and the way they think and feel about a lot of things. Not only GWB but the Republican party in general.

You're absolutely right; no matter whice side had the 'better' idea about any given issue, the purpose of democracy is to represent the people. As long as that is accomplished (no matter how close the margin) the fundamental ideals of the US are still intact. If GWB is the people's choice, then he IS the US. Not just the parts of it that voted for him, but also the parts of it that were unable to provide or support a compelling alternative. Hopefully it will encourage more activism and reform as a result...I know I'll be more vigilant in the coming years.

And if the rest of the world hates us, then so be it (oh, they don't hate Americans, just the acts of our democratically elected leader...that's pretty weird logic). Frankly, I can live with the ignorant hatred that other countries' dullards are all too willing to display- it's not that different from our various homegrown bigots and racists and homophobes, etc...the more overt the hatred, the easier it is to identify the people with reason and compassion.

Personally I'm glad that it's not so tight like 4 years ago.

Had it been 50:50 then the mandate for Bush to preceed on the course it has gone would be very weak, and a schism in politics and a forthcoming devidence in amerika's people could set it all off course. though I definetly do not agree with GWB, I think a united amerika is still of big importance. (excuse my english, in dutch it makes more sense I suppose)

tuxon wrote: Personally I'm glad that it's not so tight like 4 years ago. Had it been 50:50 then the mandate for Bush to preceed on the course it has gone would be very weak, and a schism in politics and a forthcoming devidence in amerika's people could set it all off course. though I definetly do not agree with GWB, I think a united amerika is still of big importance. (excuse my english, in dutch it makes more sense I suppose)

It came out just fine.

And it is so true.  We need to be united as a country.  This election was revealing in the divisons we have.  It will take a monumental effort of our leaders to heal this rift and I am not sure they have it in them.

How funny is it that the biggest margin in the election (90% Kerry, 9% Bush) came from DC...the same place that once again re-elected that crack-smoking whoremonger mayor...maybe the left really does have a morality problem.

kinda makes me think of that line from Annie Hall: "The rest of the country looks upon New York like we're Left-Wing, Communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers. I think of us that way sometimes and I live here!".

James Lee wrote: How funny is it that the biggest margin in the election (90% Kerry, 9% Bush) came from DC...the same place that once again re-elected that crack-smoking whoremonger mayor...maybe the left really does have a morality problem. kinda makes me think of that line from Annie Hall: "The rest of the country looks upon New York like we're Left-Wing, Communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers. I think of us that way sometimes and I live here!".

I believe we would have had a totally different outcome had we had a trustworthy Democratic candidate. Kerry lost me with his own record, but a vote for any third party candidate is not trully wasted, is it? The fact that the Dems put so much faith in a traitor, flip-flopping, marry a rich bitch (twice) mentality, scrap the defense and f**k personal convictions for whichever way the wind blows just to please the asses he's kissing LIBERAL, was ridiculous. The whole party needs an enema. I'm pissed at the whole damned lot their Court of the Clinton King philosophy.

(Oh sh*t, I forgot to use some emoticons to soften my stance and appear to be happy-go-lucky.)  

What you people fail to understand is sometimes you have to vote against something rather than for something. Right wing politics are divisive, elitist,racist, xenophobic and yes, homophobic. You might not like the alternative, in this case Kerry or for that matter the Democrats, but if they are the best way of defeating Bush and his cronies then so be it.This is voting for the lesser of two evils and has worked remarkably well in the UK where people who are not Socialist by nature have used their vote as a protest to oust the Conservatives (ie right wing=Republicans) who represented the worst of British politics with their croneyism and institutional corruption.

