Have you VOTED? [Archive] - ConceptArt.org Forums

blankslatejoe

November 2nd, 2004, 12:20 PM

Woah... careful fellas...

Did some research out of curiousity...I've been eating this stuff up lately;

It seems most government officials fall between 120-150 in IQ, I found out that it's EXTREMELY rare to find people ABOVE 150 in ANY government. Maybe they're smart enough to stay uninvolved?

Bush's iq is estimated to be between 115 and 125, Clinton's was estimated to be somewhere between 130-150. IGNORE the lovenstein hoax from 2000.

Here's what suprised me;
Kerry, on the other hand, is believed to have an IQ LESS than bush's. It seems they haven't taken directly comparable tests, but in evaluations based off of SAT scores and the like, Kerry seems to be regarded by most analysts as being slightly LESS intelligent than Bush. Weird, huh? Perhaps Bush's lack of articulateness (is that a word) is what has mislead people like me.

Either way, remember that the average american is supposed to be 100 even.

Also, since it's accepted that Clinton was fairly intelligent, regardless of the hoaxes, you might want to think twice about using Intelligence as a factor in voting.... since Clinton's Foreign Policy (a key voting issue this time around) was --generally-- considered to be one of the weaker in recent history.

Also, if it's true that Kerry has a lower IQ than Bush, the intelligence of either candidate therefore does not fall into the 'elite' levels (140+ or so) and the differences may be slight, I personally would not use intelligence as a basis for your vote.

I'm not trying to sway anyone one way or the other, especially seeing as how I haven't made up my mind myself... but I do think it's important to be careful of blanket statements. Goodluck voting everyone!

Floris Didden

November 2nd, 2004, 12:27 PM

The average IQ is 100, that's the point. If people become smarter then the test is made harder so the average is 100 again.

I believe having a high IQ and beeing stupid can go hand in hand. Wisdom is different from inteligence.

Oh yeah, I didn't vote, beeing a foreigner and all ;p.

Scubasteve

November 2nd, 2004, 12:32 PM

Despite what people think, Bush is not stupid. He may not be the most eliquent speaker, that doesn't make him stupid. He was a pilot in the Navy, they don't let idots fly jets. Does that make him fit to be president, no, not neccesarlily. I voted for him because I believe in his policies, and I think he has done very well considering the circumstances. What are Kerry's policys. Does anyone know? I know he says he will fight a better smarter war...How...Who knows? He just will. He says he wont let anyone know until he is president. It don't work that way John....

blankslatejoe

November 2nd, 2004, 12:35 PM

oh, just found out that my previous post is somewhat in error. It seems kerry and bush HAVE taken a directly comparable test; the military intelligence apititude test, which placed bush -slightly- ahead, but within the margin of error of Kerry; meaning on a different day under different conditions Kerry could have pulled ahead of bush by that same margin.

Either way, goes to reinforce; no drastic intelligence difference between the candidate.

I'm with you floris, wisdom and intelligence are not the same thing and wisdom is definitely the more important of the two...but after all my reading, that still doesn't make me go flat out one way or the other. I'm no big fan of bush, and lately I've had liberal tendencies... but I also would prefer the government more out of my life, which is a defining republican trait.
I'm seem to be what's known as a political centrist... so I've always been very right down the middle, VERY skeptical of both sides.

Phuzion

November 2nd, 2004, 12:37 PM

Clinton could do the New York Times crossword in the space of a short meeting with a pen... fuckin' Confucious style and shit.

Bush is a jackass, Kerry's a little less of a jackass, so he has my vote in about 30 minutes!

And dammit people, watch this! Eminem's Mosh (http://www.gnn.tv/content/emosh_hi.html) This is what we've always wanted Eminem to do with his rhymin' skillz, and he's finally doing it! He's being a friggin' role model for once!!

jetpack42

November 2nd, 2004, 12:40 PM

P.S. - Sorry Jetpack... I may be you're campaign manager but I got offered some soft money...

dood! I was counting on Georgia! My plan is in shambles!!!!! nooooooooooo!!!!!

I also voted libritarian for all the smaller races in Washington. We need more parties, damnit!

Though, the more I think about politics, the more I realize its all really fucked up. Problem is, the machine has gotten so big, you can't really get in without being part of it.

I voted for myself, but if I had to pick between the 2, I'd pick Bush. I know what stupidity he's capable of. Kerry just has a whole hell of a lot of unmeasurable potential. I swear, every quote by the guy has been "Let us lead america to the land of milk and honey!" rather then "ok, i'm going to do this by doing this, and this with this, and this is how we will do this". Not that Bush has been totally different, but its easier to estimate.

Campaigning proves that its just a game though. Kerry not caring about the south, them guys racing around to battleground states. They don't care about anybody but their sponsors after election day.

Though, now that I've typed this, having Bush in there for 4 years with no care as to being re-elected...

Damnit, I better win.

blankslatejoe

November 2nd, 2004, 12:45 PM

hahahahaha... if you don't win, Jetpack, don't worry. I've got lawyers standing by ready to denounce the election and call for a recount.

You shouldn't be too hard on the political machine... 60 years ago the parties were more divided. Republicans wanted the government small and as out of your life as possible, and democrats wanted the government to be large and responsible/helpful.

the fact that now republicans like to legislate morality and democrats are crying about loss of freedom; a crossing party lines both ways if you think about it, really goes to show you that the country has begun to hit an "aggreeable"- for lack of a better word- middle line, from which you can slowly shift one way or the other... the drastic changes of 200 years ago seem to be done, this is all fine tuning... right?

jetpack42

November 2nd, 2004, 12:55 PM

in other news, I hope you all voting for Kerry have read this
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

and I quote
"Today, we face three great challenges above all others - First, to win the global war against terror;"

yes, Kerry too wants to win the war on an idea.

"Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances
The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at us."

Isn't that what everyone is complaining about Bush for?

That whole page is filled with exactly the same stuff Bush wants to do, except reduce dependancy on mideast oil.

All I'm saying is...Doesn't matter who you vote for among the 2 main parties. I know this has been discussed, but I just have to say it once for real. There's not going to be any difference. I'd bet money in 4 years most people voting for Kerry will be on the "Anybody but Kerry" ticket and anybody voting for Bush will be glad his term is over. This is really fucking ridiculous. We need more choices then these 2 assholes.

Props to everyone who has the guts to vote 3rd party.

jetpack42

November 2nd, 2004, 12:58 PM

the fact that now republicans like to legislate morality and democrats are crying about loss of freedom; a crossing party lines both ways if you think about it, really goes to show you that the country has begun to hit an "aggreeable"- for lack of a better word- middle line, from which you can slowly shift one way or the other... the drastic changes of 200 years ago seem to be done, this is all fine tuning... right?

true to a point. But if we've only got 2 choices, and we are constantly forced to choose between the "lesser of 2 evils"...we're still getting an evil choice..right?

Being a president isn't even about being a good leader anymore. It's about being rich and having connections.

Ironic that a country so taken to complaining about the rich is constantly voting for a very wealthy man.

Doesn't seem like anybody "wins" in that scenario, least of all the American people being represented.

buffaloe

November 2nd, 2004, 01:02 PM

I just voted .... Kerry ;)

LaPalida

November 2nd, 2004, 01:03 PM

Just curious ... anyone vote for Ralph Nader?

Scubasteve

November 2nd, 2004, 01:09 PM

What would be the point. Unless you are just trying to make a politcal statment...

blankslatejoe

November 2nd, 2004, 01:11 PM

to be fair jet, I don't think you're going to convince anyone to vote one way or the other so last minute.... I'm sure someone from the kerry side could toss in a link of something adversive from the bush site, or from the new american century site....

But.. you might end up stoking some unneccesary flames though, so be careful.. I'll probably make my mind up AT the polls. Last minute instinct has never steered me wrong.

Secretly, my big issue is NOT whether or not I trust either candidate to do a good job, that's a mute point since I'm 90% sure of what each candidate will do if elected.... there's just not much mystery. I'm left with whether or not I trust/like the UN, the Courts, and Congress with various issues after the candidates have their way.

Phuzion

November 2nd, 2004, 01:13 PM

Scubasteve: exactly that... to support a third party. I thought about voting for him because California is blessed left, so my little vote to Nader wouldn't change it, but I figured one more thorn in the right's side is also worth it!

blankslatejoe

November 2nd, 2004, 01:15 PM

maybe you're right. it's just a mess.

interesting conversation though.

jetpack42

November 2nd, 2004, 01:15 PM

to be fair jet, I don't think you're going to convince anyone to vote one way or the other so last minute.... I'm sure someone from the kerry side could toss in a link of something adversive from the bush site, or from the new american century site....

I know.

Everyones made up thier mind already. I purposely haven't said hardly anything about it to this point because I don't want to argue...

but its election day, everyone's got thier vote cast (for the most part), so it doesn't make any difference. I gotta vent. This whole thing is frustrating.

LaPalida

November 2nd, 2004, 01:17 PM

Well alot of people are complaining about there being 2 choices ... when in fact there are more. The point: well when there was voting season in Canada and the 2 major parties were Liberal and Conservative (sort of parallel to your Republican and Democrat parties in the US) I voted for NDP. Although they didn't win it actually made a difference. Now Liberals (who are in power) have to watch their step very very carefuly because in the house of commons because they are not the majority represented. Basically what it means is that whenever Liberals will try to pass some bill and others don't agree with it they can't override the others with numbers, they're gonna have to play ball. I dunno exactly how the US systems works though, but hey it's worth a shot... especially if you believe in something better and aren't satisfied with the choices at hand. I know some people who are voting for Nader, more power to them. Why say that there is no other choice ... when in fact there is, and a very good one at that.

blankslatejoe

November 2nd, 2004, 01:23 PM

I gotta vent. This whole thing is frustrating.

I think ALL of us can agree with that one.

jetpack42

November 2nd, 2004, 01:24 PM

my girl and my father both made a very interesting observation. Besides the 2 parties, most of the other parties are too 1 dimensional to really be competent. They don't have alot well rounded theories, or concise plans. They bank on "The current administration sucks!" or "we stand for EDUCATION! (only)". If you get one of these guys in office, they won't know thier head from thier ass on the rest of the issues (assuming since they haven't mentioned them).

So there you go. I think everyone sucks. Thats why I voted for myself. The party system is fucking us over. Incompetent canidates aren't worth voting anyway. But I want my vote to count as somebody who cares, but thought all the choices sucked.

