How long of a line to vote?

[mad rhetorik]

And I'm kind of glad Ohio isn't going to be "the next Florida."

It's over.. Kerry conceded.

Yeah...I checked the news 5 minutes ago and was about to make that edit.

Cue the mass exodus of Kerry-supporting Hollyweirdos to Canada. ; P

[Troy]

IMO: Bush is a moron. He has gotten us involved in a war that is a waste of money and lives on the basis of "WMD's" that have mysteriously "vanished" into the ether; has a Veep and inner circle with open connections to Haliburton and other large corporations; claims to support American freedoms abroad while depriving us of them via the Patriot Act; masquerades as a "conservative" while approving every spending bill that has been passed by Congress; and is trying to return us to the failed economic policy of "Reagonomics." Those are just a few on his long list of mistakes and abuses. I'd go so far to say that his might be the most incompetent and corrupt Administration since Warren G. Harding.

Also IMO: On the other hand, I don't think Kerry is much better. He's just as much a member of the "old guard aristocracy" as Bush. His "flip-flopping" might work as a Senator and career politician, but not in the office of President. He may botch the war in Iraq and sacrifice many more lives (though at least he has an exit plan, or so he claims). I have a feeling that his campaign promises are mostly empty (aren't they all?). Anyway, this post is probably way too political for Rave Recs, so I'll stop there.

Pretty much sums it up for me too.

So the choice was "a sure bad thing" or a complete unknown. I'll go with the unknown 10 out of 10 times.

Considering that there was so much weight put on moral issues there is way too much moral hypocracy in the Bush agenda. How can you kill 100,000 Iraqis, many of them non-combatants and then say that it's immoral to experiment on non-aborted fetuses from fertility clinics that would just be thrown away?

[Swish]

Pretty much sums it up for me too.

So the choice was "a sure bad thing" or a complete unknown. I'll go with the unknown 10 out of 10 times.

Considering that there was so much weight put on moral issues there is way too much moral hypocracy in the Bush agenda. How can you kill 100,000 Iraqis, many of them non-combatants and then say that it's immoral to experiment on non-aborted fetuses from fertility clinics that would just be thrown away?

if you checked out the exit polls. Only 18% mentioned moral issues as the reason for their voting choice. I don't think W is the second coming, but I could not fathom John Kerry and his trial lawyer sidekick leading this country. The liberal agenda is to unfairly and disproportionately tax those who earn more money, which smacks of socialism to me. I'm not saying you don't take care of the elderly, the sick and the needy, but at some point you have to say enough is enough. Our government should take care of our safety and our infrastructure, but they need to keep their hands out of our pockets, something that wasn't going to happen with Kerry in office. There are plenty of other reasons I don't like Kerry, but I'm not getting into that now.

Have you checked out the Fair Tax Plan? If not, I think you should. It would put an end to our federal income tax, for consumers and businesses, as well as social security tax. How can you not favor that? They would be replaced with a National Sales Tax on all new goods and services, putting an end to most tax cheats, eliminating the high cost for corporate tax accounting and the piles of paperwork associated with it. Don't take my word for, as if you would. Go to http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/mate...factsheet.html and read about it.

Swish, having a truly excellent day.

[Dusty Chalk]

So the choice was "a sure bad thing" or a complete unknown. I'll go with the unknown 10 out of 10 times.

That sounds overly optimistic. What if the unknown was a deranged communist who "heard voices"? You have the chance to learn the unknown (I mean, it's not like he doesn't have a congressional record or anything) -- I did, and I wasn't happy with what I found out about him, neither.

I still say, "Gumby/Pokey in 2008!"

[Ex Lion Tamer]

It's not a Bush victory that bothers me as much as the fact that all these anti-gay-marriage initiatives passed (esp the one in Ohio). We're all used to monkey boy..

At least your system allows the great unwashed to decide. Here in Canada the unelected supreme court decides on social issues like gay marriage. The prevailing attitude here is only the elite are equipped to make decisions on social policy.

[ForeverAutumn]

It's not a Bush victory that bothers me as much as the fact that all these anti-gay-marriage initiatives passed (esp the one in Ohio). We're all used to monkey boy..

However, what I'm now keenly aware of is how most of the people that I live and work amongst really feel about gay rights.-jar

I don't know enough about most of the issues to have an opinion one way or the other. I have enough problems keeping up with the liars and thieves in my own country. But...one of the things that struck me as ironic from the very beginning is how concerned Bush was about the freedom and the rights of the Iraqi people, while he steps on the freedom and rights of gay Americans.

[Slosh]

Dubya's new America: now with 51% rednecks!

Moral issue? Isn't it more moral not to foist one's own morality on others? Is it moral to send soldiers off to die in the name of some pretend, omnipresent, all powerful entity - to kill those people that happen to believe in another pretend, omnipresent, all powerful entity? Oh, but they have all of that dangerous oil in their ground. Wouldn't want that to fall into the wrong hands. Besides, our Saudi friends don't seem to mind so much and what on earth do the have to gain from all of this anyway?