Danbo, you are a smart guy and very likeable but what you say above sounds like you excusing yourself for doing something naughty. You are emotional (hell I didnt like your outburst against me but at least you had the balls to write it!) but sometimes you have to be practical about these things. Based on what you wrote above, you should have voted Democrat as a vote against Bush. The Democrats may be "pussies" but they have one major advantage: THEY ARE NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY,JOHN KERRY LOOKS LIKE A PRAT BUT HE IS NOT GEORGE W BUSH! That should suffice. Government takes care of itself most of the time-tax returns keep getting filed, routine bills still get passed, but at least you wouldnt have the biggest threat to world safety we've ever seen still in office. That is what it is all about-THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS given the realistic choice of two options. No doctor likes amputing a limb but sometimes it is the only choice that is available.

"KERRY LOOKS LIKE A PRAT BUT HE IS NOT GEORGE W BUSH!"

That was exactly my point too. Even if i was a republican, a conservative the choice would go for Kerry. I mean, better vote for a politician you don't like than for a pervert like Bush. The problem is some people always vote republican (no matter what!), without using their brains.

Like i said before, it's not a very clever thing to do to vote for Bush. It will be very easy for Bin Laden and his evil cronies to find "volunteers" to attack the USA again. I mean, it's very easy now to persuade simple people the USA is an "evil nation". When i see the growing anti-american feeling here in Europe, i can imagine how it must be in muslim countries.

I don't wanna be inflamatory, just wanna confront those who voted for Bush with the consequences of their act.

Don't waste your breath on these guys Danbo Your not going to change their minds. Everybody else in the world seems to think they know what's best for us stupid americans. Their the elitists.

Let Europe rot in its own decadence!!

My point is that the Dems threw out a despicable candidate, tried to dress him up as a messiah and fell flat on their faces. Clinton politics gotta go. A shiney turd is still a piece of sh*t. If you are going to choose the lesser of two evils, you damn well better know what BOTH of those evils are about. Kerry didn;t even have a platform other than, "I'm not Bush." He rufused to say what he was about without leaving himself and out.

Check out Democrat Zel Miller or even Joe Lieberman. Those guys had a much better stand on the issues.

Moderation is the key, in life, social aspects and politics.  

danbo wrote: My point is that the Dems threw out a despicable candidate, tried to dress him up as a messiah and fell flat on their faces. Clinton politics gotta go. A shiney turd is still a piece of sh*t. If you are going to choose the lesser of two evils, you damn well better know what BOTH of those evils are about. Kerry didn;t even have a platform other than, "I'm not Bush." He rufused to say what he was about without leaving himself and out. Check out Democrat Zel Miller or even Joe Lieberman. Those guys had a much better stand on the issues. Moderation is the key, in life, social aspects and politics.

Now those would be two dems i may be willing to vote for depending on the next republican candidate.Personally I feel Hilary will run in 2008...the republicans could beat her if they chose Mccain. He'll be able to reach out to both parties with his moderate viewpoints.

Kerry was the WRONG candidate. Period. No one believed he could do the job and the other people were operating off mob mentality.

Ewwww, Hilary? Come on GDUB, no one could be that stupid to throw her Socialistic arse into the mix.

The Dems need to redifine their objective. MCcain and Miller. I'd be happy with either man.  

danbo wrote: Kerry was the WRONG candidate. Period. No one believed he could do the job and the other people were operating off mob mentality. Ewwww, Hilary? Come on GDUB, no one could be that stupid to throw her Socialistic arse into the mix. The Dems need to redifine their objective. MCcain and Miller. I'd be happy with either man.

The democratic party and voters are. She frightens me more than Kerry. I hope you're right Danbo. Zel Miller is likeable enough, but REALLY old. Almost as old as Threefates.

I believe that the election is a triumph for Democracy.

I believe that Bush is the man for the job.

I believe that Tony Blair is his own man.

I believe that Elvis faked his death.

I believe that Kirk and Spock were lovers.

I believe that the earth is hollow.

I believe Doug McClure lives there with Bruce Lee & Jeff Buckley

I believe Star Wars Episode 1 is a great film.

So does Elvis.... 

^Any free election is a triumph for democracy.