How else can I vote and be counted, but not contribute to canidates and parties I don't want?

jetpack42

November 2nd, 2004, 01:27 PM

Sorry, you're from canada and you're telling me to vote for Nader?

My father had dinner with him some years back, and has told me how he's largely incompetent, a slob, and has made his living off of loopholes in the law.

Wait, who was the better choice you were talking about?

Scubasteve

November 2nd, 2004, 01:42 PM

Im tired of the whole thing and will be glad when its over. I know some people get all bent out of shape talking about this sort of thing. Im conservative, but I have some very liberal friends. (even a Kerry supporting transvestite) I have my views, I don't push them on anybody, and I don't judge anyone. You can only vote your heart (corney I know). Its easy to take the side of all politics are crooks, and it may be more true then not, but I have to believe that that is not the case or I would go nuts. I have to stay optomistic about it. Anyway... I think Im done talking about it. Hope all you guys can overlook the politics and say PEACE!!!!!!!!!

LaPalida

November 2nd, 2004, 02:06 PM

Sorry, you're from canada and you're telling me to vote for Nader?

Stalin and Saddam TOLD people what to do. I am not telling anyone to vote for Nader. I'm suggesting an alternative for those who say there are none. And hell yeah I'm from Canada. US is like what only our neighbour, you damn right I'm concerned about who's gonna win the election. US isn't like another planet in another galaxy about which I wouldn't give a damn. It's a nation rather close to our border on this one single rock of a planet which we all have to share, and not just a nation - the most powerful nation currently, so yeah I'm from Canada and I give a damn.

My father had dinner with him some years back, and has told me how he's largely incompetent, a slob, and has made his living off of loopholes in the law.

Your father based his whole opinion of one man on one dinner? Wait weren't you voting for yourself. How the hell did you come to the conclusion that you are competent enough to run a country?

jetpack42

November 2nd, 2004, 02:17 PM

Your father based his whole opinion of one man on one dinner?

You're basing your whole opinon of one man on what you read on the internet or heard from friends? You can tell alot about people from meeting them once. There is alot left to be found, but you can still get a general read on people. True, its my fathers point of view, but a real experience is alot more accurate then reading Naders website.

I'll believe my father over some girl on the internet from canada or an arbitrary website any day.

Wait weren't you voting for yourself. How the hell did you come to the conclusion that you are competent enough to run a country?

process of elimination.

LaPalida

November 2nd, 2004, 02:33 PM

That's called first impressions. They aren't always right. I wouldn't say that personal experience is the most accurate thing (general relativity). In fact it's probably the most biased thing because it is personal, that's why if you want to be objective you base your opinion on more than one fact/opinion/experience etc.

About Nader: Can't say that I even visited his site. Mostly I read about him here and there (books, net), watched him on TV and ofcourse read about his exploits. Like I said somewhere earlier, what counts are man's actions not what he says. So far he has proven himself (Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Acts, The Clean Water Act, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Freedom of Information Act)

thebluepuppy

November 2nd, 2004, 02:43 PM

if kerry wins:
2 choices
celebrate!
get better and more jobs!
if bush wins:
3 choices
hmmm
mexico here i come!!!
canada here i come!!!
europe here i come!!!
if he wins america will be a scary place :dead: :$ :uzi: :uzi2: :uzi2: :uzi: :uzi2: :uzi: :bomb: :bomb:
REELECT CLINTON!

jetpack42

November 2nd, 2004, 03:10 PM

Mike Frank

November 2nd, 2004, 03:22 PM

Just voted for kerry, sorry to be part of the vote bush out crowd, this election to me seems to have a lot to do with people's personal moralities and beliefs. I am glad that for once war and foreign policy is in question much moreso than past elections. All in all, lets hope this shit can just go over smoothly tonight and be over with.

jetpack42

November 2nd, 2004, 03:24 PM

yeah, here's to a clean election.

:vodkamachine:

cotron

November 2nd, 2004, 06:09 PM

I voted.... I didn't want P Diddy to kill me.

grey

November 2nd, 2004, 06:47 PM

3 choices
hmmm
mexico here i come!!!
canada here i come!!!
europe here i come!!!

let us not forget our deserving brothers and sisters in the West Indies -- Trinidad & Tobago are lovely this time of year (ok . . . they're lovely any time of year)

N D Hill

November 2nd, 2004, 06:53 PM

I voted.... I didn't want P Diddy to kill me.

lol. You have to admit he asks some poignant questions; like why don't the candidates "sweat the hip-hop crowd."

blankslatejoe

November 2nd, 2004, 06:58 PM

"why don't the candidates "sweat the hip-hop crowd."

That, actually, was my deciding issue. :)

seb

November 2nd, 2004, 07:07 PM

on a less serious note.

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2463

N D Hill

November 2nd, 2004, 07:38 PM

"why don't the candidates "sweat the hip-hop crowd."

That, actually, was my deciding issue. :)

The answer to that question is quite simple. As Jon Stewart put it, "it's only because niether candidate is allowed to accept soft-bling"

gasmask

November 2nd, 2004, 09:07 PM

bush all the way

Lauren Short

November 2nd, 2004, 09:34 PM

kerry

and anyone in california:
1a:yes
59:yes
60:yes
60a:yes
61:yes
62:yes
63:yes
64:yes
65:yes
66:yes
67:yes
68:no
69:yes
70:no
71:yes
72:yes

(lots of "yes" votes but i agreed w/ quite a few of those propositions)

also guys, our votes for president don't matter, it's called the electoral college :teeth:

jwo

November 2nd, 2004, 09:42 PM

i voted for the cool guy.

Marie

November 2nd, 2004, 09:53 PM

I voted! I didn't read most of this conversation, just skimmed... I'll OD on political discussion if I do.

Odd thing though at the polls today... the only people, besides myself that I saw below the age of 65 were the 8 year olds sitting in the hallway of the elementary school. They actually wanted to vote too hehe. But seriously, only the elderly were there besides me at that time :( Don't get me wrong, I get along nice with the elderly, just would of liked to see a mix of generations.

DragonGX

November 2nd, 2004, 10:04 PM

I did a write in for Hank The Angry Drunken Dwarf..

Just kidding.

I voted Bush.

squirpy

November 2nd, 2004, 10:19 PM

Marie: I think that different demographics tend to come in at different times.

benzo

November 2nd, 2004, 11:01 PM

let's just hope that it is not as close as last time and there is no recount bullshit and lawyers again

MrSmith

November 3rd, 2004, 02:04 AM

its over. this provisional stuff is wishful thinking. its just drawn out for ratings now...

blankslatejoe

November 3rd, 2004, 04:48 AM

mr smith- agreed.
benzo - lawyers are lined up already.

injection- that's not entirely true. In a system of checks and balances, the electoral college is OUR check to keep us from doing someting 'popular' and stupid, like voting in a Baldwin or something. The methodology behind each state's electoral college seems to vary from state to state, but as it is, "Most" electoral votes follow the popular vote as a guideline, and more states are dividing up their electoral votes to account porportionally for the popular vote's breakdown.

-That'd be a good thing because it's a step closer to direct democracy, if you want that.
-But it'd a bad thing because a divided state, with 9 electoral votes may only get a local winning candidate 5 votes, instead of all 9. If the candidate was normally going to get 4 votes there (if he 'lost the state') he or she will probably spend more time trying to win heavier states rather than going for just that '1'. In the old system, he or she had a chance for all 9, now, at best, just 5.

-Thus, until all 50 states are like this, each individual state doing it loses quite a bit of it's swaying power.

I think I'm for that newer method... since i don't like the politics of the campaigning... but I haven't thought it through entirely.

jetpack42

November 3rd, 2004, 04:55 AM

but then states with almost no populations wouldn't get any attention. The system is in place to prevent cities from controlling the entire country. It was our founding fathers pre-emptive strike on us.*

*observation courtesy of Blackhawk.

evildisco

November 3rd, 2004, 08:48 AM

Many people ranting throughout the year, actually very few people materializing at the voting booths.
I voted so I did my part, supporting my malcontent.

blankslatejoe

November 3rd, 2004, 09:39 AM

Many people ranting throughout the year, actually very few people materializing at the voting booths.
I voted so I did my part, supporting my malcontent.

Yeah, I just heard some statistics that estimate that less than 20% of registered voters in our age bracket (18-25) showed up. I don't care WHO yer voting fer, this is just retarded. They were expecting practically TRIPLE that. If that's correct, then that means 4/5 of all our pals didn't vote, let's go slap them upside the head.

For people at work and away from the news:
It seems Bush has won popular vote, but electoral votes haven't been decided yet. Ohio is being the 'florida' of this election. Kerry can hold out for the late provisional votes in Ohio, but he'd have to win something crazy like 95% of the remaining 200k to win the state, which is ludicrously unlikely. Not only is it almost certain Bush will win at this point, it's also looking to be a fairly clear win. Kerry won't have the disputing edge that Gore had in 2000 (Gore won popular vote).

I mean, there's still VERY slight chance for Kerry, but at this point I think he's seriously deciding on whether or not taking a 'holding out' risk is worth coming across as a 'Sore loser' and risking what's left of his political career.

It's been an interesting election...to say the least.

Scubasteve

November 3rd, 2004, 10:08 AM

He is conceeding in a couple of hours...Just heard it over the radio..

I_am

November 3rd, 2004, 10:26 AM

I voted Bush.

I find it strange that after all the myriad of campaigns to get young people to vote (MTV and VH1 both had they're "vote for change" things), there were still so few who turned out. I guess people are far more willing to bitch and moan about something than to actually do anything to change it.

Actually I'm surprised Bush won at all (Kerry just conceded according to the news, so I'm assuming it's official?). It felt to me like there was a huge liberal trend lately, especially after the Iraq war, and I was really looking for Kerry to win.

benzo

November 3rd, 2004, 10:35 AM

It's such a relief that Kerry seems to have the decency to concede now and not try to fight it out. If this holds true, I have much respect for him then, because it is better for our nation that way.

There is roughly a 136,000 vote lead for Bush in Ohio. I have read that there is anything between 140,000 to 175,000 provisional ballots uncounted in Ohio. Historically, I read that only 7% to 20% of these ballots are valid and legitimate. And according to Ohio law, these ballots are counted 11 days after the election.

