not yet

2004 should be fun

why am I thinking of sideshow bob?

Still want a recount huh? Talk about denial.

Point being, people did vote for Bush.

This might give some useful info on Iran's weird little political system:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/619419.stm


Being homosexual bears the death penalty in Iran, but personal danger isn't really an issue... after all, you can just not have sex with anyone. But would that make leaving the country by gay men cowardice? Personally, I don't think so...

His brother, governor of the deciding state, told his Secretary of State to confirm Bush's electoral votes. When challenged, the conservative Supreme Court confirmed that decision. So, with a minority of the popular vote (legal and acceptable) and a forced result on the electoral vote, he became president.

well, if the choice is to be gay, or be shot ...

j/k!

Gore got more votes nationwide. The electoral system, however, is not based on the total number of votes.

I feel that an Iranian homosexual should try to change things, before leaving. If it is illegal to have gay sex, but not illegal to campaign to change that law, then I think it's a choice not forced. They can choose to change their country. Leaving instead of trying to make a change is betraying the rest of the homosexual community. Then again, the threat of death is pretty extreme. We have no such worries in the US, so we should still try to change the system, rather than moving.

I see your point, but the phrase 'flogging a dead horse' comes to mind

why not just get on with your life in a more liberal country ...

Because eventually, there will be no countries left moving forward. Because people in your home country, especially those without the money for an international move, will suffer or die. Because Democracy is undermined if people don't express and push for their beliefs.

Anyone that believes that the USofA is "not a repressed nation of impoverished and uneducated people that do not know any better" is wearing blinders. Currently, international human rights organizations are objecting to both our internal and foriegn policies, we are one of the largest debtor nations in the world and, well if you think our school system is healthy, you're comparing it to some third world banana republic. America's school system sucks hind titty, fyi.

And as far as "not knowing any better", the average american doesn't have a clue. The public has bread and circuses while Nero fiddles. I mean, americans are so clueless they actually beleive that the paper they have wadded in their pockets is real money!

Florida had a law in place prior to the Presidential election providing a deadline for a confirmation of the vote. It was this law that was enforced...and it was the Gore side that challenged a standing state law...long story short...Gores side lost. FYI there were multiple recounts done by various organizations...some partial recounts in some of the "disputed" counties and full state wide recounts...every single recount showed that President Bush had the majority of the votes.

All the available evidence in Iraq shows Saddam won by over 99% too.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by gothweb


Are you honestly saying that there could be no solution to the problems the US faces that don't resort to totalitarian betrayals of the rights we have been guaranteed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No I haven't said that...but then again "totalitarian betrayals of the rights" is your opinion and that of a small minority.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree with that estimation. And if it came to that, I think it would be better to risk further attacks, than to become the kind of country we should be so opposed to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"The kind of country we should be so opposed to"...once again your opinion and that of a small minority.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for disagreeing with the majority, it's a right in an democracy. The majority is often uninformed, especially when their government is lying to them. Part of democracy is the right to share your ideas, to bring others over to your way of thinking. And even if it wasn't about that, I still have the right to hold and defend a minority opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yep...one is free to disagree with the majority. Oh...I see...the 69% majority in the poll that favor the Patriot Act are uninformed but the 22% that think the Patriot Act goes to far...are the informed ones.

By the way how many letters have you mailed/faxed to your Congressman since President Bush has taken office and since 9/11...or do you even know your Congressman's name?

So you are saying one should sacrifice his own happiness for the greater good? And not doing so is cowardice? Even if a person decides to do so based on the consideration that he values his own quality of life higher than that of others?

Yes.

Why cowardice? Selfishness, maybe, but cowardice?

I found it funny that reported on the news was comments from delegates from the WTO meeting in Cancun.

Delegates (*actual people involved in the political process*) compared dealing with the US now to dealing with the USSR in the 1980's

apparentely, the US team spent most of the time holed up in the hotel

it's one fucked up administration

and they're going to pull out all the stops to win the next election. I would put money on the fact, and when it comes to this I really don't believe they have a conscience.

and once they win the next election, they'll just keep going towards their goals to get rid of all social security (by basically bankrupting the Government according to some informed people - so there's no choice but to get rid of medicare, pensions...etc.) and grabbing for oil, more international military bases, less working with allies...

In a global economy, being politically isolated ain't clever

but someone forgot to tell Bush & Co that.

I know that... but it was said no one voted for him, which isn't true.

The difference between the US and other countries, the very reason it was created as a nation, was to protect our rights. I don't mind saying that there is a kind of country the US should be. Not from a moral perspective, even, but from a hypothetical perspective-- Which is to say, if you want to live up to your own standards, you have to do X. If the US wants to live up to its own standards, it has to remember the constitution.

I did not say everyone who agrees with me is informed, and that everyone who disagrees is uninformed. I do think that the difference in the numbers is influenced by the fact that far too many people are uninformed, or lied to.

No letters or faxes. I have only sent a few emails to my representatives in the last couple of years. All of them have expressed worried over Bush's policies.

Senator Judd Gregg (R)
Senator John Sununu (R)

Congressman Jeb Bradley (R)
Congressman Charlie Bass (R)

Unfortunately, it's going to take consistent application of my vote to make the difference there, given who my reps are.

Selfishness in the face of danger is cowardice. If you prefer the word selfishness, that doesn't bother me. The basic message is the same.

previous post:


Where do you see: NO ONE voted for Bush... are you that dumb????