If you're not satisfied with the results of the election, the maybe you have a problem with democracy itself. You're not alone...Alexis deToqueville had a number of criticisms of democracy, back around 1831(!), and very few of them have actually been meaningfully addressed in the last 170 years. Ultimately, however, it's either democracy or outright revolution for anyone who is interested in change. I'd like to avoid revolution...the carnage in Iraq and Vietnam is nothing compared to the horrors of the Civil War (in which the side of democracy lost, by the way).

I'm in favor of getting rid of the electoral college, but GWB still won the popular vote...I dislike him, personally and politically, but I understand that many people (especially in the Pork Rind states) are justifiably leery of the shrill, smug liberal elitists and humorless, inhuman socialism they typically represent.

Gdub gets a lot of comments like "how can you be gay and republican?" which is silly because they're not automatically mutually exclusive, any more than Gay & Christian (or Gay & Prog!)...similarly, many of my postions seem to be on the wackier side of liberalism, but I also favor certain traditional conservative/ republican ideals such as less government spending and less government involvement in our personal lives. I don't believe government should be legislating morality, but I also completely understand why half the country feels that 'a return to traditional values' (the most-often cited reason Bush voters gave in exit polls) is a compelling ideal.

I don't think GWB will really satisfy anyone (plenty of religious, conservative, and republican folks have already come out against him) but let's stop being so easily spooked- the world is not going to come to an end because of him. His victory may mean that scary things will happen in the next four years, but just because the elections are over doesn't mean we've instantly lost the power to influence the course of events.

[insert humorous closing comment here to balance the wordy seriousness of my post]

You're not a democracy, you're a republic.

And Star Wars Epesode 1 IS a good film.

[insert humorous closing comment here to balance the wordy seriousness of my post as well]

gdub411 wrote: Don't waste your breath on these guys Danbo Your not going to change their minds. Everybody else in the world seems to think they know what's best for us stupid americans. Their the elitists. Let Europe rot in its own decadence!!

Hmm ... and isn't THIS a flaming (even a racist) remark? I'm not an elitist, but i must admit some Americans are really stupid, yes. Not that we Europeans are so much more clever though, but at least we know what both nazism and communism is and how dangerous they are. Anyway, with Bush and his spending-like-a-liberal politics, we'll see what country will rot first.

The reason i'm saying Bush voters are not very clever is because Bush's politics will hurt them sooner or later anyway. If not because of new terrorist attacks (Bushy boy is really asking for trouble), it's gonna happen through the economy. Or through his extreme-conservative social agenda (women rights, gay rights, privacy right...and much more) - hence my reference to nazims and communism.

bush is making downloading music a federal offense as well, rather than a civil court case, you'll now get a civil court case and a minimum of 3 years in jail :-D

w00t!

James Lee wrote: take out Jar-Jar and I might agree

Yeah good point...

pff the whole movie was sheer bliss.

just the fact they carried jar jar on to the second one that got annoying.

jiggajake wrote: bush is making downloading music a federal offense as well, rather than a civil court case, you'll now get a civil court case and a minimum of 3 years in jail :-D w00t!

where did you hear that?

not the last rolling stones but the one before that

the one with john stewart on the cover

pg 4

BillBoh1971 wrote: gdub411 wrote: Don't waste your breath on these guys Danbo Your not going to change their minds. Everybody else in the world seems to think they know what's best for us stupid americans. Their the elitists. Let Europe rot in its own decadence!! Hmm ... and isn't THIS a flaming (even a racist) remark? I'm not an elitist, but i must admit some Americans are really stupid, yes. Not that we Europeans are so much more clever though, but at least we know what both nazism and communism is and how dangerous they are. Anyway, with Bush and his spending-like-a-liberal politics, we'll see what country will rot first. The reason i'm saying Bush voters are not very clever is because Bush's politics will hurt them sooner or later anyway. If not because of new terrorist attacks (Bushy boy is really asking for trouble), it's gonna happen through the economy. Or through his extreme-conservative social agenda (women rights, gay rights, privacy right...and much more) - hence my reference to nazims and communism.