Even if they were all legit, I really doubt what the chances are that they are all for Kerry. I guess Kerry's campaign has weighed these options and decided it was not worth two weeks or more of uncertainty and legal battles to fight for these provisional votes.

I am sure they will be counted in the aftermath anyhow, and we will all know eventually how many gains, if any, Kerry would have made. What a relief Ohio isn't this election's Florida!

Scubasteve

November 3rd, 2004, 10:38 AM

Yeah. Very true.

evildisco

November 3rd, 2004, 11:17 AM

I am currently very pissed and the only thing that comes to mind is not the prosaic "Fuck Bush" but the other "Fuck whoever was whining and didn't do shit to change this".
Next time less talk, more action kthxbye.

seb

November 3rd, 2004, 12:17 PM

Oh, somewhere in this favoured land the sun is shining bright,
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light;
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout,
But there is no joy in Mudville—mighty Casey has struck out.

Nimrod

November 3rd, 2004, 12:21 PM

God Bless America....

...and the New World Order.

"This is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism ... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."

-Ben Franklin, on the Constitution

strych9ine

November 3rd, 2004, 12:45 PM

The world is absolutely fucked.

buffaloe

November 3rd, 2004, 12:51 PM

agreed.

cotron

November 3rd, 2004, 12:58 PM

who wants to bet we invade another country within 4 years?

hooray for democracy and money and oil

hoorayyyyyy!

Groover McNab

November 3rd, 2004, 01:10 PM

Hooray for setting back equal rights and religious freedom!!!

evildisco

November 3rd, 2004, 01:16 PM

who wants to bet we invade another country within 4 years?

hooray for democracy and money and oil

hoorayyyyyy!

Technically, it would be impossible for that to happen, the resources aren't there and the public is growing weary of conflict.
Another war proposition by this administration would not pass.

The future isn't very bright either, everyone forgot about the economy, and there will be a big or small crash to some extent.
Bush will have to learn to compromise,regardless of his "american macho bravado", since he pretty much alienated everyone outside the US.

squirpy

November 3rd, 2004, 01:24 PM

i bet war could, and probably will, happen again within the next four years. Bush will run our country into the ground.

I'm really afraid of what's going to happen with N. Korea and Iran now - the two biggest "problem" countries with regards to nuclear proliferation. I thought about moving to canada, but that's still too close for when the US gets nuked by North Korea.

evildisco

November 3rd, 2004, 01:41 PM

Sure, it can happen but the ripercussions by the american public and foreign powers will be much stark and severe than last time.
Bush might have won, but he is walking on a tightrope.

jetpack42

November 3rd, 2004, 01:41 PM

It's such a relief that Kerry seems to have the decency to concede now and not try to fight it out. If this holds true, I have much respect for him then, because it is better for our nation that way.

There is roughly a 136,000 vote lead for Bush in Ohio. I have read that there is anything between 140,000 to 175,000 provisional ballots uncounted in Ohio. Historically, I read that only 7% to 20% of these ballots are valid and legitimate. And according to Ohio law, these ballots are counted 11 days after the election.

I don't care who wins, but I think they ought to wait before the ballots are all counted in a close call before they say anything. That IS the point of everyone voting, right?

And in the last election, 90% of ohio's provisional ballots were valid. They said that repeatedly on CNN last night.

geoffd

November 3rd, 2004, 02:19 PM

what happens if a vice-president and president both die while in office?

evildisco

November 3rd, 2004, 02:26 PM

Maybe Powell becomes president, *vain hope*.

Mike Frank

November 3rd, 2004, 02:31 PM

I agree it is disappointing that he conceded even though all of the votes have not been counted.. if this was a sports game, and my team was losing with 5 minutes to go, itd be lame to say alright well we quit, you win.

benzo

November 3rd, 2004, 02:34 PM

I_am

November 3rd, 2004, 02:47 PM

This election totally proved my faith in the American people, that most of us aren't all a bunch of paranoid, negative, conspiracy theorists on a bush-bashing wagon driven by michael moore.

I wish some people on here weren't so negative, but it seems you are too grounded in your hatred for bush to change your minds. But think about this- that's probably why Bush won.

Agreed. Well said.

evildisco

November 3rd, 2004, 02:49 PM

jetpack- you're absolutely right, and i bet they will count those provisionals anyway. It was Kerry's decision, and he said he would have fought for the votes if he thought there was a chance.

This election totally proved my faith in the American people, that most of us aren't all a bunch of paranoid, negative, conspiracy theorists on a bush-bashing wagon driven by michael moore.

I wish some people on here weren't so negative, but it seems you are too grounded in your hatred for bush to change your minds. But think about this- that's probably why Bush won.

I can turn your statement around very easily.
Bush, has won fair and square I'll allow him this, but my attitude towards a war mongering conservative dimwit stays the same.
You are too eager to cathegorize the opposition as "bunch of paranoid, negative, conspiracy theorists on a bush-bashing wagon driven by michael moore", I'll tell you this the only one that applies to my person is negative.
Now next time, you are going to make statements about a group, don't generalize please.

Mike Frank

November 3rd, 2004, 02:56 PM

Mr. Pale

November 3rd, 2004, 03:02 PM

Heard Kerry's consesion speach. I did not like Kerry, even a little bit, but at least his speach was dignified and he didn't try to drag this out with pointless recounts. Course statistically he has no chance with those provisional votes.

Voted for Bush, happy my man won.

benzo

November 3rd, 2004, 03:20 PM

How can you guys say this?? The election was 51 to 49% "most of us" is not a huge margin here. Ideally a politician's job is to represent the whole of the populace and not just the people who have elected them.

Actually I think that's the beauty of our democratic election system. Obviously the American people have strong opinions and we are polarized, but at the end of the day the system is such that we can still come to a compromise and elect a President.

I do have a lot of respect for John Kerry now, as he recognizes this system and didn't try to pull an Al Gore again. It really is incredible to be on the internet and be able to see the vote count updated every 5 minutes for every county in every state in the country. It's really amazing, even if your person doesn't win.

jwo

November 3rd, 2004, 03:22 PM

benzo

November 3rd, 2004, 03:30 PM

http://www.bensprout.com/election.jpg

i've edited this to project New Mexico and Iowa for Bush, but it's very interesting how the states were divided geographically.

blankslatejoe

November 3rd, 2004, 03:38 PM

actually mike, 51 to 49 is a pretty solid win... it's not a 'sweep', but it's fairly undisputable... MUCH moreso than in 2000... and back then the democrats had Nader working against them. This time Nader barely scratched the surface, so the Democrat's seem to have lost the strength they were riding on out of the Clinton era.. there's simply nothing left for them to blame. It's also not like ending the game 5 minutes before the end..it was a political move that may very well lead to the democratic party having a BETTER chance in 2008.

Kerry was left with a choice of 'waiting the 10 days' to get all the provisionals counted, and with a 99.99% chance coming across as the 'sore loser', or coming across as the 'good guy' and saying "Good game, george... see you next time." (although, Hilary very well might be the one running in 4 years... not kerry).

It was his CHOICE not to paint the democratic party as a party in "love with litigation", which could easily have been an outcome, since this would have been 2 presidential elections in a row. My respect for Kerry went up quite a bit more from this move.

evildisco

November 3rd, 2004, 03:47 PM

My father a week ago, said something very interesting, the US is a country that politically changes from decade to decade not from term to term.
2008 is going to be the year of transition from republican strength to democrat dominance.
I hoped this wasn't true, but it is and so it will happen.

sparth

November 3rd, 2004, 03:56 PM

benzo and others, i'd really like to know more about the artists out here who voted for bush, and understand their opinions.
let me explain, do you take in consideration all bush's convictions or did you simply vote for the guy because he had a clear program about the country security against terrorism.
(in that second case, it always amazes me to realise that the guys who vote for security reasons are in the rural areas less concerned by terrorism. see benzo's map)

01 religion (and the huge impact of religion in today's american politics)
02 gay marriage - for or against?
03 stem cells research
04 firearms
05 abortion - for or against?
06 death penalty (even though it sadly belongs to the american culture regardless of any parties)
07 kyoto - for or against (the day after tomorrow syndrome.... even though the movie is pure nonsense and crap the overall environemental message still has some sense)
08 voted against kerry?

finally, do you consider yourself regular conservatives? or do you think your reasons for your choice reflects a more complex approach?

sparth :D

Mr. Pale

November 3rd, 2004, 04:01 PM

(Sigh) Every election people claim that if there candidate isn't elected they are going to move out of the United States.....Sadly most of these people don't do it.

....Stop being so damn hysterical. So your guy didn't make it, you'll live, and your life probably won't change very much no matter who's in the office.

blankslatejoe

November 3rd, 2004, 04:01 PM

I'm fairly certain that if both the President and the Vice President die, than the presidency is passed on the the speaker of the house.

on a different note... the redskins curse prophecy has been lifted.

seb

November 3rd, 2004, 04:02 PM

instead of the war on terror, how about the war on ignorance

blankslatejoe

November 3rd, 2004, 04:09 PM

to be fair sparth, it's misleading to promote the idea that a lot of those issues are directly in the president's hands. The media, and the candidate's themselves like to toy with the idea that they are the "end all", but they really aren't in a lot of these things.

The president's domestic responsibility is fairly limited, and if 7 of those 8 issues are domestic, than you should be dang sure you voted appropriately when the Congressional elections came up. THAT'S where the domestic sway power is. Or, for some of the issues, it's LOCAL and STATE, and not the federal elections that matter at all.

To argue with myself: The president still has domestic power and responsibility; what about in his advocation of certain legislation, his veto power, his power of appointments on the courts, and his budget proposals...

To argue with the myself that is arguing with myself:
Those 'powers' are mostly checks to keep the Congress from doing anything too stupid too quickly. No real 'decision' making...

Still.... gotta be careful...

blankslatejoe

November 3rd, 2004, 04:12 PM

hope I don't sound like I'm pushing people one way or the other... there are some things that are kinda undebatable that might be mentionable though, like the above..

to argue with myself one last time: Bush is likely to appoint some key judges this time around to the courts... that could very well lead to the -eventual- 'one way or the other' on some of sparth's issues.