It was said that nobody was ELECTED ... can you understand the difference ????

Actually, it is not. Rational deliberation leading to a choice founded in your own values can hardly be called cowardice, imo.

That's your opinion, then. To me, an act where you avoid something you fear, that you could face, is a form of cowardice. However, I am not interested in arguing semantics. I think you understand my basic position already.

self interest isn't it?

we can't all choose to be martyrs and sacrifice our life for the 'greater good'

but for those who want to, nobody's going to stop them

The webmaster of RaiseTheFist.com got nailed with the Patriot Act. He spoke out against the government, and they found something to take him down with.

We still seem to be arguing the semantics of "selfish" versus "self interest" versus "cowardice". I think there are more interesting things going on in this thread than that, don't you?

Unfortunately, it's wicked late here. I am headed to bed. I look forward to seeing where the discussion goes without me.

Referring back to the poll...21% felt that the Patriot Act does not go far enough...and 22% felt that it goes to far...one can assume that both pro and con must be informed or they could not make a decision that it goes to far or not far enough. So lets assume for the sake of argument that the 48% majority that are OK with the Paatriot Act are not informed...it still breaks down to a virtual 50-50 split for the informed ones.

The House and Senate are a virtual 50-50 split...the last Presidential election was a virtual 50-50 split...the people pro or con about the Administration is a virtual 50-50 split with the majority of the split favoring the Administration. This is usually pretty much the same way that it is for every Congress and every Administration...with varying temporary fluctuations.

In this country there are three ways to change policy...one become an activist...two stay in touch with your congressman and the whitehouse...third is to vote.

The US is a Republic, not a Democracy. One of the reasons for that is that it is important to protect some minorities, even when the majority prefers something else. The Constitution has elements to stop even a large majority from taking this country in some directions. That's why some kinds of laws are illegal. I feel that includes the Patriot act, though only time will tell.

They say the apple never falls far from the tree. This is definitely true in the case of the Bush family. This little story about Dubya's Daddy is quite an eye opener:

When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates had the following exchange with then Vice President Bush.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Time and the Courts will determine the legality of some, or all, aspects of the Patriot Act. Congress enacts laws...Law Enforcement enforces the law...and the Courts decide the legality of the Laws.

funny that isn't it

which god?

if it's the christian god, wouldn't that make the US a theocracy?

no wonder they're so interested in the middle east

"my god is better than your god. how dare you believe in allah. here, have a cluster bomb ..."

Wow.

I agree. I just worry about who put the Supremes in their seats. The best hope may be that some day, hopefully soon, the pendulum will swing the other way and we will get people in power who can undo some of the damage. Hopefully before too many people are jailed on trumped-up charges.

It was said that the President was not ELECTED

Main Entry: [3]elect
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin electus
Date: 15th century
transitive senses
1 : to select by vote for an office, position, or membership <elected her class president>
2 : to make a selection of <will elect an academic program>
3 : to choose (as a course of action) especially by preference <might elect to sell the business>
Synonyms: CHOOSE 1, cull, mark, opt (for), optate, pick, prefer, select, single (out), take
Related Words: decide, determine, resolve, settle; conclude, judge; accept, admit, receive

By definition, Bush was not chosen? You keep calling me dumb, but you confuse yourself with your own posts :1orglaugh

Source please?

But wait, there's more:

On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, cochairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a law- suit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois, suburb) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place.
Sherman: American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?
Murnane: It's bullshit.

Sherman: What is bullshit?

Murnane: Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit.

Sherman: Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue.

Murnane: You're welcome

:glugglug

google.com

use it you lazy fuck

What about upstanding citizens? We're pornographers. And you're a spammer with 8 computers running if I remember correctly. I'm sure using <>< could be considered terrorism under the patriot act.

Google is not a source...it is a search engine.

you don't say?

I remembered the quote from over a decade ago and just used google to find many, many references to it: http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...e+not+citizens

but theking couldn't have used google himself? oh no ... that wouldn't have been annoying enough. and he's got to stay in character, otherwise people might start thinking he was pathfinder... ;)

Yes I promote porn, that doesn't make me a non upstanding citizen. I never admitted I was a spammer... I have 10 computers and none of them use ><> for anything and like I said, I can and will adapt or move on. :)

Funny stuff...and a candidate is entitled to an opinion...and even a President.

it does in ashcr<b></b>oft's eyes

do you not understand that?

or are you ignoring the issue and crossing your fingers that it will pass you by and won't affect your business and your livelihood?

Well, I don't see snopes anywhere in that listing...

Absolutely. I'm glad at least he was honest about it.

However, I wonder what the reaction would have been had he used "muslim", "liberal" or "negro" instead of "atheist".

That would be because it isn't an Urban Legend.

It's on the public record. He said it and he obviously believes it.

it does amuse me that 'leaders' in the US consider those who *don't* believe in fanciful and supernatural tales as wrong, and as having a dangerous outlook

funny shit

If Ashhahahahaha or anyone thinks I am less of an upstanding citizen for what I do, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it. There's Republicans and Democrats that agree and disagree with him. Until it becomes illegal, I am not doing anything but being morally challenging. As of now, I pay my taxes and I am not breaking any laws. Maybe I stretch the code of ethics and piss off some services, but if you think the whole net should go unregulated, as it already is... you are a fool. Right now, it's basically a free for all. To our benefit for the most part, but eventually it will turn into a nightmare.