Election results...

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

1- I don't agree with abortion, especially government funded, or late term abortions. I think that underage children should be required to tell their parents if they want to have an abortion.

Ok, so don't have an abortion, then.

 

2- I think welfare needs to be re-structured at least, done away with at most.

Noone should recieve any kind of assistance or help at all? "You lost your job? Tough break, have fun living on the street. Or go to Iraq, so important rich people don't have to."

 

3- I don't think I should be taxed to fund stem-cell research.

Only stem cell research, or other kinds of useful and fruitful scientific research as well? I mean, I knew he wasn't big on science, but surely there are limits?

 

4- I think that there should be a school choice initiative. I pay school taxes, but my children all stay home. My school district still gets my tax money, AND government funding for my children that do not attend. That's not right.

Do your tax money also go to streets and roads you do not use and clean water you do not drink? Isn't the education already underfunded?

 

5- I don't think the US should be part of the UN. Too many reasons to list.

Well, the US does whatever it bloody wants to do anyway (since they seem to be unaware that with power comes responsibility), and use the UN only as a tool to help their own cause. I'm amazed that the US is still a member.

 

6- I think the job of judges should be to interpret the laws, not re-write the laws.

Who said otherwise?

 

7- I do not think that gay couples should have the same legal rights as 'traditional' married couples. This is not because they are gay. It's because,imo, if the law is changed to include gay couples, that leaves the door open for other 'alternative' situations, such as three people wanting the same legal rights, etc. Where does it end? There has to be a line.

Yes, and my line is that there should be no marriage defined in any government laws at all. But now since there is the system with marriage and all, then why should some be excluded? And why would the doors be opened to every other possible alternative, just because you open it for some?

 

Not because they are gay? You want to exclude them only because it could open doors to other alternatives, and not because they are gay. So, that means you are ok with straight and gay marriage but nothing else.

 

I know that the Republicans don't have all of the answers, or the best answers to all of the questions. But they best represent what I can abide.

My experience after talking to some of them is that they don't want answers, either.

[sanctus]

Thanks Irish for your quick and clear answer.

I do not agree on any of your points, but if I start to say ny view on it as already stargazer and FT did it we can start a new topic on each point. But one reason you said I think is really out of place, i.e. number 6: who were the ones who re-wrote the laws to get votes only for bush 4 years ago?

 

But what do you mean by saying your children stay at home? Don't they go to school and so it is normal that you pay taxes for it?

 

Isn't there any (macro-) economic reason, I could understand that if somebody believes in capitalism he/she would be for Bush, as for any multinational company (Monsanto or Mon'satan' , depends on the point of view) it's better to have bush for president.

 

 

Just to all those who are sad about Bush being elected, there is some good news I read today, maybe you know it already, but if not then it is really cheering up: Russia signed the Kyoto protocol and now it's active even without the US (in case you forgot Clinton signed but Bush didn't ratify it!)

[Freethinker]

As Sanctus suggests, this could easily be dragged into every topic imaginable. And it would be Irish that started it! A moderator! :-)

 

But back to the topic.

 

In case you still don;t understand how extreme Black Box Voting fraud is again this time, here is someone that is looking into it in detail.

 

Randi Rhodes, a talk show host on Air America logged onto the web site of ONE County in Ohio, the state that decided Bush, supposedly. The one that Diebold is out of.

 

In this ONE COUNTY, there were 30 Precincts that had OVER 100% voter turnout! More votes were shown on the machinces than there were people allowed to vote there! One had 1160.78%.

 

This amounts to 97,489 EXTRA votes beyond 100% in those precincts! This is just for ONE county!

 

Kerry lost by less than 140,000 votes in Ohio.

 

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com

 

And we sit back and let the Republican THIEVES steal another one?

[IrishEyes]

Thanks Irish for your quick and clear answer.

You're welcome, sanctus.

 

I do not agree on any of your points, but if I start to say ny view on it as already stargazer and FT did it we can start a new topic on each point. But one reason you said I think is really out of place, i.e. number 6: who were the ones who re-wrote the laws to get votes only for bush 4 years ago?

But what do you mean by saying your children stay at home? Don't they go to school and so it is normal that you pay taxes for it?

Isn't there any (macro-) economic reason, I could understand that if somebody believes in capitalism he/she would be for Bush, as for any multinational company (Monsanto or Mon'satan' , depends on the point of view) it's better to have bush for president.

Just to all those who are sad about Bush being elected, there is some good news I read today, maybe you know it already, but if not then it is really cheering up: Russia signed the Kyoto protocol and now it's active even without the US (in case you forgot Clinton signed but Bush didn't ratify it!)

 

You're right, we could start new topics on each, and I'm sure that we already have. You asked, I answered. If anybody wants to discuss what I wrote, I'll be happy to discuss, in whatever new topic you start.

 

As Sanctus suggests, this could easily be dragged into every topic imaginable. And it would be Irish that started it! A moderator! :-)

 

That's right - a Moderator!

I saw the smiley that time.