Jsut some stuff to consider.

benzo

November 3rd, 2004, 04:13 PM

seb- what about the war on arrogance? Isn't it kind of conceited to call somebody ignorant?

sparth

November 3rd, 2004, 04:15 PM

blank: very true. i was just refering to a lot of speeches that bush did during his campain, and in which many statements made his position very clear on certain subjects. i am just wondering how strong is the adequation between him and his supporters.

also, this article was released yesterday: arctic melt (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/02/arctic.melt.reut/index.html)

seb

November 3rd, 2004, 04:25 PM

benzo - I feel that ignorance is probably a large part of society's problems than it is acknowledged. Personally I have no qualms with other peoples opinions as well as they have good reasoning behind them them (even if they differ from my own). Dictionary.com defines ignorance as "the condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed." Education coupled with tolerance is what will hold America together and move it to a better place.

okami

November 3rd, 2004, 04:26 PM

This whole thing bothers me.. there is no point in voting if you are voting an out of state student, stationed overseas etc? Provisional and absenteee are special cases, but they're still votes. Its assumptions made based on statistics that really demotivate potential voters from thinking they could possibly make any difference. Also way to show your minority love, GOP. Ugh. The inefficiency and holes blowing through our voting system are really embarassing.. or I might just be burnt out on CNN and such.

So, on a slightly different note Hillary 2008 anyone? If we make it that far in one piece Cheney vs the Clinton collective should be pretty interesting...

blankslatejoe

November 3rd, 2004, 04:27 PM

ooh... that's interesting sparth... i wonder if that'll spawn new interest in trying to prove global warming's validity... It makes sense to me, but I heard they STILL haven't gotten purely conclusive evidence that the warming can't be attributed to the thawing of an ice age.

I also read that if WAS the danger they're worried about, then what we are seeing now are only the effects of the fumes from up to the 1940s-50s... the later stuff hasn't even HIT yet.. that could be scarey. That's probably inflated.. but I wouldn't be suprised if something similar were true.

Also, I read that the second leading emmitter of hostile fumes is China, and it's NOT due to cars, but to power plants. Their domestic automobile industry is just STARTING to grow.

Scarey stuff....

But, regardless of evidences, summits like Kyoto would be a good example of how the president can still affect domestic issues with his abroad powers... Bush's choice to back out probably reflects The republican's desire to 'push the economy forward'...
They got a point there... no matter how you look at kyoto, it's kind of obvious that limiting your industry during a recession can have some very risky economic reprucussions.

jetpack42

November 3rd, 2004, 04:34 PM

How about a war on thought?

Problem with this country is that people are convinced to becoming 1 of 2 parties, based on the fact that "IF YOU DONT VOTE FOR THIS PERTICULAR GUY EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING IS GOING TO HELL". Ever notice that EVERY election is the "MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION YOU WILL EVER EXPERIENCE OMG *craps pants*" ?? No doubt, each election is very important, but the world, or america, isn't split into "republicans" and "democrats". The country is ruled by parties whos opinions and ideals are split between the other, and bicker back and forth for power and sway.

The monkey wrench in the system is that the world isn't black and white, but the people with the money and the power bully the weak minded into thinking it is. The parties that be would have us think
(in my best caveman scraming voice)
-YOU EITHER ABORT ALL BABIES, OR NOBODY GETS ABORTIONS
-LOCK UP EVERY GUN EVERYWHERE OR EVERYONE WILL BE RUNNING AROUND WITH AK47S
-IF WE DON'T KILL PRISONERS WE'LL GO BANKRUPT AND THEY'LL BE RUNNING RAMPANT IN THE STREETS WHEN THEY GET OUT BUT IF WE DO WE'LL BE A COUNTRY OF SAVAGES

Life isn't like that though. Solutions are more complex then "for" or "against", but the 2 party bickering, political favors, and back and forth would never tell you this. Why wouldn't they include 3rd party canidates in debates? I mean, if you're position is so strong, you should be able to take any comers, right?

All the issues are like this though. And the parties have lost touch with reality. You can't draw lines down the issues, group them together, and call them solutions. Each issues requires its own though, and its own solutions, based on whats good, fair, and with the law, not who had the most money to get the most guys in congress.

Sure, 98% of americans voted for Kerry or Bush, but I'd bet that less then a fraction of a percent, if they were honest, really would want either to run the country. Their entire campaign was based off of the other guy, how awful its going to be to have the other guy in office. Those assholes hardly talked about domestic issues, or ANY issues at all.

We've become a country run by money, and futhermuckers who have too much money and too many connections to really do anything effective.

The analysts on CNN were talking about congress races being determined by who raised the most money...wtf?! What qualfies these rich bastards to determine policies, make laws, represent, and lead our country? Money doesn't make the man.

It's great that 60% of the country that could vote cared and did. But its a real fucking shame they're too feebleminded and take what they're given.

sparth

November 3rd, 2004, 04:42 PM

Jetpack2008 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <3

blankslatejoe

November 3rd, 2004, 04:42 PM

So, on a slightly different note Hillary 2008 anyone? If we make it that far in one piece Cheney vs the Clinton collective should be pretty interesting...

That WOULD be interesting... I dunno if he'd make the best president, but cheny is undoubtably the most knowledgable of the four this time around... Hillary on the other hand... that might be something...I'll let you know in 4 years.

On aNOTHER weird note.. what if they get that legislation through that ammends to who can and cannot run... and we end up seeing ARNOLD versus Hillary. It's not likely... but That would be amazingly cartoonishly weird....

Jet - futhermucker is the greatest word ever. two sides is how this country likes to divide things; On a spectrum. Of course there are other options, but I think we end up seeing the polarized middle within the two parties... the bookends of the majority. I dunno... it IS preverse though, in ways.

okami

November 3rd, 2004, 05:03 PM

On aNOTHER weird note.. what if they get that legislation through that ammends to who can and cannot run... and we end up seeing ARNOLD versus Hillary. It's not likely... but That would be amazingly cartoonishly weird....

That would be pretty interesting. I come from the land of Jesse, so I can say from experience that anything is possible :) One thing that is interesting about politician who are not lifers is their approach to issues that would normally send a cookie cutter politician into a vat of hot water with their party. I do like that he is taking the more tasteful route by not jumping on the bandwagon of this amendment idea just so it will bear his name.. its a small thing but it's a start I guess.

Isn't it grand living in a country where the voice of the people is truly heard? It's kinda funny that the democratic ideals on such a large scale could only bring about the stratification of the people like we see today... ugh.

I_am

November 3rd, 2004, 06:57 PM

Jetpack- you ever decide to run for president for real, I'll vote for you. That last post of yours was just about the most cohesive and thoughtful assessment of our current situation I've heard. Unless I missed something, I actually agreed with every point you made.

steak-tron

November 4th, 2004, 01:59 AM

JP4208! :teeth:

He'll run on the massive black cock ticket. :wink:

Lono

November 4th, 2004, 02:36 AM

i was listening to NPR and according to a popular report,, the overwhelmingly substantial majority of bush voters voted for him because of his "moral values".. thats secret code for "religious reservations".. no gay marrage,, no abortion,, etc, etc.. the other 99.9 percent of his responsabilities to this country are not of great interest to this demographic.. people have faith in a man who has faith in god.. most americans wouldnt know the difference between a muslim and a mogwai..
so many americans leave there lives in the hands of faith.. and thats fine.. its a personal lifestyle choice that i can respect.. but to impose that on your government is fucking arrogant and flat out ignorant...

this is not an attack on "republicans".. its more of a "Shame on you" towards whomever voted in this manner..

-Lono

blankslatejoe

November 4th, 2004, 07:02 AM

yeah i heard that too.... I was a bit suprised by that one... Morals are 'ok' but legislating morality is making the 'seperation of church and state' line mighty fuzzzy.....

buffaloe

November 4th, 2004, 08:40 AM

Yeah, I agree Lono...... That is absolutely insane. Your beliefs are one thing, but when you have the power to impose them upon others it becomes very dangerous.

Oh, and did you see this: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/faith/

These guys actually said that Kerry was going to ban the Bible if he was elected!! Apology nothing, these people should be arrested. :nohope:

Scubasteve

November 4th, 2004, 09:08 AM

Hey Lono, the very act of being able to vote is being able to vote for people that share your ethical, moral and politcal views. And apparently most Americans don't share yours. If you don't like it, too bad.

Nimrod

November 4th, 2004, 09:40 AM

That was... chilling, Scubasteve.

In the words of Jimmy Swaggart: OH GOD IM A SINNER! I DESERVE TO GO TO HELL!

okami

November 4th, 2004, 09:42 AM

The funny thing is that our country was founded along guidelines which would remove the persecution of a religious minority by the religious majority. Morals and ethics tend to take a backseat to what denomination you are, and that is just flat out wrong for our government to think it can fairly cater it's legislation to. I have no problem with having deeply spiritual leaders. The problem lies within the methods used to try to eliminate the unseemly conflicts that come up when beliefs collide. Less legislation is the best on this front because it does not alienate and unfairly persecute the people.

It's damn scary to realize what most of the country believes sometimes. Just because I do not share these beliefs does not mean I am incapable of being a morally sound person. And if that makes me in the minority that does not mean that it is ok for legislation to act as if my rights do not exsist.

buffaloe

November 4th, 2004, 09:51 AM

you know, it's really scary to see how many Americans have been adopting this "if you don't like it, too bad...... tough...... leave" sort of attitude.... It's that kind of mentality that's dividing this country right now.

Try to remember that almost half of the country doesn't share your views, scubasteve, so try to be at the very least, tolerant.

Scubasteve

November 4th, 2004, 10:00 AM

I don't think people should be persecuted for their beliefs. You should be able to practice any religion you want. But you have to have a standard of right and wrong. For example, its wrong to murder someone. I think we could all agree on this (hopefully) but that is established because everyone came together and made the laws of the land in a majority rules situation. You can have separation of church and state, but not morality and state. Of course it gets more grey in certain areas like gay marrige and abortion, but the same priciples should apply. Majority rules. If I find myself on the other side, in the minority, its up to me to lobby or try and change the mind of others, but I cannot force them to do as I believe. In fact, I think abortion is wrong, period. So I am in the minority, have been for years. I can live with that, but thats not to say that I wont do what I can (vote, lobby, whatever) to make my voice heard. Of course, I think people who blow up medical centers where these things go on are wrong, you have to stay in the parameters of the law.