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

Drugs are dangerous and addictive and are generating huge profits for bad people who do not have your best interests at heart. Alcohol and tobacco are manufactured and distributed by good people who help fund our elected officials so how can they possibly be bad?

Who needs clean water and air and safe food when there's profits to be had?

Let's let those heathen non-Americans look into stem cell research. Satan doesn't mind if he has to wait a bit longer for them.

Etc, etc. . . .

I'll give Dubya this - he sticks to his guns, because, of course situations and circumstances never change. Don't wanna be called a flip-flopper. In order to be a convincing liar ya gotta keep your story straight, ya know.

I can only hope all of this pandering to the religious right was merely a ploy to get elected and republican idiology (and not theology) will be the order of the day. If not don't be too surprised to see 60s/70s style radical leftist groups making a comeback in the not-too-distant future.

[BarryL]

Despite predictions of record turn outs I signed in at my precinct and was immediately escorted to voting booth #1. In and out baby.

jc

How is it that Bush got more votes and won the popular vote this time with his track record than in the previous election before the war, recession, etc.?

Are the Democrats really that incompetent? Is the press out of touch with most Americans?

I suspect that a lot of people have been socially bullied by the likes of media darling Michael Moore to speak against Bush in public, but admire the job he's doing in private.

I'm glad that, being a Canadian, I didn't have to choose. I'm also glad that the Democrats had the decency to concede defeat. Now, what the U.S. economy needs is massive government deregulation (the complete separation of state and economics would be a radical start) and a renewed respect by politicians for the the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.

By the way, how is it that if a Liberal is someone that believes in liberty, that be a bad thing? Only the socialists of the left could bastardize that term to mean someone who believes in more socialism and the destruction of liberty. And only the socialists of the right could accept that liberty = socialism.

To answer Troy's question about how the two candidates and parties are the same: they are both big spending socialists opposed to individual liberty and individual rights. They just have different agendas as to how much individual wealth they should confiscate and how they want to distribute it "for your own good" and for "the good of all Americans" to others who didn't earn it and who believe they are entitled to the property and wealth of others. If Bush really believes that tax cuts are a good thing because the money belongs to the people who earned it, then he should leave all of it with the people who earned it and let them decide how to spend it. But I don't think he really thinks that the money people earn should be theirs. But in my mind, in principle, it either is, or it isn't. You either take property rights seriously, or you don't. If you don't just admit it. To this extent, Kerry was more honest. He admitted that rich people and shareholders of big corporations shouldn't have the same rights as others.

Corruption and dishonesty in the business world pales compared to that of politics and politicians.

[Troy]

How is it that Bush got more votes and won the popular vote this time with his track record than in the previous election before the war, recession, etc.?

Incumbents during war seldom lose. Maybe this is the real reason he started the war in the first place? I've heard that from several people today.

Are the Democrats really that incompetent? Is the press out of touch with most Americans?

Apparently, yes. The dems shoulda run a southerner. They are the only ones to win for nearly 50 years. You simply GOTTA win some of the south. The urban areas simply aren't enough.

Kerry was weak. Bush got dirty, Kerry shoulda got dirtier. Shoulda called out the whole ex-drunk born again fake song and dance. He was too gentlemanly, opting to not go for the juggular. Another Dukakkis. Loser. Pussy.

I suspect that a lot of people have been socially bullied by the likes of media darling Michael Moore to speak against Bush in public, but admire the job he's doing in private.

I dunno, I've talked to A LOT of people today about this by e and phone. There are some seriously ANGRY people out there. Angry at their American brethren too full of themselves in their big fat American arrogance to see the world for what it is. Angry at the party for not finding a better candidate then Kerry. I've heard more than once "If we get another terrorist attack, we desrve it". God forbid it happens in one of the RED states.

Now, what the U.S. economy needs is massive government deregulation (the complete separation of state and economics would be a radical start) and a renewed respect by politicians for the the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.

Welcome to fantasy island.

[mad rhetorik]

How is it that Bush got more votes and won the popular vote this time with his track record than in the previous election before the war, recession, etc.?

Are the Democrats really that incompetent? Is the press out of touch with most Americans?

I suspect that a lot of people have been socially bullied by the likes of media darling Michael Moore to speak against Bush in public, but admire the job he's doing in private.

I'm glad that, being a Canadian, I didn't have to choose. I'm also glad that the Democrats had the decency to concede defeat. Now, what the U.S. economy needs is massive government deregulation (the complete separation of state and economics would be a radical start) and a renewed respect by politicians for the the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.

By the way, how is it that if a Liberal is someone that believes in liberty, that be a bad thing? Only the socialists of the left could bastardize that term to mean someone who believes in more socialism and the destruction of liberty. And only the socialists of the right could accept that liberty = socialism.

