Democracy worked!

The entire election was not just about gay marriage. It was a HUGE balance of things, and it was decided that Bush would best run this country for the next 4 years. I am absolutely for gay marriage - obviously - but I am also for GREAT leadership, and SOMEONE with commitment to peace everywhere, and respect and faith, as well as being able to help make us all feel safe, especially after 9/11. For SO many things that I could not see Kerry being capable of. It just did not happen for me, personally... yet it did for quite a large percentage of others. Just not a large enough percentage.

It's very myopic to vote for someone who will let you marry your partner, because that's a lot like walking into the sunset... and the movie ends. Then what?

Dianne

 

KMO is correctly expressing the world's opinion. If you bother to read any foreign websites like the BBC,( www.bbc.co.uk/news) foreign newspapers or talk to people, friends, relatives etc abroad, you would be in no doubt whatsoever. Ofcourse, now that he has been(apparently) elected, the world leaders have to be diplomatic and send him congratulations. That doesn't mean they are all really thrilled by his victory. Even Kerry congratulated him. For all the people who are posting saying they would just leave the country(US), the US does not have any treaty with a single country which would allow its citizens to work or live in any other country, not even Canada. KMO is very lucky being in the European Union. He could move say to France or Germany from the UK without any problems at all apart from language etc, though being British I am sure he is well versed in French and possibly even German.

 

Whoever was elected this time would have to suffer the consequences of the past 4 years. The pointless quagmire in Iraq, the astronomic budget deficits, the raping of the environment, the shameless theft of our civil liberties, the financial assault on the middle class. If Kerry had won he would have had to try to clean up the mess without a clear mandate and with little help of the other branches of government. This way the blame will fall much more surely on Bush's lap.

The next 4 years will produce a huge backlash that will result in the US heading in the proper direction much more surely than if if Bush had lost the current election. It's a shame that things will have to get worse before they get better, but sooner or later the piper will have to be paid.

 

Mark,

I would be sad to leave Austin (or will be, because I'm definitely moving next spring/summer, and likely to more liberal areas)--I think it's a great city. But I do agree, I always qualify with Austin as not being like the rest of Texas, and there aren't any other places in Texas that I'd really want to live. And I'm proud of the fact that Travis County went Dem (there are some other counties in Texas that are blue, but not many). I am annoyed at the redistriciting (see rant in other thread about the election). Anyhow, this has nothing to do with the rest of this thread, but to prove that even in the reddest of the red states, there are some islands of blue, so we shouldn't be abandoned when the Northeast and left coast secede .

betsy

 

I take it then that you did vote for the ban? IF so, what was your main reason?

Can you give us a example of some of Bush's "GREAT leadership"? I fail to see where he has excersised any leadership at all.

By killing a 100,000 Iraqi's? You are obviously going by another defintion of "peace" that I wasn't previously aware of.

Just what we need. Another Fundie in the Whitehouse. :roll:

Terrorism is up since King George invaded Iraq. How is it that you feel safer?

 

I think the better question is, why did you feel less safe after 9/11? Unless you live in NYC, Washington DC or maybe Chicago or Las Vegas, what're the chances you're going to get attacked?

If foreign tourists don't regularly overrun your city and office building, you've probably got nothing to worry about. At least from foreign terrorists... can't tell with those Montana seperatists going after Oklahoma City...

 

Excellent point. Could you imagine the gridlock with Kerry and the new Congress?
I am definitely a Democrat. Although I have several personal beliefs that might be better suited to the Republican party, I don't believe that I need to force those beliefs on others. I imagine Kerry would have little to no chance to be reelected with Congress slamming him for every decision he made. I feel much better about making gains in the 06' midterms and the '08 Presedential elections.

 

Noppe. You're missing one small point in your utopian idea. It is the environmentalist groups that keep throwing up lawsuits, fighting the installation of windfarms. Reason? Well, they don't want those "ugly" turbines in their back yard, as it "spoils" their "unobstructed" view of the prairies, makes the plateus ugly, might kill the errant bird flying into the path of the blade, etc...... I don't see conservative politicians fighting these technologies. You just aren't going to see them throwing out blank checks against the taxpayer's money to build them.