Lono

November 4th, 2004, 10:01 AM

hey yo scubi.. you missed my point.....

ill spell it out for you...

all you have to do is pretend to have morals, and the G.O.D. and the cattle like millions will let you do whatever you want in the office.

you think THATS cool?

ive been reading these threads. i know you love to bicker with people and take everything personally... im not interested in this.

have a good day!

-Lono

grey

November 4th, 2004, 10:16 AM

well I thought I'd share this, cover of the Daily Mirror UK, and these are our staunchest allies :dur:
http://www.greystudio.com/junk/dailymirrorUK.jpg

helix7

November 4th, 2004, 10:20 AM

Hillary in 2008!!!

:confident

okami

November 4th, 2004, 11:03 AM

Since you bring them up:
Denying a group the rights to a basic marriage does not eliminate the relationship. What it does is locks people in a state of limbo where the religious right can, irregardless of the strength or nature of the relationship, deny them rights to parentage and without hesitation use them as a model for some sort of hedonistic attack on the american family. If the legislation Bush wants so badly passes it would be CRIMINAL to try to have a family and display loyalty and commitment lawfully. This is a poorly disguised witch hunt in which the rights of this segment of the population are being denied and where civil rights are being stripped before they are even realized. If you can tell me a good non religion motivated reason that Homosexual marriage is a detriment to society I will eat my mousepad.

I do not generally support abortions but I understand that every case is different. It is also a broad term which applies to some forms of miscarriage. My major issue with this topic is the lack of balance struck to strengthen the social welfare programs. Unfortunatly most abortions are in some ways a form of last minute birth control. Being pregnant will not be prevented by outlawing them, but there is no legitimate effort tied into making sure these women and children even have a shot. But once again, it doesn't matter what the end result is if the initial evil goes away. And, once again, if you can tell me how shutting down Planned Parenthood will improve the quality of life for low-income americans and not quantify the poverty problems in this country I will go buy another mousepad and eat that one too.

There has been an ackward standard in this country of assuming that the minority voice is even heard. Might does not equal right, and it is sickening that we have a government movement taking place that is trying to make sure that civil liberties of minority groups does not conflict with the religious interests of the majority. That is a direct disrespect to what our government is based upon, and no amount of drivel on protecting family values makes that ok...

grey

November 4th, 2004, 11:37 AM

and demonizing the marriage aspect of gay relationships is a special little bit of hypocrisy -- married couples are the ones trying to buy property, get insurance, settle down into a sedentary consumerist lifestyle, pay taxes and possibly even create a stable environment for raising kids -- sounds EXACTLY like what the social conservatives are saying this country desperately needs.

oh but wait - they have the same genitals. Bad.

abortion, that's trickier and I can't speak for other people, but it's my belief that no matter how much you value the potential life of an unborn baby or fetus or embryo or batch of undifferentiated cells, it does not give you the right to overrule the needs of an ESTABLISHED life. The woman has final say in how her body is used, anything else amounts to biological slavery.
Yes it would be a better world if everyone had the education and access to prevention to keep them from ever having to face the prospect of abortion, but until that day comes they should have the right.

anyway, those are my opinions and can be disregarded as such. peace.

Scubasteve

November 4th, 2004, 11:45 AM

Lono, I didn't take it personally. I wasn't attacking you personally. But when you say most people wouldn't know what it is to be a Muslim or whatever, I think you're wrong. I believe the majority of people, not by a huge margin, but still the majority, believe in what the president have done. Whether you believe this or not, the popular vote speaks for itself.

Okami - Stoping gays from getting marriage isn't intended to keep gays apart. It is a defense of marriage. Marriage is more then an arrangment between two people. Once you start redefining it, where does it stop. If someone says I have the right to marry this 12 year old girl, we are in love, would you still have the right to stop them? Or whos to say people can't marry 5 women, or a sheep or dog? This may sound far fetched, but it is nessecary for there to be a standard for this reason.

Oh and Grey, there are differnces between men and women other then there genitals. If you don't believe me, get married and buy a TV and take your new wife to Blockbuster and tell her you will let her pick out the movies for the next 20 years of your marriage... Oh I have some names of attonerys you may want to get a hold of in a few years.....

As far as gay people having some kind of union where they have rights like a married couple, I agree with that. With the exception of adopting children (I know I'm gonna hear it now) that is. The reason being, I believe children need a mother and a father. Both play different rolls, which I think are equally nessesary...

And as far as abortion goes, I think its wrong, in any case. I know that people use the argument, what about incest and rape? But how many abortions are from these cases? .09 percent or less. Most of the time its a matter of convience. Even so, I still feel that the life of the baby supercedes the rights of the woman in even these rare instantces. Thats not to say she needs to raise the baby, there are tons of adoption options, and lots of people that want children. Anyway....Blast away..

Scubasteve

November 4th, 2004, 12:20 PM

I would also like to say I'm a conservative republican christian. I have my views on whats right and wrong, influenced by the Bible, my parents, and also on my own experiences as a person livining in America. Having said that, I have never tired to push my ophinons on anyone. Nor do I expect them to do so to me. That doesn't make me a biggot, gay hater or anything else. Do I beleive homosexuality is wrong. Yes I do. Do I hate gays. No I don't. Does God? No. He loves everyone. "Christians" who say he does are wrong. People who say people "shouldn't mix" are wrong. Black and white are not different races. These are typical misconceptions people have of Christians, I just wanted to clear them up.

grey

November 4th, 2004, 12:25 PM

we'll I'm not gonna blast you, but let me counterpoint a couple things you said

It is a defense of marriage. Marriage is more then an arrangment between two people. Once you start redefining it, where does it stop. If someone says I have the right to marry this 12 year old girl, we are in love, would you still have the right to stop them? Or whos to say people can't marry 5 women, or a sheep or dog?

that's the weakest thing you've said I think -- for some reason conservative arguments always play to extremes: allowing a gay couple to get married will cause people to start marrying dogs. Come on. That argument's designed to upset some little old lady with 20-25% of her cognitive skills in place and get her to write a letter to her congressman. It's just nonsense.

With the exception of adopting children (I know I'm gonna hear it now) that is. The reason being, I believe children need a mother and a father. Both play different rolls, which I think are equally nessesary...

fair enough, but you must not know many gay couples if you don't realize there WILL be a mother and father. Those roles establish themselves in same sex couples just like with the rest of us normal well adjusted folks :)

And as far as abortion goes, I think its wrong, in any case. I know that people use the argument, what about incest and rape? But how many abortions are from these cases? .09 percent or less. Most of the time its a matter of convience. Even so, I still feel that the life of the baby supercedes the rights of the woman in even these rare instantces. Thats not to say she needs to raise the baby, there are tons of adoption options, and lots of people that want children. Anyway....Blast away..

I'm doubting your level of familiarity with this subject when you say it's a matter of convenience, or .09 percent or less is from incest/rape. And I'm REALLY doubting your familiarity with adoption alternatives. We're not (usually) talking about blond-haired blue-eyed healthy corn-fed babies; the neighborhoods that suffer from poor education, underfunded planning programs, and inaccessible health care are the ones who will produce the most unwanted babies. You don't really think couples are lining up to adopt crack addicted, hiv exposed, product of alcoholic mothers, MINORITY children do you? Even if abortion were illegal in ALL cases, you can be damn sure if one of the Bush kids gets knocked up and she's not ready, the problem will quietly disappear. The disenfranchised won't have that option, and they're also the people least equipped to handle an unwanted child.
Pretending that women who are forced to carry to term will then be able to hand it over to a loving family is just naiive, an easy way to put your conscience at rest.

ok, so maybe I did blast away . . .

okami

November 4th, 2004, 12:31 PM

Why designate marriage by gender? "A civil union between two consenting adults " would do so much to help and there is the same room debate on polygamy and such as there is with the man-woman definition. In the eyes of the government why does there need to be a further definition beyond that? It's the hangup on gender that denies people who otherwise live as happily married families care coverage, tax benefits and all those other pieces of family security that the majority takes for granted. In regards to the parenting issue I am a single mother and understand your viewpoint more than you could know. Love and ability to nurture defines a parent, not what bathroom they use. If the wellbeing of children were the government's intent then they should see how this impacts the number of families that could take care of children without legal restraints, and love being at the core of family values instead of just meeting the status quo.

Scubasteve

November 4th, 2004, 12:36 PM

Well grey I used an extreme example because I think over time things will lead in that direction. How about the non-extreme examples? It used to be common for 12 and 13 year olds to get married, know why? No standards.

Well in the rare cases I mentioned, I agree, the decision is tougher. But if you believe that a fetus (which means unborn baby) has all the rights of a born baby, then they arent allowed to be killed, in any circumstance.

And again, you are making assumptions about Bush and his children that you can't say for sure. Remeber I don't believe he is a liar and doesn't have principles.

Polygamy is illeagal in most states I believe..

grey

November 4th, 2004, 12:54 PM

hmm, I'm not sure you got the gist of what I was saying. Bush and his kids were used as an example of how the privileged/wealthy/enfranchised will still have access to abortion if they decide they really, really need it. But I'm sure his lovely daughters would never embarass their daddy by gettin' knocked up.

you really believe a gay marriage will lead to a dog marriage? Ok.

Talking about 12 yr olds isn't relevant; the laws against marrying (or making the beast-with-two-backs with) minors exist because at that age they aren't considered sexually mature enough to give informed consent. No relation to gay couples, at least as far as this discussion goes. Polygamy doesn't apply either. I wouldn't approve of a gay person having 5 spouses anymore than I'd approve of them having 5 dogs . . . or I guess I mean marrying 5 dogs . . .

these examples are unrelated to the issue, and to be honest, they're just a little silly

Scubasteve

November 4th, 2004, 01:08 PM

The point is the definiton of marraige. Right now we have laws that define it, you start to change those or bend them, and you open up peoples right to defend their inturpretations of marriage. Like this...

Lets say this... You have an extreme, but not ridiculous case...

A 55 year old man wants to marry a 15 year old. Sick and twisted this may be, but if they both say we love each other your only defense is to say she isn't capable of making that decision, right. What is she is a child prodigy. She has already made millions of dollars, supports herself and has finish college. She uses this to make her case and says that she has already accomplished more then most adults. They rule in her favor. Another case comes up a week later, and they point to this case as their defense.