Thats it. You threw down the guantlet. No more Belgium Waffles. It's Freedom Waffles from now on. I'll show you!!

"Thats it. You threw down the guantlet. No more Belgium Waffles. It's Freedom Waffles from now on. I'll show you!!"

I don't get it. What have GW Bush and waffles in common? What do you wanna show me??

BillBoh1971 wrote: "Thats it. You threw down the guantlet. No more Belgium Waffles. It's Freedom Waffles from now on. I'll show you!!" I don't get it. What have GW Bush and waffles in common? What do you wanna show me??

It was a joke. When we had some political snares with France a few moron restaurant ownerthought they would show France by changing the name of French Fries into Freedom Fries. It's one of those lame things that most americans are embarrassed about

So.,since you're from Belgium I "threatened" to change the Belgium Waffle into Freedom Waffles...I was just trying to be silly in the hopes of disarming  your rage over our election. I guess I shouldn't expect you to know the stupid things that happen in america but I figured for sure this doozy would leak out to you europeans.

Ow yes, i think i remember now, yes.

James Lee wrote: ^Any free election is a triumph for democracy. If you're not satisfied with the results of the election, the maybe you have a problem with democracy itself. You're not alone...Alexis deToqueville had a number of criticisms of democracy, back around 1831(!), and very few of them have actually been meaningfully addressed in the last 170 years. Ultimately, however, it's either democracy or outright revolution for anyone who is interested in change. I'd like to avoid revolution...the carnage in Iraq and Vietnam is nothing compared to the horrors of the Civil War (in which the side of democracy lost, by the way). I'm in favor of getting rid of the electoral college, but GWB still won the popular vote...I dislike him, personally and politically, but I understand that many people (especially in the Pork Rind states) are justifiably leery of the shrill, smug liberal elitists and humorless, inhuman socialism they typically represent. Gdub gets a lot of comments like "how can you be gay and republican?" which is silly because they're not automatically mutually exclusive, any more than Gay & Christian (or Gay & Prog!)...similarly, many of my postions seem to be on the wackier side of liberalism, but I also favor certain traditional conservative/ republican ideals such as less government spending and less government involvement in our personal lives. I don't believe government should be legislating morality, but I also completely understand why half the country feels that 'a return to traditional values' (the most-often cited reason Bush voters gave in exit polls) is a compelling ideal. I don't think GWB will really satisfy anyone (plenty of religious, conservative, and republican folks have already come out against him) but let's stop being so easily spooked- the world is not going to come to an end because of him. His victory may mean that scary things will happen in the next four years, but just because the elections are over doesn't mean we've instantly lost the power to influence the course of events. [insert humorous closing comment here to balance the wordy seriousness of my post]

Sorry, James -- I'm too stupid/lazy to read anything that long.

Could you sum it up in one line or less, please?

Fitzcarraldo wrote: My colleagues from Belgium never fail to remind me that "French fries" were in fact invented in Belgium. Allegedly.

Exactly! French fries are typical Belgian. A common joke is that Belgians eat french fries at breakfast, at lunch and at supper. Very tasty but very bad for your cholesterol hehe.

Peter Rideout wrote: [QUOTE=James Lee] Sorry, James -- I'm too stupid/lazy to read anything that long. Could you sum it up in one line or less, please?

Ah, the Ronald Regan approach!  