Plenty of fodder here, new topics should be interesting. I actually look forward to replying to some of the stuff that Freethinker and stargazer brought up, in a brand new topic.

[BEAKER]

I wonder, what were your reasons to vote for Bush? I mean as yuo are here on this forum I suppose you like to think and so you didn't vote for bush just because the media told you to, but you had actual reasons.I can't understand what the reasons could be, so I would be very glad to know.

****************************************************************************

I don't agree with many of the things that the Democratic Party supports.

1- I don't agree with abortion, especially government funded, or late term abortions. I think that underage children should be required to tell their parents if they want to have an abortion.

2- I think welfare needs to be re-structured at least, done away with at most.

3- I don't think I should be taxed to fund stem-cell research.

4- I think that there should be a school choice initiative. I pay school taxes, but my children all stay home. My school district still gets my tax money, AND government funding for my children that do not attend. That's not right.

5- I don't think the US should be part of the UN. Too many reasons to list.

6- I think the job of judges should be to interpret the laws, not re-write the laws.

7- I do not think that gay couples should have the same legal rights as 'traditional' married couples. This is not because they are gay. It's because,imo, if the law is changed to include gay couples, that leaves the door open for other 'alternative' situations, such as three people wanting the same legal rights, etc. Where does it end? There has to be a line.

 

I know that the Republicans don't have all of the answers, or the best answers to all of the questions. But they best represent what I can abide.

 

As for the "Bush didn't win, he was declared the winner"... puh-leaze. If he would have won by a 60/40, or 70/30 margin, people that oppose him would still find a way to scream foul. If Kerry had won, I wouldn't be thrilled, but I sure wouldn't be trying to say it was fraudulent. I would figure out how to get more votes next election, and start working my butt off towards that goal. The Dems all but admitted that they were out of touch with what *most* Americans want. What more needs to be said?

************************************************************************

I couldn't have said it better, so I won't.

 

Thanks Irish Eyes!

***************************************************************************************

As for all the line by line critiques that follow; we could debate these issues forever, and perhaps we will; but in the meantime, I for one still agree completely with the original points that Irish made.

Lets not cloud those bottom line concerns.

***********************************

You're right Freethinker - that was Lou Reed! I stand corrected.

[Stargazer]

So are we going to avoid every bit of criticism? Am I invisible? Was my reply not read at all? It would be good to know for the future, so I wont have to make replies that wont be read anyway. After all we shouldn't cloud the discussion with actual skepticism or criticism, right?

[Aki]

I saw in the news that many Americans are considering immigrating to Canada after the elections.

[sanctus]

Stargazer, your post was read and I agreed, so I didn't have nothing to criticise. But continue to write your answers, I liked how you crticise

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BEAKER

You're right Freethinker -... I stand corrected.

You may want to save this off as a text file. :-)

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Stargazer

So are we going to avoid every bit of criticism? Am I invisible?

Based on your avitar, your just hot gas! :-)

Was my reply not read at all?

I read and agreed with it.

It would be good to know for the future, so I wont have to make replies that wont be read anyway. After all we shouldn't cloud the discussion with actual skepticism or criticism, right?

Echo, echo, echo...

 

I think it is just a matter of threads having a tendancy to wander all over the place.

 

Some sites passively allow threads to take what ever course, figuring an active discussion is the ultimate goal. But we seem to be being forced to color between the lines here now. (Ops off topic!)

 

Wiat, your a moderator, were you not part of the training session? :-)

[Freethinker]

Well it will be interesting to see how the powers that be try to stop the Ohio recount.

 

There have been enough people come forward in Ohio to force a recount of the thousands of (?) Precincts.

 

Now it is a matter of raising the money to pay for it.

 

That's right, WE THE PEOPLE have to pay to force Ohio to make sure they counted their votes correctly. $10.00 per precinct.

 

But perhaps this time we will actually Elect a Pres instead of having it hijacked by the Rove bandits?

[geko]

Just sort of skipped through this thread but just wanted to voice my apprehension of having 4 more years of Bush. I mean, that's quite a long time and a lot can happen. My personal feeling is that it's quite a precarious time ahead - i wish someone else would have been nominated.

 

p.s. I find it quite shocking that many Americans seem happy with this situation.

[IrishEyes]

stargazer,

I read your reply. As did everyone else that responded after you. Thanks for the input. I wasn't planning on arguing with your points in this thread, but instead was hoping for a few new threads to start.

 

As Freethinker pointed out, Some sites passively allow threads to take what ever course, figuring an active discussion is the ultimate goal. But we seem to be being forced to color between the lines here now. While I know he was not intending this as a compliment, I think it shows that the people that are overseeing the site are very involved in it, and would like to see the discussions stay somewhere close to the original point of the opening post. While it may make sense to people that are involved in the entire discussion when it veers way off course, it is very hard for anyone new to jump in. I, personally, like to stick to original points as much as possible, and start new threads when an idea takes hold that is 'outside the lines'. Of course, this is sometimes much easier said than done, but I hope you get the point.