My point is, once you start to grey the lines between acceptable and notaccpetable, you hand over the right for people to redefine what is right and wrong.

buffaloe

November 4th, 2004, 01:16 PM

I agree that you have to have a standard of right and wrong, but who said that standard has to come from the bible? And who says it has to come from your interpretation? Murder is an easy one.... of course that's wrong, it affects someone else's right to live.... who exactly do gay people affect? What rights are they taking away from you?

seb

November 4th, 2004, 01:20 PM

"the right for me to swing my arm ends where your nose begins"

LaPalida

November 4th, 2004, 01:24 PM

My point is, once you start to grey the lines between acceptable and notaccpetable, you hand over the right for people to redefine what is right and wrong.

Well that's just it. Not everyone agrees about what's wrong and what's right. Killing a cow in US for food is acceptable but in India it's a crime equivalent to killing your grandmother and eating her.

Evolve yourself, your views and your values, or be a traditionalist and become extinct.

Scubasteve

November 4th, 2004, 01:26 PM

Well, the standards don't have to come from the Bible. But they should come from the majority, by vote. Everyone has the right and responsibility to vote what they think is right and wrong.

And I never said you shouldn't have the right to be gay. I don't think people wake up and decide, I think I'll start being gay. I don't believe its natural and right, though. Again this is my ophinon. I don't think people are born gay. I believe gay people are that way because of the enviornment which they have grown up in. Not all, but most gays were abused when they were young. Again I say NOT ALL! Alot of cases are also where they were largely ignored by there parents. I'm not saying I have all the answers to why people are the way they are, but I don't believe God made them that way.

And I'm not singling gays out either. We are all somewhat products of are enviornment. I don't believe anyone is all-together normal. Thats the reason no one has the right to judge anyone.

Were not talking about India. They can have there own rules. Thats why voting is so important...The majority rules....

grey

November 4th, 2004, 01:27 PM

I don't think you're keeping up with me here scuba, you can't condemn an idea based on unconnected fears. A gay marriage will not so corrode the fabric of society that suddenly everyone will be marrying their pets. A court deciding a remarkable 15 year old is a competent adult will not lead to polygamy and pillars of salt.

Usually when someone has to invent extreme consequences to oppose an idea, it's to hide the fact that they don't have any relevant or defensible objections. They just don't like it.

And that's your right, but you don't have the right to decide for others.

buffaloe

November 4th, 2004, 01:29 PM

so, scubasteve, you're fine with gay people as long as they don't get the same rights as you?

Scubasteve

November 4th, 2004, 01:32 PM

grey, I understand what your saying. You say that a gay marriage wont erode the definition of marriage, but there are at least 11 states that disagree with you. And thats the only ones that voted on it. Most people believe it will, at least in these states. But, again, I do think they should be able to have civil unions. Just not marriage.

Scubasteve

November 4th, 2004, 01:33 PM

Nice try, I can't marry a man either (not that I would want too). They should have the same exact rights as me, no more, no less.

seb

November 4th, 2004, 01:47 PM

do you believe that could at least have similar rights in the eyes of the government as do married couples? civil unions that is.

Lono

November 4th, 2004, 01:48 PM

scuby: thats stupid.. black people have special rights.. women have special rights.. so should gays.. not everyone is like you.

its fine if you think being gay wrong.. thats your right.. i think the application your religion is wrong but im really glad you have the freedom and support to practice it in this country..

-Lono

jetpack42

November 4th, 2004, 01:50 PM

Well that's just it. Not everyone agrees about what's wrong and what's right. Killing a cow in US for food is acceptable but in India it's a crime equivalent to killing your grandmother and eating her.

Evolve yourself, your views and your values, or be a traditionalist and become extinct.

wtf do those 2 statements have to do with each other?

buffaloe

November 4th, 2004, 01:52 PM

he's saying different people, different beliefs....... you shouldnt force anyone else to conform to yours.

LaPalida

November 4th, 2004, 01:59 PM

I don't think people are born gay. I believe gay people are that way because of the enviornment which they have grown up in.

Ever hear of hormonal imbalance? So no it's not always a choice.

Scubasteve

November 4th, 2004, 02:00 PM

Seb- yeah I said that a few times, Gay people should be able to have civil unions.

Lono- uhhhhh...Not sure if your joking or not with this statment..But I will comment on it.

"scuby: thats stupid.. black people have special rights.. women have special rights.. so should gays.. not everyone is like you."

But, I don't think anyone should have special rights. Minoritys should have the same advantages as everyone else, but not special rights. I appreciate your agreement that we should have the right to disagree.

Scubasteve

November 4th, 2004, 02:01 PM

Your taking only part of what I said. I also said I don't believe its a choice. Read it again...

buffaloe

November 4th, 2004, 02:04 PM

Scubasteve

November 4th, 2004, 02:14 PM

How am I punishing them? I think they ahould be able to have civil unions. They can be gay, have sex and do all the things that gay people do. These things don't really effect other people. When you introduce children into the picture, which is what marriage is all about, it starts to effect other people. What about the rights of the children. Don't they have the right to grow up with a mother and father. Were getting back to morality again and the definition of marrage...

Who is to say if that is the way it should be?

America is. And they have for the most part. Thats bascally all I'm trying to say.

bRyaN

November 4th, 2004, 02:16 PM

why does everyone think gay is a new concept...it's been around longer then christianity..or any current religion...

LaPalida

November 4th, 2004, 02:17 PM

I'm not saying I have all the answers to why people are the way they are, but I don't believe God made them that way.

But if they're born that way that means "God made them".

buffaloe

November 4th, 2004, 02:23 PM

you ask how you are punishing them? You don't view them as equal to the rest of society so you want to punish that sinful behavior by denying them the benefits of a married couple, that's how. And as far as children are concerned, have you been living on the same planet as I have?? There are soooo many couples out there who arent fit to raise a cactus, let alone a child, yet no one challenges them. Oh, it's a man and a woman, it must be a healthy relationship. riiiiiiiiight..............

okami

November 4th, 2004, 02:25 PM

In your case the moral reservations could be held soley on the side of the minor' s parents. For this relationship to occur the parents would have to have granted consent at the get go. She may have filed for emancipation so she is not restricted as a minor. If the courts deem her worthy of making solid judgement, she's an adult. She chooses to marry the 55 yr old. You think it's gross, but the courts would have already needed to establish her ability to make a decision on her own or her parents could be challenged in their consent over willful exploitation of a minor. There are already laws preventing the chaos you think will happen and they are on a much more "protect the innocent" level. Making the laws themselves biased will only breed defiance, btw... like she might decide to move to Iceland and become the second female president before Hill-zilla takes her place and this argument would be null and void.

Either way we need to shake this pattern of Victorian era judgement calls on people's civil and human rights. This whole topic sets a nasty precedent for segregation and persecution that does not belong in this country any more. I could go on for days about race issues in this country and how we as country are on maybe the 3rd or fourth step of a mile long path of how much we owe the black and native american populace of this country for the rape and dismemberment of their cultures, but I wont. I can summarize that our goverment really needs to think very hard about writing any more laws that legislate the inferiority of any of it's people. That is what this whole mess of marriage rights is boiling down to- do gays deserve to get married? There more than likely won't be an amendment saying they can't be married but they can have full government benefits as if they were married. Limitations on basic american freedoms of liberty and pursuit of a safe, loving happiness- -sounds like second class citizenship to me.

Scubasteve

November 4th, 2004, 02:27 PM

Again LaPalida...I said I don't think they are born that way. I don't think its a choice they have made either. I don't think they are in control of it. No one decides to be gay. You can however chose to practice homosexuality. I have heard of people that were and may even still have homosexual tendancies, who don't practice it, because they believe its immoral. Take from that what you will.

seb

November 4th, 2004, 02:29 PM

When you introduce children into the picture, which is what marriage is all about, it starts to effect other people. What about the rights of the children. Don't they have the right to grow up with a mother and father.

haha you know that gay people can't make babies.

seriously though, the big reason to get married is to have a tax advantage. there is a growing world-wide trend of having children, living together, yet not getting married.

jetpack42

November 4th, 2004, 02:29 PM

well then if you don't believe it's a choice, you're punishing someone for something they have no control over... you might as well be denying someone rights because of their gender or race..... other things that we have no choice in.

see, this is where it gets fuzzy. Our "rights" (as in, garunteed by law), are defined in the "Bill of Rights".

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxv.html

It is illegal to deny somebody rights because of thier race. It is not illegal to deny somebody benefits based on thier sexual preference. Either way, the choice here comes down to personal preferences or opinions.

But don't be mistaken, gay people have the same "rights" as anyone else.

grey

November 4th, 2004, 02:32 PM

But if they're born that way that means "God made them".

. . . heh

grey

November 4th, 2004, 02:35 PM

Either way we need to shake this pattern of Victorian era judgement calls on people's civil and human rights. This whole topic sets a nasty precedent for segregation and persecution that does not belong in this country any more.

okami I respect what you're saying, but I think the reality is the country's trying really hard to become a place where that stuff does belong, and that's why 49% of us are so freaked out

buffaloe

November 4th, 2004, 02:36 PM

It is illegal to deny somebody rights because of thier race. It is not illegal to deny somebody benefits based on thier sexual preference. Either way, the choice here comes down to personal preferences or opinions.

Oh, I understand that jetpack, I was just saying that if you believe that being a homosexual is not a choice, then you're punishing them for something they were born with and had no control over, which is pretty scary to me.

oh, and grey...... exactly...... very freaked out indeed.....

LaPalida

November 4th, 2004, 02:36 PM

Ok let's take it from the top then. What exactly is immoral about being gay? I just want to know where you stand, your reasons why you would consider it to be so bad. Besides saying it's "icky" and "God said so" is there any other concrete argument out there as to why it's immoral to be gay?

blankslatejoe

November 4th, 2004, 02:39 PM

Some random thoughts:
We gots to be a bit careful though with our arguments... if you call the arguments behind abortion a redefinition of the word 'life' in a liberal favor, then don't forget that the argument behind the gay marraige legislation a 'redefinition' of the word 'marraige' in a conservative favor. ..seems like this could easily fall into the trap of selective logic, from either way.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why republicans are on such crusades... the -traditional- republican wants the government OUT of their lives.. not IN. It's the democrats that want the government IN your life.... when the heck did everyone start crossing party lines?

"Bryan: why does everyone think gay is a new concept...it's been around longer then christianity..or any current religion..."