Peter Rideout wrote: James Lee wrote: ^Any free election is a triumph for democracy. If you're not satisfied with the results of the election, the maybe you have a problem with democracy itself. You're not alone...Alexis deToqueville had a number of criticisms of democracy, back around 1831(!), and very few of them have actually been meaningfully addressed in the last 170 years. Ultimately, however, it's either democracy or outright revolution for anyone who is interested in change. I'd like to avoid revolution...the carnage in Iraq and Vietnam is nothing compared to the horrors of the Civil War (in which the side of democracy lost, by the way). I'm in favor of getting rid of the electoral college, but GWB still won the popular vote...I dislike him, personally and politically, but I understand that many people (especially in the Pork Rind states) are justifiably leery of the shrill, smug liberal elitists and humorless, inhuman socialism they typically represent. Gdub gets a lot of comments like "how can you be gay and republican?" which is silly because they're not automatically mutually exclusive, any more than Gay & Christian (or Gay & Prog!)...similarly, many of my postions seem to be on the wackier side of liberalism, but I also favor certain traditional conservative/ republican ideals such as less government spending and less government involvement in our personal lives. I don't believe government should be legislating morality, but I also completely understand why half the country feels that 'a return to traditional values' (the most-often cited reason Bush voters gave in exit polls) is a compelling ideal. I don't think GWB will really satisfy anyone (plenty of religious, conservative, and republican folks have already come out against him) but let's stop being so easily spooked- the world is not going to come to an end because of him. His victory may mean that scary things will happen in the next four years, but just because the elections are over doesn't mean we've instantly lost the power to influence the course of events. [insert humorous closing comment here to balance the wordy seriousness of my post] Sorry, James -- I'm too stupid/lazy to read anything that long. Could you sum it up in one line or less, please?

An editor's challenge! Interesting. I'll give it a try:

*Do you value democracy? Accept the election results. Afraid of the future? Get involved.* 

Not bad...but you'd hardly recognize me from that statement. I didn't even get to use any of what one of my high school english teachers (playing Hemingway to my Faulkner) referred to as "ten-dollar words"

LOL, if only I was paid per word I'd be richer than Bill Gates by now.

One thing I will agree with you guys on is gay marriage. Ask a republican politician "Why aren't gay people allowed to get married?" the republican will answer "A gay man is allowed to marry a woman just like every other man in the USA"-sometimes my own party disgusts me. How do you argue with that logic?

gdub: that's kinda like Henry Ford's famous Model-A statement: you can have it in any color you like, as long as it's black 

Sweetnighter (and anyone else who is interested): if you haven't located it already, here's a great non-partisan website that offers information and reasoned criticism of the two-party system and the electoral college, as well as opportunities for involvement and activism.

http://www.fairvote.org - www.fairvote.org

The problem is the term "marriage." I'm sure one of the more studeous members can do some research on marriage. If I'm not mistaken, I rarely am, marriage is a "union under god" or something just as silly. Bible thumpers of MOST religions equate homosexuality as a "sin" or "immoral." Until that perception is changed, you'll have that battle. Civil Union is a more reasonable term.

Here's what I found on the word marriage:

MARRY: The first example in print is from 1325. In Latin ‘maritus’ meant ‘married man or husband,’ (which is of uncertain origin but may go all the way back to the Indo-European ‘mer-‘ and ‘mor-‘ which meant something like ‘young person’ – Lithuanian has the related ‘marti-,’ bride – and in that case would denote etymologically ‘man who has been provided with young women as bride’). From it was derived the verb ‘maritare,’ marry, which passed into English via Old French ‘marier.’ Marriage, which first appeared in print in 1300, also comes from Old French.

It is interesting that in Chaucer’s writings (1340?-1400), ‘marry’ was a relatively rare word in comparison to ‘wed,’ but by the end of the 16th century it was the more usual. The extended figurative sense of ‘blend, link together’ (e.g. the marriage of verse and tune) was already in use by 1400.

yea but danbo, i, again, may be wrong, for i am underage, have not gotten married, and have little knowledge of taxes, but from the impression i was under, married people gain tax benefits from being married. Tax benefits that would not be available to "gays" the way it would be to those that "swing the other way," which, if true, is very wrong.

Now again before i get jumped on i am no 100 percent sure about the taxes, it was just something i remember hearing somewhere. 

danbo wrote: My point is simply semantics. Call it what you will, civil union, partnership... whatever, any persons contracted to a long term relationship, even couple living together, should be allowed tax breaks, property transferrals and the whole works. Forget battling for the terminology.

I am totally willing to call it a Civil Union too. I do respect church law and who am I to change 2000 years of edict? But many people won't even give us that(calling it a civil union). That is what really ticks me off.

Now mind you, I have no significant other and I am basicly a whore so it doesn't affect me that much.

Don't forget that you're not just fighting 'traditional values' but also an Internal Revenue Service and especially a multi-billion dollar insurance industry whose financial interests are more important to the legislators than your personal relationships. If they could somehow get away with refusing benefits to even traditional family structures, they would (and do, on a daily basis). It's very hypocritical- the popular focus is on "values" but when have you ever seen either government or business rule in favor of values over profit? The fact that the national attention is on "traditional values" simply gives them an excuse for policies that promise to save them money.

Having said that, isn't the entire concept of providing economic incentives for marriage a bit strange and outdated? Doesn't it assume that one person will be dependant on the other (i.e., a remnant of the days when the poor helpless woman needed to be taken care of when her man was no longer able)?

danbo wrote: My point is simply semantics. Call it what you will, civil union, partnership... whatever, any persons contracted to a long term relationship, even couple living together, should be allowed tax breaks, property transferrals and the whole works. Forget battling for the terminology.

Hello, DB!

My, hasn't this thread taken an interesting turn!

If I might play devil's advocate (BTW, I don't oppose gay unions):

What about two long-term heterosexual roommates? How long exactly is "long term," and do the "couple" need to have sex with each other to qualify for the status, and its "benefits?"

I'm not joking. Should straight roomates fake "gay' (assuming any would) to access the benefits of a civil union?

from the http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Campaigns_and_Elections&ConTENTID=23905&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm - Human Rights Coalition :

A large majority of voters support civil unions and basic legal protections for same-sex couples.

• In the same exit polls that said moral issues were important, 60 percent of voters supported some form of legal protection for same-sex couples. Here’s the breakdown:
  • 25 percent for legal marriage
  • 35 percent for civil unions
  • 37 percent against all protection

Swing voters did not swing to George Bush on gay marriage and it’s clear that the definition of moral values is beyond gay and lesbian issues.

• Fully one half of the voters who said they support civil unions voted for George Bush. The center of gravity in the election was in the voters who support civil unions.
• If polls show moral issues as high on voters’ priority lists but even half the George Bush voters support civil unions, then caring about “moral issues” does not mean opposition to gay equality.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, this means that "the will of the people" is not as important as satisfying a specific minority.

  

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">

gdub411 wrote: I am totally willing to call it a Civil Union too. I do respect church law and who am I to change 2000 years of edict? But many people won't even give us that(calling it a civil union). That is what really ticks me off.

I feel i need to respond to this, but could seem agressive for doing so.

As an atheist I find myself wondering how all these "Christians" believe they are following Church law.

Greg you do not respect church law at all. You merely pick and choose which bits suit you-and we all know exactly what I am getting at.The Church certainly does not respect you!

I do not respect church law. I feel it is devisive,bigoted, and irrelevant.

My conclusion about you and "church law" is the same as my conclusion about you and voting Republican !

Peter Rideout wrote: danbo wrote: My point is simply semantics. Call it what you will, civil union, partnership... whatever, any persons contracted to a long term relationship, even couple living together, should be allowed tax breaks, property transferrals and the whole works. Forget battling for the terminology. Hello, DB! My, hasn't this thread taken an interesting turn! If I might play devil's advocate (BTW, I don't oppose gay unions): What about two long-term heterosexual roommates? How long exactly is "long term," and do the "couple" need to have sex with each other to qualify for the status, and its "benefits?" I'm not joking. Should straight roomates fake "gay' (assuming any would) to access the benefits of a civil union?

As for Gay unions I am a teamsters man myself.