 

I was not intentionally ignoring your post, and I hope that you continue to post your views.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Stargazer

So are we going to avoid every bit of criticism? Am I invisible? Was my reply not read at all? It would be good to know for the future, so I wont have to make replies that wont be read anyway. After all we shouldn't cloud the discussion with actual skepticism or criticism, right?

 

It was read and I for one agree on all of your comments. I do however feel a bit uncomfortable taking part in this discussion so close after the election. There is a lot of heated debate all over the Net, and a lot of passion is clouding some people's ability to discuss issues. That's why I have waited.

 

I think Irish is entitled to all of her ideas yet she knows they will be discussed so I think it was pretty straight of her to post her opinions on a lot of issues. She usually does not post her personal opinions on matters like the ones she listed, so it is a sort of "coming out" post.

 

As for myself: I am pro-abortion-rights, pro-same-sex-marriage, anti-war-on-terrorism (because it is an oxymoron), anti-US-world-cop, pro-welfare, pro-stem-cell-research, pro-public-funding-of-science, anti-state-church-systems.

 

And as for the judges writing the laws - it is an interesting question. Interpreting the laws sets a precedent, so sometimes judges have to decide how a law actually must be applied.

 

I am also against-death-penalty, against-lifetime-sentences-without-parole, against a lot of things really.

 

But most of all I am for freedom of speech, freedom to discuss, freedom to express oneself without having to face prosecution (which creates some interesting paradoxes since I am against racism). And I am against copyright on human genomes and I am for free distribution of scientific results without having to pay for access.

 

How is that for a start.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

5- I don't think the US should be part of the UN. Too many reasons to list.

 

This one baffles me. Well, maybe it's time the UN moves out of the US and establishes its headquarters somewhere else.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

No, I live HERE under the Bush theocracy. His world cop thing works, you know. Just not in a very positive way for all of us.

 

What type of negative impact has Bush had on you personally, and your country in general? I'm very interested in any answers from people outside the US on this one.

 

I want to be objective but this is an issue which angers me so it is not easy.

 

1) A lot can be summed up with his statement, "Either you're with us, or you're against us". I have explained that one before - it is perhaps the single most stupid thing GWB ever said. It was a direct attack on me, personally. Because 9/11 was not only an attack on the US but on the entire Western culture. I am opposed to Bush. But he managed - in one single phrase - to create a union between himself and everything that Western culture stands for. That is not how I see it. He is a threat to western civilization because he actively works against science, against education, against freedom of speech, against women's rights, against a lot of things which I perceive as *central* in Western civilization but not in his politics. So he made me an enemy simply because I disagreed with him. Yet I am not an enemy of the US.

 

2) Our government chose to participate in the war on Iraq even though there was a massive amount of criticism (ie, VERY few people support the war). The Iraq war was Norway's first participation in an act of war since WWII. That ought to say something about the impact your warlord president has had on me and my country. It revealed that we have a weak government which runs around the legs of the US President for no apparent reason. They prefer to satisfy him rather than the popular opinion. It is probably *directly* related to point 1) above.

 

3) Due to the 9/11 attacks, the US Embassy in Oslo decided to barricade themselves. They have a property downtown, in the middle of everywhere, and built a large fence, posted guards (even Norwegian police officers were swarming the place), and in general making themselves very unpopular. As it turned out, nobody wanted them to stay there so they have been forced to move the embassy outside of Oslo, which will happen within a couple of years. The embassy has acted in an arrogant manner since day 1 of the attacks, something which surprised a lot of people here.

 

You have to understand, a lot of Norwegians (maybe most!) have friends and relatives in the US. Older people remember well the Marshall Aid and we often wonder if we are becoming a 51st state.

 

We have previously opted to stay out of the European Union. The Bush administration is actually forcing Norwegians to take an active stand against the World Cop and I think it will end up being the final push we need to get a majority vote among the population to join the EU. I am one who has changed from a No to a Yes after Bush's actions.

[GAHD]

Irish, all I can say on your earlier point on Gay and multiple partner marriages was a disapointment. You could say I'm pro-choice and think the government should keep it's nose out of social affairs. Tax breaks for married couples are a joke, marriage should NOT let you pay less than your due because you've settled-down.

 

That said, I'm personally slightly worried about the idea of american emigration into canada(You're still welcolm Unc), our system couldn't support a truely sudden and massive influx of people who need to relearn social skills and laws.

 

Granted his piss-poor job of running the economy in his own country has caused the side benifit of a higher value canadian dollar. But the general bullshit he's been throwing around to try and squelch that climb makes me want to walk over to the border and lay a set of charges along the power lines feeding down south.

 

i sympathise with Tormod about the government being Bush's lapdog, the canadian government seems the same since Chretien retired(funny how no one noticed he was over term untill after he told bush to shove this war up his...).

 

If only the old, spineless, neuters would move their saggy asses outy of politics for someone young and creative to take the reigns, I think things could get a lot better on the world scope. Well, maby a bit of global war and anarchy is what the doctor ordered, seems to be heading that way right quick.

 

*sigh*