---- I -think- taoism might precede it...but if so, only by a few hundred years. That's assuming the first instances of homosexuality were in greek culture.. might not be. Regardless, good point.

grey

November 4th, 2004, 02:43 PM

For the life of me, I can't figure out why republicans are on such crusades... the -traditional- republican wants the government OUT of their lives.. not IN. It's the democrats that want the government IN your life.... when the heck did everyone start crossing party lines?

I was wondering if someone was going to bring that up (I woulda, but figured I've done more than my share of ranting here); the Republican position is no big government, but damn if they aren't ready to rush the government into your bedroom/home/marriage.

Some folks might go for that, but it seems kinda intrusive to me.

LaPalida

November 4th, 2004, 02:44 PM

Not all, but most gays were abused when they were young. Again I say NOT ALL! Alot of cases are also where they were largely ignored by there parents.

Hmmm care to elaborate where you got those statistics. You say "most" and "alot of cases". I just want to know where you got that from.

LaPalida

November 4th, 2004, 02:45 PM

That's assuming the first instances of homosexuality were in greek culture.. might not be. Regardless, good point.

Homosexuality is found in animals too.

blankslatejoe

November 4th, 2004, 02:47 PM

I was just saying that if you believe that being a homosexual is not a choice, then you're punishing them for something they were born with and had no control over, .

I'm with buff on this. I don't think it's an active choice...

BUT you COULD argue that it's 'unnatural'... but then again, so is monogamy. I'm not trying to start a whole new argument, but I've read that, by nature, the human species is not believed to be single-mate selective. I think we're believed to be closer to the primate social structure of 'Alpha male gets a harem' (no offense, ladies..), and everyone else gets no love.

But again, talking about all these issues interelatedly is probably counterproductive.

Scubasteve

November 4th, 2004, 02:47 PM

Sure I see them as equal. I said they should have the rights of a married couple, with the one exception, because then, you have the childrens right to consider. You're exactly right, there are alot of unfit parents. Just making sure a man and woman are involved won't ensure a perfect family either. Sure they are challenged, they are put through alot of things to ensure they are fit to be parents. Ask anyone who has adopted a child.

"you ask how you are punishing them? You don't view them as equal to the rest of society so you want to punish that sinful behavior by denying them the benefits of a married couple, that's how. And as far as children are concerned, have you been living on the same planet as I have?? There are soooo many couples out there who arent fit to raise a cactus, let alone a child, yet no one challenges them. Oh, it's a man and a woman, it must be a healithy relationship. riiiiiiiiight.............."

blankslatejoe

November 4th, 2004, 02:48 PM

Homosexuality is found in animals too.

i just learned something new today.

Also, scuba, adopting a child in this country is reputably VERY hard to do... I personally feel that some heavy attention needs to be paid to the adoption programs, ESPECIALLY if they ever overturn roe v wade.

On a weird note; I heard that Roe was coerced into the legal battle and never wanted an abortion at all.. She ended up spending the rest of her life trying to overturn her own court case. is that true?

LaPalida

November 4th, 2004, 02:49 PM

No one decides to be gay. You can however chose to practice homosexuality

You mean like guys that say they aren't gay but they like to drill other guys in the ass?

the_blur

November 4th, 2004, 02:49 PM

You've proven time and time again your cockroach-esque abiltiy to resist logic, so the debate on my side ends here.

Weak. Ad-hominem attack. You need a course in remedial critical thinking and research.

FYI:

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

grey

November 4th, 2004, 02:51 PM

Homosexuality is found in animals too.

but marriage isn't . . . now we're gettin' somewhere . . .

so therefore if animals can be homosexual, and animals are by their nature without sin, homosexuality is not a sin?

and marriage, since it's an invention of man, and man is born into original sin (assuming he gets past the whole abortion obstacle), then the problem just might be that marriage is evil . . . ?

jetpack42

November 4th, 2004, 02:52 PM

uh oh, here comes the canadians questioning my ability to reason! I'm scared!

buffaloe

November 4th, 2004, 02:53 PM

Sure they are challenged, they are put through alot of things to ensure they are fit to be parents

for adoptions you're absolutely correct...... but any couple can give birth to a child (and even more will if abortion becomes illegal) and for those couples there are no tests, no one has to check to be sure they're gonna be good parents..... how is that better than being with gay parents who are just as capable of loving each other and providing a good environment for a child?

jetpack42

November 4th, 2004, 02:55 PM

wasn't this thread about voting?

LaPalida

November 4th, 2004, 02:57 PM

i just learned something new today.

hehehe http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/h/ho/homosexuality_in_animals.html

http://www.dailycardinal.com/news/2004/02/12/News/Animal.Homosexuality.Adds.To.Gay.Rights.Debate-605235.shtml

In tense situations, bonobos have sex with both males and females instead of fighting, and to avoid harming the community, Snowdon said. LOL You see homosexuality is actually beneficial to the community!

blankslatejoe

November 4th, 2004, 02:58 PM

sighh... i dont think so. it was only about Joshuathejames voting. not any of us.

grey

November 4th, 2004, 03:01 PM

http://www.dailycardinal.com/news/2004/02/12/News/Animal.Homosexuality.Adds.To.Gay.Rights.Debate-605235.shtml

LOL You see homosexuality is actually beneficial to the community!

well geesh with a name like bonobos whaddya expect

jetpack42

November 4th, 2004, 03:01 PM

Homosexuality is found in animals too.

so is running around naked, eating your neighbor, killing for territory, and flinging your feces. are you advocating all of those as well?

the_blur

November 4th, 2004, 03:06 PM

The point is the definiton of marraige. Right now we have laws that define it, you start to change those or bend them, and you open up peoples right to defend their inturpretations of marriage. Like this...

I think the definition of marriage should be:

mar·riage Audio pronunciation of "marriage" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.
1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

Should the 2 consenting adults decide to divorce, then ALL of their common goods and property should be confiscated by the state (in order to protect the sanctity of marriage)

Protecting marriage with the right to divorce and not lose everything is hypocrisy. Death really should be the ONLY way out of arriage, but I guess that's too hardcore for most.

LaPalida

November 4th, 2004, 03:08 PM

so is running around naked, eating your neighbor, killing for territory, and fligning your feces. are you advocating all of those as well?

Hey Jetpack ever hear of a joke. You know something that makes you laugh? And what the hell is wrong with running around naked. I fully advocate that! Killing for territory ... never heard that one before hmmmmm oh yeah British and French slaughtering locals ... no no that was um err hrm we're trying to educate ppl yeah! In the name of education!

the_blur

November 4th, 2004, 03:08 PM

... Don't they have the right to grow up with a mother and father. Were getting back to morality again and the definition of marrage...

So should adults that choose to divorce lose their kids? (I think so)

Let's gather up the kids of all those ppl and give them to the ARMY! and change their names to serial numbers. Marriage MUST be protected!

Oh yeah I forgot about the "Until DEATH do us part" bit guess we can't have those fkn adulterous heathens running around. I say we catch 'em all and stone 'em. How about it?! Who's with me?!

jetpack42

November 4th, 2004, 03:13 PM

Hey Jetpack ever hear of a joke. You know something that makes you laugh? And what the hell is wrong with running around naked. I fully advocate that! Killing for territory ... never heard that one before hmmmmm oh yeah British and French slaughtering locals ... no no that was um err hrm we're trying to educate ppl yeah! In the name of education!

you make a blanket statement amidst a serious conversation and then want to claim its a joke? bullshit radar going wild.

okami

November 4th, 2004, 03:13 PM

then the problem just might be that marriage is evil . . . ?

Anyone watch the West Wing last night? Man I love that show. If we were to ban marriage then we WOULD have all sorts of spare time to raise all those neglected babies we could adopt and work on our victory gardens we'll need to be planting before this regieme is through in the middle east.

This has turned into a black hole of political chaos. I am starting a support group for all of those affected by the outcome of the elections called Puppy Eaters for Jesus. Running around naked, eating your neighbor, killing for territory, and fligning your feces are actually all requirements for membership, and hopefully we will be able to secure funding via right-wing christian fundamentalists. Everyone wins! :happypatriot:

LaPalida

November 4th, 2004, 03:17 PM

you make a blanket statement amidst a serious conversation and then want to claim its a joke? bullshit radar going wild.

Funny (no puns here) grey got it. Then there was that tell tale "LOL" tacticaly placed in front of my statement. My conclusion JetPack = no sense of humour.

the_blur

November 4th, 2004, 03:19 PM

Funny (no puns here) grey got it. Then there was that tell tale "LOL" tacticaly placed in front of my statement. My conclusion JetPack = no sense of humour.

How deft your machinations! How deep and insidious your chicanery my dear!
Please, carry on!

jetpack42

November 4th, 2004, 03:20 PM

maybe you could point out the LOL to me

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showpost.php?p=340823&postcount=171

grey

November 4th, 2004, 03:23 PM

Running around naked, eating your neighbor, killing for territory, and fligning your feces are actually all requirements for membership
I've got 3 out of 4, am I in? ( . . . and no I won't say which 3)

the_blur

November 4th, 2004, 03:25 PM

maybe you could point out the LOL to me
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showpost.php?p=340823&postcount=171

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showpost.php?p=340839&postcount=181

http://www.20mm.net/images/hop.jpg

jetpack42

November 4th, 2004, 03:27 PM

you both are quoting a different post then that which I originally and continue to mention. Obviously I'm not the one with the reasoning problem....

oh, and where's your artwork, the_blur?

the_blur

November 4th, 2004, 03:29 PM

you both are quoting a different post then that which I originally and continue to mention. Obviously I'm not the one with the reasoning problem....

oh, and where's your artwork, the_blur?

www.20mm.net/images.html

http://www.20mm.net/images/suv_poster1.jpg

I have plenty scanned, I'll post later (when I get home) lol.

Thanks for the opening, I'm still chuckling about that one hehehe.

Anyway, off to work for me...

Here's some more (photography)

http://www.20mm.net/images/bball1.jpg

http://www.20mm.net/images/bball2.jpg

LaPalida

November 4th, 2004, 03:45 PM

That's true it is a different post. But nonetheless it was posted in humour. After all I did make a joke of it before you answered, I assumed that you read my second post since you posted 5 mins after.

Here is how I know that others found it funny:

but marriage isn't . . . now we're gettin' somewhere . . .

so therefore if animals can be homosexual, and animals are by their nature without sin, homosexuality is not a sin?

and marriage, since it's an invention of man, and man is born into original sin (assuming he gets past the whole abortion obstacle), then the problem just might be that marriage is evil . . . ?

well geesh with a name like bonobos whaddya expect

while you ... didn't.