As a Libertarian, You'll never get me to vote for ANY candidate that thinks I work for the sole purpose of providing revenue for the government, and that the money I make is on "loan" from them. I have yet to see a single liberal politician that doesn't have a lengthy list of tax and spend government programs to nanny the poor little peasants. I drive a hybrid car to save money in fuel with my 30K plus annual mileage driving requirements. It also does its bit in the effort to reduce the dependency on the arab oil tit. I'm all for solar and wind power to further seperate us from the arab oil tit.

So no, your ecomony would not prosper. It would take on an appearance more like Europe, with excessively high taxation, low wages, rampant class warfare, and would have the additional problem of dealing with various envoronmental extremist factions infighting amongst themselves to prevent that which they feel is inferior to their own idealisms.

I do fully agree that this government is in dire need of a total overhaul. The name of the game is to get a divided country to sit down, and soul search for what they REALLY want. They must be willing to make equal concessions on BOTH sides to find common ground, and then elect into office those that will actually fulfill the obligation of the citizens of this Representative Republic. BOTH sides need to be willing to swallow a bitter pill of major change - and THAT is the primary barrier to actually fixing this countries problems.

 

I would not use the term 'universally'. At least not in the sense that it would mean "everyone against it is against it because they go to services weekly and their clergy person / church is against it. Certainly it might be true that the original basis of the opposition was indeed religious.

A lot of what people believe is rooted in their environment, as children and growing up. If something has been 'true' for 10, 20, 30 years, unless you challange yourself to question the 'facts', it remains 'true'. I have no idea how many people against gay marriage, or civil unions for that matter, are against it because the bible says it is a sin and how many just because being homosexual has 'always' been 'wrong'. The latter group might be willing to consider the issue, the former probably would not.

 

Totally off topic, but I just got an email with the first bi-partisan bumper sticker for the 2008 Presidential Election:

For Democrats it is placed on the rear bumper of the car.
For Republicans it is placed on the front bumper of the car.

The sticker simply says:

"Run, Hillary, Run" :lol:

 

Thanks for summarizing my thoughts perfectly. I'd just like to add that if people are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, when will they do a constitutional amendment outlawing divorce? That does far more damage to marriage than allowing Partners into the hospital when only family is allowed to visit, or to allow Partners to share a car insurance policy, or to be guaranteed inheritance in the death of a Partner that the parents won't be able to contest.

 

Taking Daniel's last comment literally, one could spin it as an impossibility as the anatomy is different.

Trust me I'm a doctor :roll:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel\";p=\"48980)</div>

My point being that perhaps that is the origin, but not all people who are against it are necessarily religious or against it due to the religious origin. They just haven't thought about the origin and whether they agree with it. If you were to ask them why they are against it, they might be more introspective.

It is a tough thing to change long held beliefs. A lot of people would likely turn a deaf ear rather than challange what has been 'true' all of their lives. I think there are still a lot of people in VT who are against our Civil Union law. And I'm sure a lot of them are against it specifically on religious grounds. But I think there are also a lot who might have been against it originally, but have discovered the sky didn't fall.

I would be lying if I said I was all for it up front. But I did think about it and I did think about the people I know who are homosexual. They are all nice, hardworking people and I really don't give a rat's patootie what gender they choose for their life partner. I really don't see any reason they should suffer when it comes to medical care, insurance, etc

 

Apparently a few of these amendments go so far that they'll also hurt committed, unmarried heterosexual couples. What's that old saying? You gotta break a few eggs to make sure all the undesirables are out of your community? Or something like that.

I'm sure Jesus would have voted for these monsterous amendments. And if He were alive today, he probably would've gone around screaming at gays about going to Hell. Yeah, that sounds about right.

 

The whole US system works on political expediency - at the National, state and local levels. Do and say whatever, just to get elected one morre time.

We need a fundamental change that encourages long-term thinking, planning, actions and accountability. The closest we have come in recent years is a balanced budget law. Now GWB has generated 2.3 billion in debt. Regardless of who occupies Washington DC we will all suffer the consequences for a long time.

Regarding gender-neutral marriage: We no longer discriminate (for the most part) on the basis of gender and skin pigmentation. The equal protection clause in the US Constitution will be used within 10 to 15 years to overturn any prohibition on gender neutral marriage.