And your last point Peter, could be applied to Hetro couples/roomates as well that are not married and probably is done more often than not.  The value=profit opinion is probably better suited.  I will say one thing on some corporations and health insurance is that at least you can get significant other insurance coverage now even though it is much higher than spousal.  So there is that profit deal again. The Federal government just doesn't want to have to deal with all the taxbreaks Republican or Democrat withstanding.

Reed Lover wrote: gdub411 wrote: I am totally willing to call it a Civil Union too. I do respect church law and who am I to change 2000 years of edict? But many people won't even give us that(calling it a civil union). That is what really ticks me off. I feel i need to respond to this, but could seem agressive for doing so. As an atheist I find myself wondering how all these "Christians" believe they are following Church law. Greg you do not respect church law at all. You merely pick and choose which bits suit you-and we all know exactly what I am getting at.The Church certainly does not respect you! I do not respect church law. I feel it is devisive,bigoted, and irrelevant. My conclusion about you and "church law" is the same as my conclusion about you and voting Republican !

As usual you missed my point. This really doesn't have anything to do with being a Christian. I don't attend church because of my lifestyle.  All I am saying is they have a right to follow their edicts without interference with people outside of their thinking.

 It's just like the Boyscouts banning openly gay men from being troup leaders. It is their right as a private organization to have whatever exclusive viewpoints they desire. Personally I don't know if I were a parent of a boy I would want an openly gay man leading a troup of boyscouts. The topic of gay and sex has no business being discussed among a group of 12 year old boys.

Now if a man who happened to be gay led a group of boys but no-one knew about his lifestyle and then was somehow outed anyway I would think he would have a right to still lead as he never pushed his lifestyle on a bunch of impressionable boys in the 1st place.

To sum it up I would say if I wanted to start a private organization of Gay Men who Wore Blue Robes and Green Bay Packer Slippers Only it would be my right to be as exclusive as I want under the US laws of private organizations.

P.S....I think your narrow point of view on Christianity is bigoted. You treat every christian like they're a bunch of radical nuts. Most would fall into the moderate camp. Is Maani a bigoted man? No! Most churches accept any newcomer with open arms.

Another issue besides that of tax breaks or even medical benefits for partners... is inheritance.  I've know many gay couples that once their partner has died.. the family is legally able to strip those partners left behind of everything.  Next of kin does not include gay partners....

This also happened to Gianni Versace's lover of 15 years.  When Versace was shot.. I think his lover, who was also a VP in the Versace organization lasted about 6 months before Donnatella Versace had him stripped of all Gianni's property and out of the company.

It sucks when you live with someone and share a life for that long, yet don't deserve to inherit a thing..make any medical decisions for your partner.and can't even be responsible for claiming the body.

The IRS has a wonderful scam with inheritance. Even if you're foresighted enough to have a will drawn up that specifies your beneficiaries, the IRS will levy inheritance taxes (up to almost 50%) on anyone who is not a family member. In fact, estate taxes can be so extreme without the 'family discount' that you wind up paying more than you recieve!

Even sadder than that though is that unlike a married couple, a homosexual partner has no right to stay with their partner in a care facility...i.e., they cannot share a room in a nursing home or assisted living situation, and if their partner happens to be dying in a hospital, they don't have the same right as a heterosexual spouse to stay with them.

This is not about being "permissive" or "decadent" or (shudder) "liberal"...it's about basic human dignity and compassion, which I would rank right up there with any of the 'traditional values' that got GWB re-elected. I can't even imagine the conflict that a religious homosexual experiences when he/she is told that their God hates them so much that He'd rather see them die alone.

just in case you missed it: www.hrc.org - The Human Rights Coalition

http://www.hrc.org -  

James, you've hit enough nails of the head to build a four bedroom two story house. I have family through marriage who are gay, good people, not because their gay, they're just ggod people. It's sad to see all the hate, ridicule and pain.

"it's about basic human dignity and compassion"

Right on James!