Also care to elaborate how "homosexuality is found in animals too" is a blanket statement??

LaPalida

November 4th, 2004, 03:46 PM

oh, and where's your artwork, the_blur?

What's that got to do with the discussion at hand?

Nimrod

November 4th, 2004, 03:48 PM

Not only do plenty of animals engage in homosexual behavior, there's even homosexual necrophilia. (http://www.nmr.nl/deins815.htm)

blankslatejoe: About crossing party lines... I think a big part of that confusion is the miscommunication about the definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative' in America today.

On the political compass (www.politicalcompass.org - fun and enlightening), the vast majority of all american politics occurs to the right of the center, and above the line. The parties are always mutating over the course of the years (we didnt always have republican and democrat exclusively, you know). Currently, in the truest (in my opinion) definitions of political left and right, American Democrats are politically conservative, and American Republicans are politically fascist.

Please do not consider this some kind of attack, or a bad thing either; fascism of course has very charged negative values in today's society. That doesn't make it an illegitimate system of government. I just think a lot of people don't really realize this. Call a spade a spade. I mean, the Bush administration has created more Big Government legislation than not, which is traditionally a Democratic characteristic.

jetpack42

November 4th, 2004, 03:53 PM

its a generalization you threw out without any specific instances mentioned (until later post).

to be literal, nothing, but i was curious, since he isn't part of the community of artists who posts artworks around. all I found before I asked was a weblink that didnt work in his profile and one art post with no image.

LaPalida

November 4th, 2004, 03:59 PM

its a generalization you threw out without any specific instances mentioned (until later post).

Well that's not what a blanket statement is. It's a statement without references yes, but not a generalization or a blanket statement. (ie. "All Americans are toothless hicks", likewise "all animals have homosexual tendencies")

LaPalida

November 4th, 2004, 04:04 PM

to be literal, nothing, but i was curious, since he isn't part of the community of artists who posts artworks around. all I found before I asked was a weblink that didnt work in his profile and one art post with no image.

Seems to me that you are trying to discredit people by implying that they have no business posting on an art forum if they aren't "artistic". What if neither of us drew? Does that make our points any less valid? Your questions kinda just pop in in the middle of an unrelated discussion all the time. As if people have to prove their existence on these forums by drawing or what not.

grey

November 4th, 2004, 04:06 PM

Not only do plenty of animals engage in homosexual behavior, there's even homosexual necrophilia. (http://www.nmr.nl/deins815.htm)
a quote from that article:
The first case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard Anas platyrhynchos (Aves: Anatidae) (page 243-247)

On 5 June 1995 an adult male mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) collided with the glass façade of the Natuurmuseum Rotterdam and died. An other drake mallard raped the corpse almost continuously for 75 minutes. Then the author disturbed the scene and secured the dead duck. Dissection showed that the rape-victim indeed was of the male sex. It is concluded that the mallards were engaged in an ‘Attempted Rape Flight’ that resulted in the first described case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard.

animals are evil

blankslatejoe

November 4th, 2004, 04:20 PM

Nimrod - thanks, I was considering hinting at that sort of thing without saying so, but decided not to stroke any flames... I've never been sure of WHY there is the party crossing, but I've seen breakdowns smilar to political compass breakdown...

I personally feel this country is still FAR away from facism, but I will agree that is is more facist than it could be or has been in awhile. I wonder if that is the result of a polarization away from the USSR during the cold war... and we are still feeling the effects of that.

Also along side of Facism is Totalitarianism, I think. And, if I remember correctly, the other end of the spectrum is Socialism and Communism *hence the USSR speculation above), which ALSO have very negative connotations. I think a spectrum isn't as good a word as a "bullseye target" with things branching out in all directions. but anyway, it's interesting to think about. Another misconcenption; Anarchy is actually further on the conservative side than on the liberal side. But ALL of the 'anarchists' I know or know of sympathize more closely with the Democrats.

....Fuzzy lines again.....

If anyone cares, this is me: According to most of the tests I've taken, I'm a centrist with a slight liberal leaning. But, that 'slight' is so slight that it's within the margin of error, so I guess I'm one of those middleground people. I'll be curious to see how this test places me too (thanks nimrod). I also realize that if I truely cared about a lot of the issues I do care about, then I should prioritize my voting habits to participate in local and congressional elections perhaps moreso than presidential ones. I haven't up until now (shame on me!) but it's never too late, right?

blankslatejoe

November 4th, 2004, 04:23 PM

Seems to me that you are trying to discredit people by implying that they have no business posting on an art forum if they aren't "artistic". What if neither of us drew? Does that make our points any less valid? Your questions kinda just pop in in the middle of an unrelated discussion all the time. As if people have to prove their existence on these forums by drawing or what not.

no offense guys, but I find is ammusing that artists are debating politics on an art site. Well.... actually, that part is alright, since artists can be poitical... but this thread IS really getting a bit nasty in places...

and I'm not talking necrophilia kinda nasty, you know?

Scubasteve

November 4th, 2004, 04:28 PM

Sheesh guys, seriously... Life is too short. I hope next time I post some artwork everyone can overlook my politics and judge it for itself, because thats what this board is all about. I've already said before, that I wouldn't comment in any more political issues, and I wish I would have stuck to that. So I'm saying it again. I value all of your ophinons, and respect your rights to them. So PEACEEEEEEEE!!!!!!! :^^:

blankslatejoe

November 4th, 2004, 04:34 PM

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -voltaire
(an apt quote fer ya, scuba)

On that note, I'm gonna go get me some dinner!!!!!! Have a great evening everyone!

okami

November 4th, 2004, 04:40 PM

Scubasteve, your "request" that we should be required to overlook your political opinion when viewing your artwork is a direct infringement on our rights as-

- I'm totally kidding. I haven't completely agreed with your opinions but you have stayed pretty damn civil for being the odd man out on a lot of this stuff. Kudos to you :) And now... back to art!

grey

November 4th, 2004, 04:46 PM

yeah guys, it's been fun -- thanks for getting me through a slow day at work

peace

jetpack42

November 4th, 2004, 04:48 PM

Well that's not what a blanket statement is. It's a statement without references yes, but not a generalization or a blanket statement. (ie. "All Americans are toothless hicks", likewise "all animals have homosexual tendencies")

i'll give that one to you. i mis-labeled your comment, but that doesn't make it any more valid.

Seems to me that you are trying to discredit people by implying that they have no business posting on an art forum if they aren't "artistic". What if neither of us drew? Does that make our points any less valid? Your questions kinda just pop in in the middle of an unrelated discussion all the time. As if people have to prove their existence on these forums by drawing or what not.

seems to me that you are trying to read alot into what i typed. I never said or implied what you have accused me of. I like to know who I'm speaking to, and we relate to people on the boards with art. are you somehow insecure about the question? I got curious what his art was like and couldn't find any. How else am I supposed to find it without asking?

Furthermore, I think the both of you have failed to make a single point, or even discuss a subject rationally, in any of the discussions. I hate to repeat myself...but...well...logic.

"your questions pop in the middle of an unrelated discussion all the time"...lol.

jetpack42

November 4th, 2004, 04:49 PM

oh, and blankslatejoe is the coolest. thanks for the discussion, those who discussed.

LaPalida

November 4th, 2004, 05:36 PM

seems to me that you are trying to read alot into what i typed. I never said or implied what you have accused me of. I like to know who I'm speaking to, and we relate to people on the boards with art. are you somehow insecure about the question? I got curious what his art was like and couldn't find any. How else am I supposed to find it without asking?

I find your timing to get to know a person ... rather odd. It's not the first time you say it either.

i'll give that one to you. i mis-labeled your comment, but that doesn't make it any more valid.

Sure opinions are valid as far as they go.

Furthermore, I think the both of you have failed to make a single point, or even discuss a subject rationally, in any of the discussions. I hate to repeat myself...but...well...logic.

I C I guess that this is a rational discussion and making points then? :

uh oh, here comes the canadians questioning my ability to reason! I'm scared!

You've proven time and time again your cockroach-esque abiltiy to resist logic, so the debate on my side ends here.

and of course, you, a girl from canada, really understands the true nature of war.

and who could forget such brilliance as:

womengamers.com...thats a reliable unbiased source. If so many women love playing games, lots of women would want to make games, right? Where I went to school, 1 in 10 students (if that) was female. Again, That statistic is crap, I say.

This one is my favourite:

this is very difficult for the ladies to wrap their heads around.

I bet you're popular with the ladies huh?

I still don't see an answer to this.

Ok let's take it from the top then. What exactly is immoral about being gay? I just want to know where you stand, your reasons why you would consider it to be so bad. Besides saying it's "icky" and "God said so" is there any other concrete argument out there as to why it's immoral to be gay?

jetpack42

November 4th, 2004, 05:56 PM

:yawn:

LaPalida

November 4th, 2004, 05:58 PM

omg more brilliance!! please don't stop!

blankslatejoe

November 4th, 2004, 06:15 PM

geeze.. the end. cue credits. i love you alll very very very much. yes. in THAT way. Tonight, EVERYONE's a winner!!!

lowpolymatt

November 5th, 2004, 01:01 AM

This (http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm) made me giggle...

There is a lighter side to everything...

Brasuka

November 8th, 2004, 06:59 AM

First of all I would like to say that I regret not being able to vote for the US presidency, since it affects so much the lives of those in Not-US land...like Brazil.

I know it is clichee but I will say it again. For all of those in the US, always remember that taking positive actions in favor of a strong democracy in your country is essencial for the well being of the planet. You shoul alway be aware of the consequences of you acts (or lack of) in the fate of other countries.

I´m not talking just about Iraq or the Bush government. I have a mother working as a journalist in Iraq (Camp Faluja) right now and my father was also a journalist in the 70 here in Brazil. By that time many people suffered in the hands of a terrible dictatorship. It not only killed thousands, destroyed free press and bankrupted the country, bu most importantly, it killed the hopes for a stable democracy in Brazil and Latin America...and it was all backed-up by the USA.

I´m not agains any american. My father lives in the US as a teacher now and I have many american friends. But it makes me unconfortable to realize that many americans are unaware of the consequences of saying that they don´t care for politics.

Just think about it a little.