To answer Troy's question about how the two candidates and parties are the same: they are both big spending socialists opposed to individual liberty and individual rights. They just have different agendas as to how much individual wealth they should confiscate and how they want to distribute it "for your own good" and for "the good of all Americans" to others who didn't earn it and who believe they are entitled to the property and wealth of others. If Bush really believes that tax cuts are a good thing because the money belongs to the people who earned it, then he should leave it with the people who earned it and let them decide how to spend it.

Corruption and dishonesty in the business world pales compared to that of politics and politicians.

Judging by what you've written above, would it be safe to assume that you are a free-market Libertarian? I almost voted for the Libertarian party candidate but in our good ol' American two-party system that would be like a vote for Bush. So I went Kerry (I know, very un-Libertarian). Like Troy said, better the unknown quantity than an Administration that has already proven a thorough failure.

As a Canadian watching this whole debacle from 'cross the border, you make some good points--there are anti-Constitution cronies on BOTH sides, not just the right. And all of them were out in force this election--Moveon.org types, Hollyweird socialists, Communist intellectuals, warmonger rednecks, big business fascists, Religious Right nutjobs, etc. etc. For me the Religious Right have been some of the worst (those hypocrites Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson need to be disposed of, and I mean NOW). I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm a Christian if it means being associated with those wankers. There's a damn good reason why religion and state should not mix.

I'm glad that Kerry had the dignity to concede and not turn this into another Florida. Bad enough that our Supreme Court had to choose our President the first time.

The American press IS out of touch--either pro-Dems (CNN being one) or pro-Republican (Fox), both of them completely outside of the vast majority of Americans who I think want their bullshit served straight, if you get my meaning. Objectivity is a good thing, and it's being ignored in favor of 15-second soundbites and the spin of the day. We need a serious overhaul of American media, and we need one yesterday.

Also funny to note that "liberal" used to mean Lockean principles like limited government, property rights, etc. and now has been perverted into "socialist in democratic clothing."

I'm no fan of the Bush tax cuts. I'm not saying I support an inverted, Sweden-like "tax the rich to feed the poor" scenario, I just think they were poorly planned and are designed to favor the 1%. We've been through this already--supply-side does not work. All it does is give the rich more money to spend on a new yacht, while the average middle-class family gets what? $400? $600? With state taxes being raised through the roof to cover the discrepancy, nobody wins.

As far as Michael Moore is concerned, he is a hypocrite, charleton, and propagandist troll, pure and simple. The Democrats were only hurting themselves by aligning with him. He claims to support "the little guy" while living the Good Life on the Upper East Side. He writes sensationalist garbage and then turns around and accuses the media of doing virtually the same thing (see Bowling For Columbine). Moore takes facts and conveniently warps them into his own version of reality. Ex. Citing the fact that the NRA and KKK both formed not long after the Civil War (1871 and 1866 respectively), and insinuating that the groups are somehow associated with each other (nevermind the fact that they could not have been more opposed, the NRA being a "Yankee" organization, pro-civil rights, and often deliberately anti-KKK). Then there's his smear job on Charleton Heston, his painting of pre-invasion Iraq as some sort of paradise (in Fahrenheit 9/11), and plenty of other distortions. Joseph Goebbels and Leni Riefenstahl would be proud. Click here: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Oh yeah, and just as a disclaimer to all of the above: IMHO. ; P

[BarryL]

[QUOTE=mad rhetorik]

I wish America was the fantasy land that I wish it was.

I really liked Obama's Democratic convention speech. I think he understands what the founding fathers were trying to do, and what needs to be done to really protect individual rights. He demonstrated a passion and a vision for what it means to be an American.

There are fundamental secular moral PRINCIPLES that I believe almost all American's believe in, including the fundamental right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It will take someone with immense courage and wisdom to unite the country once again around these basic principles. The big challange is to convince people that morality comes before politics rather than starting with politics and then trying to derive a morality to justify the political ends.


I hope someone in America comes forward who can do this to save America, and thereby, the world.

[kexodusc]

I hope someone in America comes forward who can do this to save America, and thereby, the world.

I'm not sure who exactly said this, or what they were trying to convey, but I hope it's not what I think it means...
Much of the rest of the world is doing quite well, I think we should worry about fixing our own problems before even contemplating playing Global Police...

There's a name for the last group that talked like that...

[BarryL]

I'm not sure who exactly said this, or what they were trying to convey, but I hope it's not what I think it means...
Much of the rest of the world is doing quite well, I think we should worry about fixing our own problems before even contemplating playing Global Police...

There's a name for the last group that talked like that...

Al Stewart has a line in his song Russians & Americans that I always thought was very astute ; "A county is more an idea than a place." What I was thinking about was a leader who could lead through the promulgation of positive ideas in support of a renewed vision of America, more aligned with the America seen by its founding fathers, of a country united behind the idea of liberty and man's natural rights, not ruled by brute force. And certainly not a world ruled by America's military might or threat thereof. America, and the world, needs a new renaissance. The last thing I would want to see in the world is a global government ruled by the U.N.

What we have in America and the world today is politics by brute force. As Bruce Cockburn wrote, "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse."